Cargando…

Does providing the correct diagnosis as feedback after self-explanation improve medical students diagnostic performance?

BACKGROUND: Self-explanation without feedback has been shown to improve medical students’ diagnostic reasoning. While feedback is generally seen as beneficial for learning, available evidence of the value of its combination with self-explanation is conflicting. This study investigated the effect on...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chamberland, M., Setrakian, J., St-Onge, C., Bergeron, L., Mamede, S., Schmidt, H. G.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6558772/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31185971
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1638-3
_version_ 1783425697074642944
author Chamberland, M.
Setrakian, J.
St-Onge, C.
Bergeron, L.
Mamede, S.
Schmidt, H. G.
author_facet Chamberland, M.
Setrakian, J.
St-Onge, C.
Bergeron, L.
Mamede, S.
Schmidt, H. G.
author_sort Chamberland, M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Self-explanation without feedback has been shown to improve medical students’ diagnostic reasoning. While feedback is generally seen as beneficial for learning, available evidence of the value of its combination with self-explanation is conflicting. This study investigated the effect on medical students’ diagnostic performance of adding immediate or delayed content-feedback to self-explanation while solving cases. METHODS: Ninety-four 3rd-year students from a Canadian medical school were randomly assigned to three experimental conditions (immediate-feedback, delayed-feedback, control). In the learning phase, all students solved four clinical cases by giving i) the most likely diagnosis, ii) two main arguments supporting this diagnosis, and iii) two plausible alternative diagnoses, while using self-explanation. The immediate-feedback group was given the correct diagnosis after each case; delayed-feedback group received the correct diagnoses only after the four cases; control group received no feedback. One week later, all students solved four near-transfer (i.e., same final diagnosis as the learning cases but different scenarios) and four far-transfer cases (i.e., different final diagnosis from the learning cases and different scenarios) by answering the same three questions. Students’ diagnostic accuracy (score for the response to the first question only) and diagnostic performance (combined score of responses to the three questions) scores were assessed in each phase. Four one-way ANOVAs were performed on each of the two scores for near and far-transfer cases. RESULTS: There was a significant effect of experimental condition on diagnostic accuracy on near-transfer cases (p < .05). The immediate-feedback and delayed-feedback groups performed equally well, both better than control (respectively, mean = 90.73, standard deviation =10.69; mean = 89.92, standard deviation = 13.85; mean = 82.03, standard deviation = 17.66). The experimental conditions did not significantly differ on far-transfer cases. CONCLUSIONS: Providing feedback to students in the form of the correct diagnosis after using self-explanation with clinical cases is potentially beneficial to improve their diagnostic accuracy but this effect is limited to similar cases. Further studies should explore how more elaborated feedback combined with self-explanation may impact students’ diagnostic performance on different cases. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12909-019-1638-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6558772
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65587722019-06-13 Does providing the correct diagnosis as feedback after self-explanation improve medical students diagnostic performance? Chamberland, M. Setrakian, J. St-Onge, C. Bergeron, L. Mamede, S. Schmidt, H. G. BMC Med Educ Research Article BACKGROUND: Self-explanation without feedback has been shown to improve medical students’ diagnostic reasoning. While feedback is generally seen as beneficial for learning, available evidence of the value of its combination with self-explanation is conflicting. This study investigated the effect on medical students’ diagnostic performance of adding immediate or delayed content-feedback to self-explanation while solving cases. METHODS: Ninety-four 3rd-year students from a Canadian medical school were randomly assigned to three experimental conditions (immediate-feedback, delayed-feedback, control). In the learning phase, all students solved four clinical cases by giving i) the most likely diagnosis, ii) two main arguments supporting this diagnosis, and iii) two plausible alternative diagnoses, while using self-explanation. The immediate-feedback group was given the correct diagnosis after each case; delayed-feedback group received the correct diagnoses only after the four cases; control group received no feedback. One week later, all students solved four near-transfer (i.e., same final diagnosis as the learning cases but different scenarios) and four far-transfer cases (i.e., different final diagnosis from the learning cases and different scenarios) by answering the same three questions. Students’ diagnostic accuracy (score for the response to the first question only) and diagnostic performance (combined score of responses to the three questions) scores were assessed in each phase. Four one-way ANOVAs were performed on each of the two scores for near and far-transfer cases. RESULTS: There was a significant effect of experimental condition on diagnostic accuracy on near-transfer cases (p < .05). The immediate-feedback and delayed-feedback groups performed equally well, both better than control (respectively, mean = 90.73, standard deviation =10.69; mean = 89.92, standard deviation = 13.85; mean = 82.03, standard deviation = 17.66). The experimental conditions did not significantly differ on far-transfer cases. CONCLUSIONS: Providing feedback to students in the form of the correct diagnosis after using self-explanation with clinical cases is potentially beneficial to improve their diagnostic accuracy but this effect is limited to similar cases. Further studies should explore how more elaborated feedback combined with self-explanation may impact students’ diagnostic performance on different cases. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12909-019-1638-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-06-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6558772/ /pubmed/31185971 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1638-3 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Chamberland, M.
Setrakian, J.
St-Onge, C.
Bergeron, L.
Mamede, S.
Schmidt, H. G.
Does providing the correct diagnosis as feedback after self-explanation improve medical students diagnostic performance?
title Does providing the correct diagnosis as feedback after self-explanation improve medical students diagnostic performance?
title_full Does providing the correct diagnosis as feedback after self-explanation improve medical students diagnostic performance?
title_fullStr Does providing the correct diagnosis as feedback after self-explanation improve medical students diagnostic performance?
title_full_unstemmed Does providing the correct diagnosis as feedback after self-explanation improve medical students diagnostic performance?
title_short Does providing the correct diagnosis as feedback after self-explanation improve medical students diagnostic performance?
title_sort does providing the correct diagnosis as feedback after self-explanation improve medical students diagnostic performance?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6558772/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31185971
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1638-3
work_keys_str_mv AT chamberlandm doesprovidingthecorrectdiagnosisasfeedbackafterselfexplanationimprovemedicalstudentsdiagnosticperformance
AT setrakianj doesprovidingthecorrectdiagnosisasfeedbackafterselfexplanationimprovemedicalstudentsdiagnosticperformance
AT stongec doesprovidingthecorrectdiagnosisasfeedbackafterselfexplanationimprovemedicalstudentsdiagnosticperformance
AT bergeronl doesprovidingthecorrectdiagnosisasfeedbackafterselfexplanationimprovemedicalstudentsdiagnosticperformance
AT mamedes doesprovidingthecorrectdiagnosisasfeedbackafterselfexplanationimprovemedicalstudentsdiagnosticperformance
AT schmidthg doesprovidingthecorrectdiagnosisasfeedbackafterselfexplanationimprovemedicalstudentsdiagnosticperformance