Biomedical subjects

Paul F Wimmers

Publications and source records attributed to Paul F Wimmers.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Clinical competence: general ability or case-specific?

BACKGROUND: Before the 1970s, research into the development of clinical competence was mainly focused on general problem-solving abilities. The scope of research changed when Elstein and colleagues discovered that individual ability to solve clinical problems varies considerably across cases. It was concluded that problem solving abilities are highly dependent on domain-specific knowledge rather than on general problem solving skills. Elstein called this phenomenon "case specificity." PURPOSE: The finding of content specificity will be contrasted with the existence of a general clinical problem solving ability, and the relationship between preclinical knowledge and a problem solving ability will be investigated. METHODS: A correlation matrix was calculated with clerkship final scores from 10 disciplines to examine the magnitude of the interrelations. A confirmatory factor analysis was applied to the corresponding covariances using structural equation modeling to investigate whether scores on finals shared any common variance across clerkships. Finally, two additional models were tested to examine the nature of the relationship between preclinical knowledge and problem solving. RESULTS: Low to moderate correlations across clerkship disciplines were found, supporting the original findings of content specificity. Further investigation showed that in addition to specific knowledge, a general, content-independent ability is needed to perform on these examinations. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical competence, as measured in this study, is based on a combination of specific preclinical knowledge and a problem-solving ability. Case specificity fits perfectly well in this interactional perspective on clinical problem solving but does not explain it. The phenomenon "case specificity" is therefore not solely a result of content knowledge, but of level of experience and level of case difficulty.

Clinical Clerkship↗

PubMed2006

Differential effects of two types of formative assessment in predicting performance of first-year medical students.

Formative assessments are systematically designed instructional interventions to assess and provide feedback on students' strengths and weaknesses in the course of teaching and learning. Despite their known benefits to student attitudes and learning, medical school curricula have been slow to integrate such assessments into the curriculum. This study investigates how performance on two different modes of formative assessment relate to each other and to performance on summative assessments in an integrated, medical-school environment. Two types of formative assessment were administered to 146 first-year medical students each week over 8 weeks: a timed, closed-book component to assess factual recall and image recognition, and an un-timed, open-book component to assess higher order reasoning including the ability to identify and access appropriate resources and to integrate and apply knowledge. Analogous summative assessments were administered in the ninth week. Models relating formative and summative assessment performance were tested using Structural Equation Modeling. Two latent variables underlying achievement on formative and summative assessments could be identified; a "formative-assessment factor" and a "summative-assessment factor," with the former predicting the latter. A latent variable underlying achievement on open-book formative assessments was highly predictive of achievement on both open- and closed-book summative assessments, whereas a latent variable underlying closed-book assessments only predicted performance on the closed-book summative assessment. Formative assessments can be used as effective predictive tools of summative performance in medical school. Open-book, un-timed assessments of higher order processes appeared to be better predictors of overall summative performance than closed-book, timed assessments of factual recall and image recognition.

Curriculum↗

PubMed2006

Influence of clerkship experiences on clinical competence.

BACKGROUND: Clerkship experiences are considered crucial for the development of clinical competence. Yet whether there is a direct relationship between the nature and volume of patient encounters and learning outcomes is far from clear. Some evidence in the literature points towards the importance of clinical supervision on student learning, but the relationship between clinical supervision, patient encounters and student competence remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed firstly to determine the variation in students' clinical experiences within and across sites; secondly, to identify the causes of this variation, and thirdly, to investigate the consequences of this variation on students' competence. METHODS: Clerkship students at 12 hospital sites recorded their patient encounters in logbooks. Site characteristics that might influence the variation in patient encounters were collected. Student competence was determined by 3 independent indicators: a practical end-of-clerkship examination; a theoretical end-of-clerkship examination, and an evaluation of professional performance. A model was developed to test the available clerkship data using structural equation modelling (SEM) software. RESULTS: Analysis of the logbooks revealed a large variation in the number of patients encountered by students. The average length of patient stay, number of patients admitted, and quality of supervision accounted partly for this variation. An increased number of patient encounters did not directly lead to improved competence. Quality of supervision turned out to be crucially important because it directly impacted student learning and also positively influenced the number of patient encounters. CONCLUSION: Monitoring the effectiveness of clerkship by merely asking students to keep a tally of the problems and diseases they encounter, without paying attention to the quality of supervision, does not contribute towards improving student learning.

Clinical Clerkship↗

PubMed2005

Inducing expertise effects in clinical case recall.

BACKGROUND: This study was directed at illuminating a well known phenomenon in the medical expertise literature, the 'intermediate effect' in clinical case recall. This robust phenomenon consists of the finding that medical students of intermediate levels of expertise outperform both experts and novices in clinical case recall after diagnosing cases. It deals in particular with the findings of OME researchers who have reported a monotonically increasing recall with level of expertise. PURPOSE: To address possible causes for this anomaly in medical expertise and to experimentally demonstrate how data elaboration can cause expertise effects in clinical case recall. METHOD: Expert nephrologists, intermediate level students and novices were presented with 6 medical cases under 3 different conditions: laboratory data cases without special instructions, laboratory data cases with instructions to elaborate, and cases with laboratory data and a relevant clinical context. RESULTS: Only when participants were required to elaborate on each of the information units presented to them did case recall show an expertise effect. If laboratory data are framed within the context of a patient's history and physical examination data, the 'intermediate effect' appears. CONCLUSIONS: The instructions used in the elaboration condition seem to have induced a deeper, more detailed, analysis of the patient case. It is therefore interesting to note that these instructions only affected the recall of the experts and had no effect on the novices' or intermediates' recall. We might conclude from this that expertise effects in clinical case recall are only produced when the normal processing of patient information is disrupted.

Clinical Competence↗