Guidelines for Creating Written Clinical Reasoning Exams: Insight from a Delphi Study

Q1 Nursing
Évelyne Cambron-Goulet , Jean-Pierre Dumas , Édith Bergeron , Linda Bergeron , Christina St-Onge
{"title":"Guidelines for Creating Written Clinical Reasoning Exams: Insight from a Delphi Study","authors":"Évelyne Cambron-Goulet ,&nbsp;Jean-Pierre Dumas ,&nbsp;Édith Bergeron ,&nbsp;Linda Bergeron ,&nbsp;Christina St-Onge","doi":"10.1016/j.hpe.2018.09.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Context</h3><p>Clinical reasoning is an essential skill to be learned by medical students, and thus requires to be assessed. Although written exams are widely used as one of the tools to assess clinical reasoning, there are no specific guidelines to help an exam writer to develop good clinical reasoning assessment questions. Therefore, we conducted a modified Delphi study to identify guidelines for writing questions that assess clinical reasoning.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Participants were identified from: 1) the literature on clinical reasoning (i.e., people who wrote about clinical reasoning and assessment), 2) the people responsible for assessment in Canadian medical faculties, and 3) a snowball sampling strategy. Thirty-two question-writing guidelines were drawn from the literature and adapted by the team members. Participants were asked to indicate on a ten-point Likert scale their perceived importance of each guideline, and, starting in the second round, the relevance of each guideline in five assessment contexts. A total of three rounds were conducted.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Response rates were 24%, 57%, and 62% for each round, respectively. Consensus about the importance of the guidelines (interquartile range &lt; 2.5) was reached for all but four guidelines. Four guidelines were identified as important (median ≥ 9 on ten-point scale): the question should be based on a clinical case, the question represents a challenge achievable for the student, the correction scale (i.e., scoring grid) is explicit, and a panel of experts revises the questions.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>A large number of guidelines seem relevant for written-exam clinical reasoning assessment questions. We are considering grouping those guidelines into categories to create a simple tool for use by medical educators in the design of written-exam clinical reasoning assessment questions. The next step will then be to collect evidence of validity about this tool: Does it really help to build questions that assess clinical reasoning?</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93562,"journal":{"name":"Health professions education","volume":"5 3","pages":"Pages 237-247"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.hpe.2018.09.001","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health professions education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452301118301093","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Context

Clinical reasoning is an essential skill to be learned by medical students, and thus requires to be assessed. Although written exams are widely used as one of the tools to assess clinical reasoning, there are no specific guidelines to help an exam writer to develop good clinical reasoning assessment questions. Therefore, we conducted a modified Delphi study to identify guidelines for writing questions that assess clinical reasoning.

Methods

Participants were identified from: 1) the literature on clinical reasoning (i.e., people who wrote about clinical reasoning and assessment), 2) the people responsible for assessment in Canadian medical faculties, and 3) a snowball sampling strategy. Thirty-two question-writing guidelines were drawn from the literature and adapted by the team members. Participants were asked to indicate on a ten-point Likert scale their perceived importance of each guideline, and, starting in the second round, the relevance of each guideline in five assessment contexts. A total of three rounds were conducted.

Results

Response rates were 24%, 57%, and 62% for each round, respectively. Consensus about the importance of the guidelines (interquartile range < 2.5) was reached for all but four guidelines. Four guidelines were identified as important (median ≥ 9 on ten-point scale): the question should be based on a clinical case, the question represents a challenge achievable for the student, the correction scale (i.e., scoring grid) is explicit, and a panel of experts revises the questions.

Conclusion

A large number of guidelines seem relevant for written-exam clinical reasoning assessment questions. We are considering grouping those guidelines into categories to create a simple tool for use by medical educators in the design of written-exam clinical reasoning assessment questions. The next step will then be to collect evidence of validity about this tool: Does it really help to build questions that assess clinical reasoning?

创建书面临床推理考试指南:从德尔菲研究的见解
临床推理是医学生学习的一项基本技能,因此需要进行评估。虽然笔试被广泛用作评估临床推理的工具之一,但没有具体的指导方针来帮助出题者制定好的临床推理评估问题。因此,我们进行了一项改进的德尔菲研究,以确定评估临床推理的写作问题的指导方针。方法参与者从以下方面确定:1)临床推理文献(即撰写临床推理和评估的人),2)加拿大医学院系负责评估的人,3)滚雪球抽样策略。从文献中提取了32个问题写作指南,并由团队成员加以改编。参与者被要求在10分李克特量表上指出他们对每个指导方针的感知重要性,并且,从第二轮开始,每个指导方针在五个评估环境中的相关性。调查共进行了三轮。结果每轮的有效率分别为24%、57%和62%。关于指南重要性的共识(四分位数范围<除四项指导方针外,其余都达到了2.5)。四项指导原则被确定为重要的(10分制中位数≥9):问题应基于临床病例,问题代表学生可实现的挑战,修正量表(即评分网格)是明确的,专家小组修改问题。结论大量的临床推理笔试评估题指南与笔试相关。我们正在考虑将这些指南分类,以创建一个简单的工具,供医学教育者在设计笔试临床推理评估问题时使用。下一步将是收集关于该工具有效性的证据:它真的有助于构建评估临床推理的问题吗?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
38 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信