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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2020-02, Vol.15 (2), p.e0228450-e0228450 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
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 & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & 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 & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & 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 & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & 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 |