↓ Skip to main content

Exploring cognitive integration of basic science and its effect on diagnostic reasoning in novices

Overview of attention for article published in Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
Exploring cognitive integration of basic science and its effect on diagnostic reasoning in novices
Published in
Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs, May 2016
DOI 10.1007/s40037-016-0268-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristina Lisk, Anne M. R. Agur, Nicole N. Woods

Abstract

Integration of basic and clinical science knowledge is increasingly being recognized as important for practice in the health professions. The concept of 'cognitive integration' places emphasis on the value of basic science in providing critical connections to clinical signs and symptoms while accounting for the fact that clinicians may not spontaneously articulate their use of basic science knowledge in clinical reasoning. In this study we used a diagnostic justification test to explore the impact of integrated basic science instruction on novices' diagnostic reasoning process. Participants were allocated to an integrated basic science or clinical science training group. The integrated basic science group was taught the clinical features along with the underlying causal mechanisms of four musculoskeletal pathologies while the clinical science group was taught only the clinical features. Participants completed a diagnostic accuracy test immediately after initial learning, and one week later a diagnostic accuracy and justification test. The results showed that novices who learned the integrated causal mechanisms had superior diagnostic accuracy and better understanding of the relative importance of key clinical features. These findings further our understanding of cognitive integration by providing evidence of the specific changes in clinical reasoning when basic and clinical sciences are integrated during learning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Master 5 10%
Other 12 24%
Unknown 13 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Psychology 2 4%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 15 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 March 2022.
All research outputs
#6,875,825
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs
#278
of 574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,784
of 353,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs
#8
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 574 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,674 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.