In Brief: Validity of Case Summaries in Written Examinations of Clinical Reasoning. Issue 4 (1st October 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Dory, Valérie; Gagnon, Robert; Charlin, Bernard; Vanpee, Dominique; Leconte, Sophie; Duyver, Corentin; Young, Meredith; Loye, Nathalie
• Is Part Of: Teaching and learning in medicine. Volume 28:Issue 4(2016)
• Page Start: 375
• Page End: 384
• Publication Date: 2016-10-01
• Subjects: Assessment -- clinical reasoning -- problem solving -- generalizability study -- validity; Medical education -- Periodicals; 610.7
• DOI: 10.1080/10401334.2016.1190730
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1040-1334

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Construct: The purpose of this study was to provide initial evidence of the validity of written case summaries as assessments of clinical problem representation in a classroom setting. Background: To solve clinical problems, clinicians must gain a clear representation of the issues. In the clinical setting, oral case presentations—or summaries—are used to assess learners' ability to gather, synthesize, and "translate" pertinent case information. This ability can be assessed in Objective Structured Clinical Examination and Virtual Patient settings using oral or written case summaries. Evidence of their validity in these settings includes adequate interrater agreement and moderate correlation with other assessments of clinical reasoning. We examined the use of written case summaries in a classroom setting as part of an examination designed to assess clinical reasoning. Approach: We developed and implemented written examinations for 2 preclerkship general practice courses in Years 4 and 5 of a 7-year curriculum. Examinations included 8 case summary questions in Year 4 and 5 in Year 5. Seven hundred students participated. Cases were scored using 3 criteria: extraction of pertinent findings, semantic quality, and global ratings. We examined the item parameters (using classical test theory) and generalizability of case summary items. We computed correlations between case summary scores and scores on other questions within the examination. Results: Item parameters were acceptable (average item difficulty = 0.49–0.73 and 0.59–0.68 in Years 4 and 5; average point-biserials = 0.21–0.24 and 0.18–0.21). Scores were moderately generalizable (G coefficients = 0.40–0.50), with case-specificity a substantial source of measurement error (10.2%–19.5% of variance). Scoring and rater had small effects. Correlations with related constructs were low to moderate. Conclusions: There is good evidence regarding the scoring and generalizability of written case summaries for assessment of clinical problem representation. Further evidence regarding the extrapolation and implications of these assessments is warranted.