↓ Skip to main content

Observable phenomena that reveal medical students' clinical reasoning ability during expert assessment of their history taking: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Observable phenomena that reveal medical students' clinical reasoning ability during expert assessment of their history taking: a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Medical Education, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-0983-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catharina M. Haring, Bernadette M. Cools, Petra J. M. van Gurp, Jos W. M. van der Meer, Cornelis T. Postma

Abstract

During their clerkships, medical students are meant to expand their clinical reasoning skills during their patient encounters. Observation of these encounters could reveal important information on the students' clinical reasoning abilities, especially during history taking. A grounded theory approach was used to analyze what expert physicians apply as indicators in their assessment of medical students' diagnostic reasoning abilities during history taking. Twelve randomly selected clinical encounter recordings of students at the end of the internal medicine clerkships were observed by six expert assessors, who were prompted to formulate their assessment criteria in a think-aloud procedure. These formulations were then analyzed to identify the common denominators and leading principles. The main indicators of clinical reasoning ability were abstracted from students' observable acts during history taking in the encounter. These were: taking control, recognizing and responding to relevant information, specifying symptoms, asking specific questions that point to pathophysiological thinking, placing questions in a logical order, checking agreement with patients, summarizing and body language. In addition, patients' acts and the course, result and efficiency of the conversation were identified as indicators of clinical reasoning, whereas context, using self as a reference, and emotion/feelings were identified by the clinicians as variables in their assessment of clinical reasoning. In observing and assessing clinical reasoning during history taking by medical students, general and specific phenomena to be used as indicators for this process could be identified. These phenomena can be traced back to theories on the development and the process of clinical reasoning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 15%
Lecturer 9 13%
Researcher 8 12%
Other 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 6%
Other 16 24%
Unknown 14 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 13%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Unspecified 1 1%
Chemical Engineering 1 1%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 17 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 August 2017.
All research outputs
#18,569,430
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,779
of 3,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,237
of 315,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#52
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,363 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 315,948 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.