↓ Skip to main content

Virtual patients in the acquisition of clinical reasoning skills: does presentation mode matter? A quasi-randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Virtual patients in the acquisition of clinical reasoning skills: does presentation mode matter? A quasi-randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Medical Education, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-1004-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fabian Schubach, Matthias Goos, Götz Fabry, Werner Vach, Martin Boeker

Abstract

The objective of this study is to compare two different instructional methods in the curricular use of computerized virtual patients in undergraduate medical education. We aim to investigate whether using many short and focused cases - the key feature principle - is more effective for the learning of clinical reasoning skills than using few long and systematic cases. We conducted a quasi-randomized, non-blinded, controlled parallel-group intervention trial in a large medical school in Southwestern Germany. During two seminar sessions, fourth- and fifth-year medical students (n = 56) worked on the differential diagnosis of the acute abdomen. The educational tool - virtual patients - was the same, but the instructional method differed: In one trial arm, students worked on multiple short cases, with the instruction being focused only on important elements ("key feature arm", n = 30). In the other trial arm, students worked on few long cases, with the instruction being comprehensive and systematic ("systematic arm", n = 26). The overall training time was the same in both arms. The students' clinical reasoning capacity was measured by a specifically developed instrument, a script concordance test. Their motivation and the perceived effectiveness of the instruction were assessed using a structured evaluation questionnaire. Upon completion of the script concordance test with a reference score of 80 points and a standard deviation of 5 for experts, students in the key feature arm attained a mean of 57.4 points (95% confidence interval: 50.9-63.9), and in the systematic arm, 62.7 points (57.2-68.2), with Cohen's d at 0.337. The difference is statistically non-significant (p = 0.214). In the evaluation survey, students in the key feature arm indicated that they experienced more time pressure and perceived the material as more difficult. In this study powered for a medium effect, we could not provide empirical evidence for the hypothesis that a key feature-based instruction on multiple short cases is superior to a systematic instruction on few long cases in the curricular implementation of virtual patients. The results of the evaluation survey suggest that learners should be given enough time to work through case examples, and that caution should be taken to prevent cognitive overload.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 137 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 15%
Student > Master 16 12%
Researcher 11 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 4%
Other 28 20%
Unknown 49 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 13%
Psychology 6 4%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 57 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 January 2023.
All research outputs
#6,556,652
of 25,402,889 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,112
of 3,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,428
of 323,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#17
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,402,889 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,988 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,402 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.