The cognitive validity of the Script Concordance Test: A processing time study

Teaching and Learning in Medicine

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 22-27

  Gagnon, Robert ^a   Charlin, Bernard ^a   Roy, Louise ^a   St Martin, Monique ^a   Sauvé, Évelyne ^a   Boshuizen, Henny P A ^b   Van Der Vleuten, Cees ^c  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^b OPEN UNIVERSITY OF THE NETHERLANDS   (Netherlands)

^c MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL EDUCATION; COGNITION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DIAGNOSIS; GERIATRICS; HUMAN; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL STUDENT; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; TIME; VALIDATION STUDY;

CLINICAL CLERKSHIP; COGNITION; DIAGNOSIS; EDUCATION, MEDICAL; GERIATRICS; HUMANS; STUDENTS, MEDICAL; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 33644982808     PISSN: 10401334     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15328015tlm1801_6     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Feltovich PJ, Barrows, HS. Issues of generality in medical problem solving. In HG Schmidt (Ed.), Tutorials in problem-based learning: A new direction in teaching the health professions (pp. 128-142). Assen, Holland: Van Gorcum, 1984.
2. Schmidt HG, Norman GR, Boshuizen HP. A cognitive perspective on medical expertise: Theory and implication. Academic Medicine 1990;65:611-21.
3. Charlin B, Tardif J, Boshuizen HPA. Scripts and medical diagnostic knowledge: Theory and applications for clinical reasoning instruction and research. Academic Medicine 2000;75:182-90.
4. Nelson K. Event knowledge: Structure and function in development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1986.
5. Schallert DL. The significance of knowledge: A synthesis of research related to schema theory. In W Otto, S White (Ed.), Reading expository prose (pp. 13-48). New York: Academic, 1982.
6. Smith EE. Concepts and induction. In MI Posner (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989.
7. Charlin B, van der Vleuten C. Standardized assessment of reasoning in contexts of uncertainty: The script concordance approach. Evaluation & The Health Profession 2004;27(3):304-19.
8. Custers EJ, Boshuizen HP, Schmidt HG. The influence of medical expertise, case typicality, and illness script component on case processing and disease probability estimates. Memory & Cognition 1996;24:384-99.
9. Gagnon R, Charlin B, Coletti M, Sauvé E, van der Vleuten C. Assessment in the context of uncertainty: How many members are needed on the panel of reference of a script concordance test? Medical Education 2005;39:284-91.
10. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1988.
11. Elstein AS, Shulman LS, Sprafka, SA. Medical problem solving, a ten-year retrospective. Evaluation & The Health Profession 1990;13:5-36.
12. Charlin B, Desaulniers M, Gagnon R, Blouin D, van der Vleuten C. Comparison of an aggregate scoring method with a consensus scoring method in a measure of clinical reasoning capacity. Teaching and Learning in Medicine 2002;14:150-6.
13. Brailovsky C, Charlin B, Beausoleil S, Coté S, Van der Vleuten C. Measurement of clinical reflective capacity early in training as a predictor of clinical reasoning performance at the end of residency: An exploratory study on the Script Concordance Test. Medical Education 2001;35:430-6.
14. Sibert L, Charlin B, Corcos J, Gagnon R, Grise P, Van der Vleuten C. Stability of clinical reasoning assessment results with the script concordance test across two different linguistic, cultural and learning environments. Medical Teacher 2002;24:537-42.
15. Brazeau-Lamontagne L, Charlin B, Gagnon R, Samson L, van der Vleuten C. Measurement of perception and interpretation skills along radiology training: Utility of the script concordance approach. Medical Teacher 2004;26:326-32.
16. Llorca G. Évaluation de résolution de problèmes mal définis en éthique clinique: Variation des scores selon les méthodes de correction et selon les caractéristiques des jurys [Assessment of ill-defined problems in clinical ethics: Variation of scores depending of scoring methods and of characteristics of the jury]. Pédagogie Médicale 2003;4:80-8.
17. Charlin B, Gagnon R, Pelletier J, et al. Assessment in context of uncertainty: The effect of variability within the panel of reference. Medical Education. In press.