Case based self-directed learning tool versus clinical reasoning learning sessions

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Sep 27, 2023
Download
pdf
Vol. 101 No. 5 (2023): Tunis med may 2023

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Rania Ben Rabeh
University of Tunis El Manar, Faculty of Medicine of Tunis
Sonia Mazigh
University of Tunis El Manar, Faculty of Medicine of Tunis
Nada Missaoui
University of Tunis El Manar, Faculty of Medicine of Tunis
Sofien Atitallah
University of Tunis El Manar, Faculty of Medicine of Tunis
salem Yahayoui
University of Tunis El Manar, Faculty of Medicine of Tunis
Samir Boukthir
University of Tunis El Manar, Faculty of Medicine of Tunis

Abstract

Introduction: Clinical reasoning (CR) is a core skill taught by medical schools. Clinical reasoning learning sessions (CRL) during hospital internship of externals in pediatrics was recently introduced in Faculty of Medicine of Tunis.


Aim: To compare a case based self-directed learning (CBSDL) tool with CRL sessions in two groups of the students assigned to pediatric internship.


Methods: We conducted a randomized trial with draw of two groups: CRL group (students who attended the CRL session) and SDL group (students who received the CBSDL tool). Main judgment criterion was the final score obtained by the student at the test of sequential management problem (SMP). A docimological analysis of SMP test was performed.


Results: The mean final score in CRL group and SDL group was 12.03±1.44 and 14.05±1.64, respectively (p<0.001). The scores obtained at the different steps of SMP test were significantly higher in SDL group. The difficulty p and discrimination D indices of the SPM test were 0.65 and 0.21, respectively. The agreement between the two correctors was very good since the intra-class correlation coefficient was 0.977. We analyzed the reliability of the test by measuring Cronbach's α coefficient which was 0.955.


Conclusion: CBSDL tool has allowed students to learn hypothetico-deductive reasoning. However, this tool must be supplemented by direct supervision at hospital internship to support CR.

Keywords:

Clinical reasoning, Learning, Assessment, Self-directed learning, Randomized Trial

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

References

  1. Charlin B, Bordage G, Van Der Vleuten C. L’évaluation du raisonnement clinique. Ped Med. 2003;4:42–52.
  2. Eva KW. Ce que tout enseignant devrait savoir concernant le raisonnement clinique. Ped Med. 2005;6:225–34.
  3. Findley Warren G. A rationale for evaluation of item discrimination statistics. In: Mehrens William A, Ebel Robert L. Principles of educational and psychological measurement. Chicago: Rand Mc Nally & Co; 1967.381-86.
  4. Norcini J, Anderson B, Bollela V, Burch V, Costa MJ, Duvivier R, et al. Criteria for good assessment: Consensus statement and recommendations from the Ottawa 2010 Conference. Med Teach. 2011;33:206–14.
  5. Quinton A. Docimologie: DU de pédagogie des Sciences de la Santé. Bordeaux: Université Victor Segalen; 2005.
  6. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2011;2:53–5.
  7. Bland JM, Altman DG. A note on the use of the intra class correlation coefficient in the evaluation of agreement between two methods of measurement. Comput Biol Med. 1990;20:337–40.
  8. Newble D, Norman G, Van Der Vleuten C. Assessing Clinical Reasoning. In: Higgs J, Jones M (Ed). Clinical Reasoning in the Health Professions. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd; 2000:156-65.
  9. Quinton A. Enseignement du raisonnement clinique: DU de pédagogie des Sciences de la Santé. Bordeaux: Université Victor Segalen; 2007.
  10. Zairi I, Mzoughi k, Ben Dhiab M, Soussi S, Kraiem S. Evaluation des séances d’apprentissage du raisonnement clinique par les étudiants de troisième année médecine. Tun Med. 2017;95:469-73.
  11. Hammi Y, Jellouli M, Sayari T, Boussetta A, Gargah T. Evaluation of Clinical Reasoning Learning for students in SCMS2, pediatrics Module. Tun Med. 2020;98:772-775.
  12. Nendaz M, Charlin B, Leblanc V, Bordage G. Le raisonnement clinique: données issues de la recherche et implications pour l’enseignement. Ped Med. 2005;6:235–54.
  13. Soung S. Critères d’évaluation de l’information scientifique à l’ère numérique: Cas des étudiants aux cycles supérieurs en éducation des universités québécoises. Documentation et bibliothèques. 2017;63:36–49.
  14. Densen P. Challenges and opportunities facing medical education. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc. 2011;122:48–58.
  15. Hill M, Peters M, Salvaggio M, Vinnedge J, Darden A. Implementation and evaluation of a self-directed learning activity for first-year medical students. Med Edu Online. 2020;25: 1717780.
  16. Murad MH, Coto-Yglesias F, Varkey P, Prokop LJ, Murad AL. The effectiveness of self-directed learning in health professions education: a systematic review. Med Educ. 2010;44:1057–68.
  17. Ginzburg SB, Santen SA, Schwartzstein RM. Self-directed learning: a new look at an old concept. Med Sci Educ. 2021;3:229–30.
  18. Russell G, Ng A. Taking time to watch: observation and learning in family practice. Can Fam Physician. 2009;55:948-50.
  19. Chamberland M, Hivon R. Les compétences de l’enseignant clinicien et le modèle de rôle en formation clinique. Ped Med. 2005;6:98-111.
  20. Bowen J. Educational strategies to promote clinical diagnostic reasoning. New Engl J Med. 2006;355:2217-25.
  21. Cogan E, Maisonneuve H, Leeman M, Goffard J-C, Michelet E, Audétat M-C. Formalisation de la supervision de l’apprentissage du raisonnement clinique. Rev Med Interne. 2020;41:529–35.
  22. Norman GR, Monteiro SD, Sherbino J, Ilgen JS, Schmidt HG, Mamede S. The causes of errors in clinical reasoning: cognitive biases, knowledge deficits, and dual process thinking. Acad Med. 2017;92:23‑30.
  23. Picot R. Technique d’animation : le cas en cascade Simulation de la démarche médicale (Fiche pratique). Ped Med. 2003;4:125-26.
  24. Jouquan J. L’évaluation des apprentissages des étudiants en formation médicale initiale. Ped Med. 2002;3:38–52.
  25. Thampy H, Willert E, Ramani S. Assessing Clinical Reasoning: Targeting the Higher Levels of the Pyramid. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34:1631–6.