Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGroves, Michele
dc.contributor.authorO'Rourke, Peter
dc.contributor.authorAlexander, Heather
dc.date.accessioned2006-08-04
dc.date.accessioned2017-03-01T20:35:25Z
dc.date.available2017-03-01T20:35:25Z
dc.date.issued2003
dc.date.modified2009-03-02T06:51:46Z
dc.identifier.issn1466-187
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01421590310001605688
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/21572.1
dc.description.abstractThe aim of this study was to identify and describe the types of errors in clinical reasoning that contribute to poor diagnostic performance at different levels of medical training and experience. Three cohorts of subjects, second- and fourth- (final) year medical students and a group of general practitioners, completed a set of clinical reasoning problems. The responses of those whose scores fell below the 25th centile were analysed to establish the stage of the clinical reasoning process--identification of relevant information, interpretation or hypothesis generation--at which most errors occurred and whether this was dependent on problem difficulty and level of medical experience. Results indicate that hypothesis errors decrease as expertise increases but that identification and interpretation errors increase. This may be due to inappropriate use of pattern recognition or to failure of the knowledge base. Furthermore, although hypothesis errors increased in line with problem difficulty, identification and interpretation errors decreased. A possible explanation is that as problem difficulty increases, subjects at all levels of expertise are less able to differentiate between relevant and irrelevant clinical features and so give equal consideration to all information contained within a case. It is concluded that the development of clinical reasoning in medical students throughout the course of their pre-clinical and clinical education may be enhanced by both an analysis of the clinical reasoning process and a specific focus on each of the stages at which errors commonly occur.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.description.publicationstatusYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherTaylor & Francis Ltd
dc.publisher.placeLondon, UK
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom621
dc.relation.ispartofpageto625
dc.relation.ispartofissue6
dc.relation.ispartofjournalMedical Teacher
dc.relation.ispartofvolume25
dc.subject.fieldofresearchEducation Systems
dc.subject.fieldofresearchCurriculum and Pedagogy
dc.subject.fieldofresearchSpecialist Studies in Education
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode1301
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode1302
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode1303
dc.titleClinical reasoning: the relative contribution of identification, interpretation and hypothesis errors to misdiagnosis.
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dc.type.codec1x
gro.facultyGriffith Health Faculty
gro.date.issued2003
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text
gro.griffith.authorGroves, Michele


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record