Do short cases elicit different thinking processes than factual knowledge questions do?
Purpose To assess whether case‐based questions elicit different thinking processes from factual knowledge‐based questions. Method 20 general practitioners (GPs) and 20 students solved case‐based questions and matched factual knowledge‐based questions while thinking aloud. Verbatim protocols were ana...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Medical education 2001-04, Vol.35 (4), p.348-356 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 356 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 348 |
| container_title | Medical education |
| container_volume | 35 |
| creator | Schuwirth, L. W. T. Verheggen, M. M. Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M. Boshuizen, H. P. A. Dinant, G. J. |
| description | Purpose
To assess whether case‐based questions elicit different thinking processes from factual knowledge‐based questions.
Method
20 general practitioners (GPs) and 20 students solved case‐based questions and matched factual knowledge‐based questions while thinking aloud. Verbatim protocols were analysed. Five indicators were defined: extent of protocols; immediate responses; re‐reading of information given in the stem or case after the question had been read; order of re‐reading information, and type of consideration, i.e. ‘true–false’ type or ‘vector’, that is, a deliberation which has a magnitude and a direction.
Results
Cases elicited longer protocols than factual knowledge questions. Students re‐read more given information than GPs. GPs gave an immediate response on twice as many occasions as students. GPs re‐ordered the case information, whereas students re‐read the information in the order it was presented. This ordering difference was not found in the factual knowledge questions. Factual knowledge questions mainly led to ‘true–false’ considerations, whereas cases elicited mainly ‘vector’ considerations.
Conclusion
Short case‐based questions lead to thinking processes which represent problem‐solving ability better than those elicited by factual knowledge questions. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.00771.x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70793552</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>70793552</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4961-4c4a46b8112b261ad87d4715da26fc7d5a95975e9327d01b6fcd2fe4ace9f2c33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkM1u1DAYRS0EokPhFZDFgl1S_zteIITaUiq1sGnVpeWxv3Q8k0mKnajTt8fpjIrEipUt-9yrq4MQpqSmRKiTdU25khUzjNeMEFoTojWtd6_Q4uXjNVoQTpqKUEqO0Luc16RQUjRv0RGlnDbGNAt0dzbgvBrSiL3LkDF00ccRh9i2kKAf8biK_Sb29_ghDR7yzIwr1-PW-XFyHd70w2MH4R7w7wnyGIc-4zB8fY_etK7L8OFwHqPb7-c3pz-qq18Xl6ffriovjKKV8MIJtWwoZUumqAuNDkJTGRxTrddBOiONlmA404HQZXkMrAXhPJiWec6P0ed9b5n3PMBuY_bQda6HYcpWE224lKyAn_4B18OU-rLNMsIMV0KZAjV7yKch5wStfUhx69KTpcTO5u3azoLtLNjO5u2zebsr0Y-H_mm5hfA3eFBdgC974DF28PTfxfb6_Oy23Eq-2udjHmH3kndpY5XmWtq7nxe2NN1IToi95n8AMlGg5w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>202936469</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Do short cases elicit different thinking processes than factual knowledge questions do?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Education Source</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Schuwirth, L. W. T. ; Verheggen, M. M. ; Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M. ; Boshuizen, H. P. A. ; Dinant, G. J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Schuwirth, L. W. T. ; Verheggen, M. M. ; Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M. ; Boshuizen, H. P. A. ; Dinant, G. J.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
To assess whether case‐based questions elicit different thinking processes from factual knowledge‐based questions.
Method
20 general practitioners (GPs) and 20 students solved case‐based questions and matched factual knowledge‐based questions while thinking aloud. Verbatim protocols were analysed. Five indicators were defined: extent of protocols; immediate responses; re‐reading of information given in the stem or case after the question had been read; order of re‐reading information, and type of consideration, i.e. ‘true–false’ type or ‘vector’, that is, a deliberation which has a magnitude and a direction.
Results
Cases elicited longer protocols than factual knowledge questions. Students re‐read more given information than GPs. GPs gave an immediate response on twice as many occasions as students. GPs re‐ordered the case information, whereas students re‐read the information in the order it was presented. This ordering difference was not found in the factual knowledge questions. Factual knowledge questions mainly led to ‘true–false’ considerations, whereas cases elicited mainly ‘vector’ considerations.
Conclusion
Short case‐based questions lead to thinking processes which represent problem‐solving ability better than those elicited by factual knowledge questions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0308-0110</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2923</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.00771.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 11318998</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford UK: Blackwell Science Ltd</publisher><subject>Clinical protocols ; Clinical protocols, standards ; Education, Medical - methods ; Educational Measurement - methods ; family ; Family Practice - education ; Humans ; Netherlands ; physicians ; physicians, family ; Problem Solving ; students ; Thinking</subject><ispartof>Medical education, 2001-04, Vol.35 (4), p.348-356</ispartof><rights>Copyright Blackwell Scientific Publications Ltd. Apr 2001</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4961-4c4a46b8112b261ad87d4715da26fc7d5a95975e9327d01b6fcd2fe4ace9f2c33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4961-4c4a46b8112b261ad87d4715da26fc7d5a95975e9327d01b6fcd2fe4ace9f2c33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1046%2Fj.1365-2923.2001.00771.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1046%2Fj.1365-2923.2001.00771.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11318998$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Schuwirth, L. W. T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verheggen, M. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boshuizen, H. P. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dinant, G. J.</creatorcontrib><title>Do short cases elicit different thinking processes than factual knowledge questions do?</title><title>Medical education</title><addtitle>Med Educ</addtitle><description>Purpose
To assess whether case‐based questions elicit different thinking processes from factual knowledge‐based questions.
Method
20 general practitioners (GPs) and 20 students solved case‐based questions and matched factual knowledge‐based questions while thinking aloud. Verbatim protocols were analysed. Five indicators were defined: extent of protocols; immediate responses; re‐reading of information given in the stem or case after the question had been read; order of re‐reading information, and type of consideration, i.e. ‘true–false’ type or ‘vector’, that is, a deliberation which has a magnitude and a direction.
Results
Cases elicited longer protocols than factual knowledge questions. Students re‐read more given information than GPs. GPs gave an immediate response on twice as many occasions as students. GPs re‐ordered the case information, whereas students re‐read the information in the order it was presented. This ordering difference was not found in the factual knowledge questions. Factual knowledge questions mainly led to ‘true–false’ considerations, whereas cases elicited mainly ‘vector’ considerations.
Conclusion
Short case‐based questions lead to thinking processes which represent problem‐solving ability better than those elicited by factual knowledge questions.</description><subject>Clinical protocols</subject><subject>Clinical protocols, standards</subject><subject>Education, Medical - methods</subject><subject>Educational Measurement - methods</subject><subject>family</subject><subject>Family Practice - education</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Netherlands</subject><subject>physicians</subject><subject>physicians, family</subject><subject>Problem Solving</subject><subject>students</subject><subject>Thinking</subject><issn>0308-0110</issn><issn>1365-2923</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2001</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkM1u1DAYRS0EokPhFZDFgl1S_zteIITaUiq1sGnVpeWxv3Q8k0mKnajTt8fpjIrEipUt-9yrq4MQpqSmRKiTdU25khUzjNeMEFoTojWtd6_Q4uXjNVoQTpqKUEqO0Luc16RQUjRv0RGlnDbGNAt0dzbgvBrSiL3LkDF00ccRh9i2kKAf8biK_Sb29_ghDR7yzIwr1-PW-XFyHd70w2MH4R7w7wnyGIc-4zB8fY_etK7L8OFwHqPb7-c3pz-qq18Xl6ffriovjKKV8MIJtWwoZUumqAuNDkJTGRxTrddBOiONlmA404HQZXkMrAXhPJiWec6P0ed9b5n3PMBuY_bQda6HYcpWE224lKyAn_4B18OU-rLNMsIMV0KZAjV7yKch5wStfUhx69KTpcTO5u3azoLtLNjO5u2zebsr0Y-H_mm5hfA3eFBdgC974DF28PTfxfb6_Oy23Eq-2udjHmH3kndpY5XmWtq7nxe2NN1IToi95n8AMlGg5w</recordid><startdate>200104</startdate><enddate>200104</enddate><creator>Schuwirth, L. W. T.</creator><creator>Verheggen, M. M.</creator><creator>Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M.</creator><creator>Boshuizen, H. P. A.</creator><creator>Dinant, G. J.</creator><general>Blackwell Science Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><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>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200104</creationdate><title>Do short cases elicit different thinking processes than factual knowledge questions do?</title><author>Schuwirth, L. W. T. ; Verheggen, M. M. ; Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M. ; Boshuizen, H. P. A. ; Dinant, G. J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4961-4c4a46b8112b261ad87d4715da26fc7d5a95975e9327d01b6fcd2fe4ace9f2c33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2001</creationdate><topic>Clinical protocols</topic><topic>Clinical protocols, standards</topic><topic>Education, Medical - methods</topic><topic>Educational Measurement - methods</topic><topic>family</topic><topic>Family Practice - education</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Netherlands</topic><topic>physicians</topic><topic>physicians, family</topic><topic>Problem Solving</topic><topic>students</topic><topic>Thinking</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Schuwirth, L. W. T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verheggen, M. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boshuizen, H. P. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dinant, G. J.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Medical education</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Schuwirth, L. W. T.</au><au>Verheggen, M. M.</au><au>Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M.</au><au>Boshuizen, H. P. A.</au><au>Dinant, G. J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Do short cases elicit different thinking processes than factual knowledge questions do?</atitle><jtitle>Medical education</jtitle><addtitle>Med Educ</addtitle><date>2001-04</date><risdate>2001</risdate><volume>35</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>348</spage><epage>356</epage><pages>348-356</pages><issn>0308-0110</issn><eissn>1365-2923</eissn><abstract>Purpose
To assess whether case‐based questions elicit different thinking processes from factual knowledge‐based questions.
Method
20 general practitioners (GPs) and 20 students solved case‐based questions and matched factual knowledge‐based questions while thinking aloud. Verbatim protocols were analysed. Five indicators were defined: extent of protocols; immediate responses; re‐reading of information given in the stem or case after the question had been read; order of re‐reading information, and type of consideration, i.e. ‘true–false’ type or ‘vector’, that is, a deliberation which has a magnitude and a direction.
Results
Cases elicited longer protocols than factual knowledge questions. Students re‐read more given information than GPs. GPs gave an immediate response on twice as many occasions as students. GPs re‐ordered the case information, whereas students re‐read the information in the order it was presented. This ordering difference was not found in the factual knowledge questions. Factual knowledge questions mainly led to ‘true–false’ considerations, whereas cases elicited mainly ‘vector’ considerations.
Conclusion
Short case‐based questions lead to thinking processes which represent problem‐solving ability better than those elicited by factual knowledge questions.</abstract><cop>Oxford UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Science Ltd</pub><pmid>11318998</pmid><doi>10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.00771.x</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0308-0110 |
| ispartof | Medical education, 2001-04, Vol.35 (4), p.348-356 |
| issn | 0308-0110 1365-2923 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70793552 |
| source | MEDLINE; Education Source; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Clinical protocols Clinical protocols, standards Education, Medical - methods Educational Measurement - methods family Family Practice - education Humans Netherlands physicians physicians, family Problem Solving students Thinking |
| title | Do short cases elicit different thinking processes than factual knowledge questions do? |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T17%3A41%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Do%20short%20cases%20elicit%20different%20thinking%20processes%20than%20factual%20knowledge%20questions%20do?&rft.jtitle=Medical%20education&rft.au=Schuwirth,%20L.%20W.%20T.&rft.date=2001-04&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=348&rft.epage=356&rft.pages=348-356&rft.issn=0308-0110&rft.eissn=1365-2923&rft_id=info:doi/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.00771.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E70793552%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=202936469&rft_id=info:pmid/11318998&rfr_iscdi=true |