Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Measuring the outcome of clinical problem-solving.

G R Norman, H S Barrows, J W Feightner

    Annual Conference on Research in Medical Education. Conference on Research in Medical Education
    |January 1, 1977
    PubMed
    Summary

    This study introduces a new way to evaluate how well clinicians solve problems during patient encounters. Instead of relying on subjective opinions or self-assessments, the method uses a group of clinicians as a reference point. By comparing individual decisions to this group's performance, the technique provides objective measurements of clinical outcomes. The authors tested this approach and found that it offers a reliable way to assess clinical decision-making. This innovation could help improve medical education by offering a standardized way to evaluate and train clinicians.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    The risks of thoroughness: Reliability and validity of global ratings and checklists in an OSCE.

    Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice·2013
    Same author

    Physician-assessment and physician-enhancement programs in Canada.

    The International journal of risk & safety in medicine·2013
    Same author

    TENTORIAL MENINGIOMAS.

    Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry·2011
    Same author

    Solving problems: how does the family physician do it?

    Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien·2011
    Same author

    To see or not to see: a study of after hours telephone calls in a residency program.

    Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien·2011
    Same author

    Sore throats in adults: who sees a doctor?

    Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien·2011

    Area of Science:

    • Medical education research
    • Clinical decision-making analysis
    • Healthcare outcomes evaluation

    Background:

    Prior research has shown that assessing clinical problem-solving remains a challenge in medical education. Traditional methods often rely on subjective evaluations, which may not capture the full scope of a clinician's decision-making process. No prior work had resolved the issue of how to quantify outcomes in a way that reflects real-world clinical performance. This gap motivated the development of more objective measurement tools. Existing studies have explored self-assessment and peer review, but these approaches lack standardized metrics. The uncertainty around how to evaluate clinical encounters objectively led to the need for a new framework. Researchers have proposed various models, but none have integrated criterion-group performance as a baseline. This paper introduces a novel approach to address these limitations.

    Purpose Of The Study:

    The study aimed to develop a method for measuring clinical problem-solving outcomes using objective criteria. This approach focuses on comparing individual performance against a criterion group. The authors sought to establish a reliable framework for evaluating clinical encounters. Their motivation stemmed from the limitations of existing subjective assessment tools. By using a criterion group as a reference, the method allows for standardized comparisons. This technique aims to provide a more accurate reflection of clinical decision-making. The study's goal is to offer a reproducible way to assess clinical outcomes. This innovation could support better training and evaluation in medical education.

    Keywords:
    clinical evaluation methodsmedical decision-makingobjective assessmentmedical education tools

    Frequently Asked Questions

    The method uses objective criteria derived from a criterion group's performance to measure clinical outcomes.

    The criterion group provides a baseline for comparison, allowing individual performance to be quantified objectively.

    The criterion group ensures a standardized reference point, which enhances the objectivity of clinical evaluations.

    The group's performance serves as a stable baseline for measuring individual clinical decision-making outcomes.

    Related Experiment Videos

    Main Methods:

    The researchers designed a framework based on objective criteria derived from a criterion group's performance. They used a criterion group as a reference to measure individual outcomes. The method involves comparing each participant's decisions against the group's responses. This comparison provides a quantitative measure of clinical problem-solving. The study does not rely on self-reported data or subjective ratings. Instead, it focuses on predefined metrics from the criterion group. The approach ensures consistency in evaluating clinical encounters. The authors tested this method in a controlled setting to validate its effectiveness.

    Main Results:

    The technique successfully measured clinical outcomes using objective criteria from a criterion group. The method showed consistent results across different participants and scenarios. The authors found that this approach provided a reliable way to assess clinical decision-making. The criterion group's performance served as a stable baseline for comparison. The study demonstrated that individual outcomes could be quantified accurately. The results suggest that this method improves the objectivity of clinical evaluations. The framework allows for standardized comparisons between clinicians. This technique may enhance the accuracy of medical education assessments.

    Conclusions:

    The authors propose that this method offers a reliable way to measure clinical problem-solving outcomes. Their findings suggest that using a criterion group improves the objectivity of evaluations. The study supports the use of this framework in medical education settings. The technique allows for standardized comparisons between clinicians. The authors state that this approach provides a more accurate reflection of clinical performance. This method could enhance the training and assessment of medical professionals. The study does not claim that this is the only valid approach to evaluation. The authors suggest that further testing may refine the technique's application.

    The authors observed consistent and reliable results when comparing individual performance to the criterion group.

    The authors suggest that this technique could improve the accuracy of clinical evaluations in training settings.