Presentation Description
Larissa Ruczynski1
Bas Schouwenberg2, Eugène Custers3, Cornelia Fluit1 and Marjolein van de Pol4
1 Research on Learning and Education, Radboudumc Health Academy, Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen, Netherlands
2 Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology and Department of Internal Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
3 Department of Online Learning and Instruction, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Open Universiteit, Heerlen, Netherlands
4 Department of Primary and Community care, Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen, Netherlands
Bas Schouwenberg2, Eugène Custers3, Cornelia Fluit1 and Marjolein van de Pol4
1 Research on Learning and Education, Radboudumc Health Academy, Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen, Netherlands
2 Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology and Department of Internal Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
3 Department of Online Learning and Instruction, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Open Universiteit, Heerlen, Netherlands
4 Department of Primary and Community care, Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen, Netherlands
BACKGROUND:
Recently, a new digital clinical reasoning test (DCRT) was developed to evaluate students’ clinical-reasoning skills, using six different question types[1]. Although an assessment tool may be soundly constructed, it may still prove inadequate in practice by failing to function as intended. Therefore, more insight is needed into the effects of the DCRT in practice.
Recently, a new digital clinical reasoning test (DCRT) was developed to evaluate students’ clinical-reasoning skills, using six different question types[1]. Although an assessment tool may be soundly constructed, it may still prove inadequate in practice by failing to function as intended. Therefore, more insight is needed into the effects of the DCRT in practice.
SUMMARY OF WORK:
Individual semi-structured interviews and template analysis were used to collect and process qualitative data. The template, based on the interview guide, contained six themes: (1) DCRT itself, (2) test debriefing, (3) reflection, (4) practice/workplace, (5) DCRT versus practice and (6) ‘other’.
Individual semi-structured interviews and template analysis were used to collect and process qualitative data. The template, based on the interview guide, contained six themes: (1) DCRT itself, (2) test debriefing, (3) reflection, (4) practice/workplace, (5) DCRT versus practice and (6) ‘other’.
RESULTS/DISCUSSION:
Thirteen students were interviewed. The DCRT encourages students to engage more in formal education, self-study and workplace learning during their clerkships, particularly for those who received insufficient results. Although the faculty emphasizes the different purposes of the DCRT (assessment of/as/for learning)[2], most students perceive the DCRT as an assessment of learning. This affects their motivation and the role they assign to it in their learning process. Although students appreciate the debriefing and reflection report for improvement, they struggle to fill the identified knowledge gaps due to the timing of receiving their results. Some students are supported by the DCRT in exhibiting lifelong learning behavior.
Thirteen students were interviewed. The DCRT encourages students to engage more in formal education, self-study and workplace learning during their clerkships, particularly for those who received insufficient results. Although the faculty emphasizes the different purposes of the DCRT (assessment of/as/for learning)[2], most students perceive the DCRT as an assessment of learning. This affects their motivation and the role they assign to it in their learning process. Although students appreciate the debriefing and reflection report for improvement, they struggle to fill the identified knowledge gaps due to the timing of receiving their results. Some students are supported by the DCRT in exhibiting lifelong learning behavior.
CONCLUSION/IMPLICATIONS:
This study has identified several ways in which the DCRT influences students’ learning practices in a way that can benefit their clinical-reasoning skills. It also highlights the importance of aligning theoretical principles with practice in both the development and implementation of assessment tools as well as the content of such tools. Further research is needed to investigate the long-term impact of the DCRT on young physicians’ working practice and to evaluate the DCRT through the collection of more validation arguments, for example by employing Kane’s validity perspective[3].
This study has identified several ways in which the DCRT influences students’ learning practices in a way that can benefit their clinical-reasoning skills. It also highlights the importance of aligning theoretical principles with practice in both the development and implementation of assessment tools as well as the content of such tools. Further research is needed to investigate the long-term impact of the DCRT on young physicians’ working practice and to evaluate the DCRT through the collection of more validation arguments, for example by employing Kane’s validity perspective[3].
References (maximum three)
1. Daniel M, Rencic J, Durning SJ, Holmboe E, Santen SA, Lang V, et al. Clinical Reasoning Assessment Methods: A Scoping Review and Practical Guidance. Academic Medicine. 2019;94(6):902-12.
2. Winter J. The changing prepositions of assessment practice: assessment of, for and as learning. Br Educ Res J. 2003;29(5):767-72.
3. Kane M. Validating score interpretations and uses. Language Testing. 2011;29(1):3- 17.