Professional decision-making in medicine: Development of a new measure and preliminary evidence of validity

This study developed a new Professional Decision-Making in Medicine Measure that assesses the use of effective decision-making strategies: seek help, manage emotions, recognize consequences and rules, and test assumptions and motives. The aim was to develop a content valid measure and obtain initial...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PloS one 2020-02, Vol.15 (2), p.e0228450-e0228450
Hauptverfasser: Antes, Alison L, Dineen, Kelly K, Bakanas, Erin, Zahrli, Tyler, Keune, Jason D, Schuelke, Matthew J, DuBois, James M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page e0228450
container_issue 2
container_start_page e0228450
container_title PloS one
container_volume 15
creator Antes, Alison L
Dineen, Kelly K
Bakanas, Erin
Zahrli, Tyler
Keune, Jason D
Schuelke, Matthew J
DuBois, James M
description This study developed a new Professional Decision-Making in Medicine Measure that assesses the use of effective decision-making strategies: seek help, manage emotions, recognize consequences and rules, and test assumptions and motives. The aim was to develop a content valid measure and obtain initial evidence for construct validity so that the measure could be used in future research or educational assessment. Clinical scenario-based items were developed based on a review of the literature and interviews with physicians. For each item, respondents are tasked with selecting two responses (out of six plausible options) that they would choose in that situation. Three of the six options reflect a decision-making strategy; these responses are scored as correct. Data were collected from a sample of 318 fourth-year medical students in the United States. They completed a 16-item version of the measure (Form A) and measures of social desirability, moral disengagement, and professionalism attitudes. Professionalism ratings from clerkships were also obtained. A sub-group (n = 63) completed a second 16-item measure (Form B) to pilot test the instrument, as two test forms are useful for pre-posttest designs. Scores on the new measure indicated that, on average, participants answered 75% of items correctly. Evidence for construct validity included the lack of correlation between scores on the measure and socially desirable responding, negative correlation with moral disengagement, and modest to low correlations with professionalism attitudes. A positive correlation was observed with a clerkship rating focused on professionalism in peer interactions. These findings demonstrate modest proficiency in the use of decision-making strategies among fourth-year medical students. Additional research using the Professional Decision-Making Measure should explore scores among physicians in various career stages, and the causes and correlates of scores. Educators could utilize the measure to assess courses that teach decision-making strategies.
doi_str_mv 10.1371/journal.pone.0228450
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2352320843</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A613376341</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_13c7b80ed80d443bb0ddad3e4678f54a</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A613376341</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-2b60483fde0785d5aa64a69885e15fac36906d62926b49ed22ce02b2913b67c33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk12P1CAUhhujcdfVf2C0iYnRixkpUNruhclm_ZpkkzV-3RIKpzPMUqjQju6_lzrdzdTsheECcnjOC-eFkyRPM7TMSJG92brBW2GWnbOwRBiXNEf3kuOsInjBMCL3D9ZHyaMQtgjlpGTsYXJEYgyTih4nV5-9ayAE7aJWqkDqcbloxZW261TbtAWlpbZwmr6DHRjXtWD71DWpSC38itsiDB5SYVXaeTC61Vb46xR2WoGVMJI7YbTS_fXj5EEjTIAn03ySfP_w_tv5p8XF5cfV-dnFQrIK9wtcM0RL0ihARZmrXAhGBavKMocsb4QkrEJMMVxhVtMKFMYSEK5xlZGaFZKQk-T5XrczLvDJp8AxyXEsvKQjsdoTyokt77xu4525E5r_DTi_5sL3WhrgGZFFXSJQJVKUkrpGSglFgLKibHIqotbb6bShjmbJaI8XZiY637F6w9duxwuEWFkVUeDVJODdzwFCz1sdJBgjLLhhf29GCoZYRF_8g95d3UStRSxA28bFc-Uoys9YRqIUoVmklndQcShotYyfqtExPkt4PUuITA-_-7UYQuCrr1_-n738MWdfHrAbEKbfBGeGPn7EMAfpHpTeheChuTU5Q3zsiRs3-NgTfOqJmPbs8IFuk26agPwBpSUG0Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2352320843</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Professional decision-making in medicine: Development of a new measure and preliminary evidence of validity</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Antes, Alison L ; Dineen, Kelly K ; Bakanas, Erin ; Zahrli, Tyler ; Keune, Jason D ; Schuelke, Matthew J ; DuBois, James M</creator><contributor>Tu, Wen-Jun</contributor><creatorcontrib>Antes, Alison L ; Dineen, Kelly K ; Bakanas, Erin ; Zahrli, Tyler ; Keune, Jason D ; Schuelke, Matthew J ; DuBois, James M ; Tu, Wen-Jun</creatorcontrib><description>This study developed a new Professional Decision-Making in Medicine Measure that assesses the use of effective decision-making strategies: seek help, manage emotions, recognize consequences and rules, and test assumptions and motives. The aim was to develop a content valid measure and obtain initial evidence for construct validity so that the measure could be used in future research or educational assessment. Clinical scenario-based items were developed based on a review of the literature and interviews with physicians. For each item, respondents are tasked with selecting two responses (out of six plausible options) that they would choose in that situation. Three of the six options reflect a decision-making strategy; these responses are scored as correct. Data were collected from a sample of 318 fourth-year medical students in the United States. They completed a 16-item version of the measure (Form A) and measures of social desirability, moral disengagement, and professionalism attitudes. Professionalism ratings from clerkships were also obtained. A sub-group (n = 63) completed a second 16-item measure (Form B) to pilot test the instrument, as two test forms are useful for pre-posttest designs. Scores on the new measure indicated that, on average, participants answered 75% of items correctly. Evidence for construct validity included the lack of correlation between scores on the measure and socially desirable responding, negative correlation with moral disengagement, and modest to low correlations with professionalism attitudes. A positive correlation was observed with a clerkship rating focused on professionalism in peer interactions. These findings demonstrate modest proficiency in the use of decision-making strategies among fourth-year medical students. Additional research using the Professional Decision-Making Measure should explore scores among physicians in various career stages, and the causes and correlates of scores. Educators could utilize the measure to assess courses that teach decision-making strategies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228450</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32032394</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Adult ; Analysis ; Antibiotics ; Attitudes ; Bias ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Careers ; Clinical Competence ; Clinical decision making ; Correlation ; Correlation analysis ; Decision making ; Decision Making - ethics ; Education ; Education, Medical, Undergraduate - ethics ; Educational assessment ; Educational evaluation ; Educational Measurement ; Emotions ; Female ; Humans ; Learning ; Literature reviews ; Male ; Medical research ; Medical students ; Medicine ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Morals ; People and Places ; Physicians ; Professional employees ; Professional ethics ; Professionalism - trends ; Professionals ; Reproducibility of Results ; Researchers ; Social desirability ; Social Sciences ; Students ; Students, Medical - psychology ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Teaching methods ; Validity ; Values</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2020-02, Vol.15 (2), p.e0228450-e0228450</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2020 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2020 Antes et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2020 Antes et al 2020 Antes et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-2b60483fde0785d5aa64a69885e15fac36906d62926b49ed22ce02b2913b67c33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-2b60483fde0785d5aa64a69885e15fac36906d62926b49ed22ce02b2913b67c33</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5755-1725 ; 0000-0002-2632-7701</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7006897/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7006897/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,724,777,781,861,882,2096,2915,23847,27905,27906,53772,53774,79349,79350</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32032394$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Tu, Wen-Jun</contributor><creatorcontrib>Antes, Alison L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dineen, Kelly K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bakanas, Erin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zahrli, Tyler</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Keune, Jason D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schuelke, Matthew J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DuBois, James M</creatorcontrib><title>Professional decision-making in medicine: Development of a new measure and preliminary evidence of validity</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>This study developed a new Professional Decision-Making in Medicine Measure that assesses the use of effective decision-making strategies: seek help, manage emotions, recognize consequences and rules, and test assumptions and motives. The aim was to develop a content valid measure and obtain initial evidence for construct validity so that the measure could be used in future research or educational assessment. Clinical scenario-based items were developed based on a review of the literature and interviews with physicians. For each item, respondents are tasked with selecting two responses (out of six plausible options) that they would choose in that situation. Three of the six options reflect a decision-making strategy; these responses are scored as correct. Data were collected from a sample of 318 fourth-year medical students in the United States. They completed a 16-item version of the measure (Form A) and measures of social desirability, moral disengagement, and professionalism attitudes. Professionalism ratings from clerkships were also obtained. A sub-group (n = 63) completed a second 16-item measure (Form B) to pilot test the instrument, as two test forms are useful for pre-posttest designs. Scores on the new measure indicated that, on average, participants answered 75% of items correctly. Evidence for construct validity included the lack of correlation between scores on the measure and socially desirable responding, negative correlation with moral disengagement, and modest to low correlations with professionalism attitudes. A positive correlation was observed with a clerkship rating focused on professionalism in peer interactions. These findings demonstrate modest proficiency in the use of decision-making strategies among fourth-year medical students. Additional research using the Professional Decision-Making Measure should explore scores among physicians in various career stages, and the causes and correlates of scores. Educators could utilize the measure to assess courses that teach decision-making strategies.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Antibiotics</subject><subject>Attitudes</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Careers</subject><subject>Clinical Competence</subject><subject>Clinical decision making</subject><subject>Correlation</subject><subject>Correlation analysis</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Decision Making - ethics</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Education, Medical, Undergraduate - ethics</subject><subject>Educational assessment</subject><subject>Educational evaluation</subject><subject>Educational Measurement</subject><subject>Emotions</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Learning</subject><subject>Literature reviews</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medical students</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Morals</subject><subject>People and Places</subject><subject>Physicians</subject><subject>Professional employees</subject><subject>Professional ethics</subject><subject>Professionalism - trends</subject><subject>Professionals</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><subject>Social desirability</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Students</subject><subject>Students, Medical - psychology</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Teaching methods</subject><subject>Validity</subject><subject>Values</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk12P1CAUhhujcdfVf2C0iYnRixkpUNruhclm_ZpkkzV-3RIKpzPMUqjQju6_lzrdzdTsheECcnjOC-eFkyRPM7TMSJG92brBW2GWnbOwRBiXNEf3kuOsInjBMCL3D9ZHyaMQtgjlpGTsYXJEYgyTih4nV5-9ayAE7aJWqkDqcbloxZW261TbtAWlpbZwmr6DHRjXtWD71DWpSC38itsiDB5SYVXaeTC61Vb46xR2WoGVMJI7YbTS_fXj5EEjTIAn03ySfP_w_tv5p8XF5cfV-dnFQrIK9wtcM0RL0ihARZmrXAhGBavKMocsb4QkrEJMMVxhVtMKFMYSEK5xlZGaFZKQk-T5XrczLvDJp8AxyXEsvKQjsdoTyokt77xu4525E5r_DTi_5sL3WhrgGZFFXSJQJVKUkrpGSglFgLKibHIqotbb6bShjmbJaI8XZiY637F6w9duxwuEWFkVUeDVJODdzwFCz1sdJBgjLLhhf29GCoZYRF_8g95d3UStRSxA28bFc-Uoys9YRqIUoVmklndQcShotYyfqtExPkt4PUuITA-_-7UYQuCrr1_-n738MWdfHrAbEKbfBGeGPn7EMAfpHpTeheChuTU5Q3zsiRs3-NgTfOqJmPbs8IFuk26agPwBpSUG0Q</recordid><startdate>20200207</startdate><enddate>20200207</enddate><creator>Antes, Alison L</creator><creator>Dineen, Kelly K</creator><creator>Bakanas, Erin</creator><creator>Zahrli, Tyler</creator><creator>Keune, Jason D</creator><creator>Schuelke, Matthew J</creator><creator>DuBois, James M</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5755-1725</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2632-7701</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200207</creationdate><title>Professional decision-making in medicine: Development of a new measure and preliminary evidence of validity</title><author>Antes, Alison L ; Dineen, Kelly K ; Bakanas, Erin ; Zahrli, Tyler ; Keune, Jason D ; Schuelke, Matthew J ; DuBois, James M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-2b60483fde0785d5aa64a69885e15fac36906d62926b49ed22ce02b2913b67c33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Antibiotics</topic><topic>Attitudes</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Careers</topic><topic>Clinical Competence</topic><topic>Clinical decision making</topic><topic>Correlation</topic><topic>Correlation analysis</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Decision Making - ethics</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Education, Medical, Undergraduate - ethics</topic><topic>Educational assessment</topic><topic>Educational evaluation</topic><topic>Educational Measurement</topic><topic>Emotions</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Learning</topic><topic>Literature reviews</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medical students</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Morals</topic><topic>People and Places</topic><topic>Physicians</topic><topic>Professional employees</topic><topic>Professional ethics</topic><topic>Professionalism - trends</topic><topic>Professionals</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><topic>Social desirability</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Students</topic><topic>Students, Medical - psychology</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Teaching methods</topic><topic>Validity</topic><topic>Values</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Antes, Alison L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dineen, Kelly K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bakanas, Erin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zahrli, Tyler</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Keune, Jason D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schuelke, Matthew J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DuBois, James M</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Antes, Alison L</au><au>Dineen, Kelly K</au><au>Bakanas, Erin</au><au>Zahrli, Tyler</au><au>Keune, Jason D</au><au>Schuelke, Matthew J</au><au>DuBois, James M</au><au>Tu, Wen-Jun</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Professional decision-making in medicine: Development of a new measure and preliminary evidence of validity</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2020-02-07</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>e0228450</spage><epage>e0228450</epage><pages>e0228450-e0228450</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>This study developed a new Professional Decision-Making in Medicine Measure that assesses the use of effective decision-making strategies: seek help, manage emotions, recognize consequences and rules, and test assumptions and motives. The aim was to develop a content valid measure and obtain initial evidence for construct validity so that the measure could be used in future research or educational assessment. Clinical scenario-based items were developed based on a review of the literature and interviews with physicians. For each item, respondents are tasked with selecting two responses (out of six plausible options) that they would choose in that situation. Three of the six options reflect a decision-making strategy; these responses are scored as correct. Data were collected from a sample of 318 fourth-year medical students in the United States. They completed a 16-item version of the measure (Form A) and measures of social desirability, moral disengagement, and professionalism attitudes. Professionalism ratings from clerkships were also obtained. A sub-group (n = 63) completed a second 16-item measure (Form B) to pilot test the instrument, as two test forms are useful for pre-posttest designs. Scores on the new measure indicated that, on average, participants answered 75% of items correctly. Evidence for construct validity included the lack of correlation between scores on the measure and socially desirable responding, negative correlation with moral disengagement, and modest to low correlations with professionalism attitudes. A positive correlation was observed with a clerkship rating focused on professionalism in peer interactions. These findings demonstrate modest proficiency in the use of decision-making strategies among fourth-year medical students. Additional research using the Professional Decision-Making Measure should explore scores among physicians in various career stages, and the causes and correlates of scores. Educators could utilize the measure to assess courses that teach decision-making strategies.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>32032394</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0228450</doi><tpages>e0228450</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5755-1725</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2632-7701</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1932-6203
ispartof PloS one, 2020-02, Vol.15 (2), p.e0228450-e0228450
issn 1932-6203
1932-6203
language eng
recordid cdi_plos_journals_2352320843
source MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS); PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry
subjects Adult
Analysis
Antibiotics
Attitudes
Bias
Biology and Life Sciences
Careers
Clinical Competence
Clinical decision making
Correlation
Correlation analysis
Decision making
Decision Making - ethics
Education
Education, Medical, Undergraduate - ethics
Educational assessment
Educational evaluation
Educational Measurement
Emotions
Female
Humans
Learning
Literature reviews
Male
Medical research
Medical students
Medicine
Medicine and Health Sciences
Morals
People and Places
Physicians
Professional employees
Professional ethics
Professionalism - trends
Professionals
Reproducibility of Results
Researchers
Social desirability
Social Sciences
Students
Students, Medical - psychology
Surveys and Questionnaires
Teaching methods
Validity
Values
title Professional decision-making in medicine: Development of a new measure and preliminary evidence of validity
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-18T13%3A46%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Professional%20decision-making%20in%20medicine:%20Development%20of%20a%20new%20measure%20and%20preliminary%20evidence%20of%20validity&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Antes,%20Alison%20L&rft.date=2020-02-07&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=e0228450&rft.epage=e0228450&rft.pages=e0228450-e0228450&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0228450&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA613376341%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2352320843&rft_id=info:pmid/32032394&rft_galeid=A613376341&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_13c7b80ed80d443bb0ddad3e4678f54a&rfr_iscdi=true