A hypothesis-driven physical examination learning and assessment procedure for medical students: initial validity evidence.

CONTEXT: Diagnostic accuracy is maximised by having clinical signs and diagnostic hypotheses in mind during the physical examination (PE). This diagnostic reasoning approach contrasts with the rote, hypothesis-free screening PE learned by many medical students. A hypothesis-driven PE (HDPE) learning and assessment procedure was developed to provide targeted practice and assessment in anticipating, eliciting and interpreting critical aspects of the PE in the context of diagnostic challenges. OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to obtain initial content validity evidence, performance and reliability estimates, and impact data for the HDPE procedure. METHODS: Nineteen clinical scenarios were developed, covering 160 PE manoeuvres. A total of 66 Year 3 medical students prepared for and encountered three clinical scenarios during required formative assessments. For each case, students listed anticipated positive PE findings for two plausible diagnoses before examining the patient; examined a standardised patient (SP) simulating one of the diagnoses; received immediate feedback from the SP, and documented their findings and working diagnosis. The same students later encountered some of the scenarios during their Year 4 clinical skills examination. RESULTS: On average, Year 3 students anticipated 65% of the positive findings, correctly performed 88% of the PE manoeuvres and documented 61% of the findings. Year 4 students anticipated and elicited fewer findings overall, but achieved proportionally more discriminating findings, thereby more efficiently achieving a diagnostic accuracy equivalent to that of students in Year 3. Year 4 students performed better on cases on which they had received feedback as Year 3 students. Twelve cases would provide a reliability of 0.80, based on discriminating checklist items only. CONCLUSIONS: The HDPE provided medical students with a thoughtful, deliberate approach to learning and assessing PE skills in a valid and reliable manner.

Evaluating the effectiveness of rating instruments for a communication skills assessment of medical residents.

The investigators used evidence based on response processes to evaluate and improve the validity of scores on the Patient-Centered Communication and Interpersonal Skills (CIS) Scale for the assessment of residents' communication competence. The investigators retrospectively analyzed the communication skills ratings of 68 residents at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). Each resident encountered six standardized patients (SPs) portraying six cases. SPs rated the performance of each resident using the CIS Scale--an 18-item rating instrument asking for level of agreement on a 5-category scale. A many-faceted Rasch measurement model was used to determine how effectively each item and scale on the rating instrument performed. The analyses revealed that items were too easy for the residents. The SPs underutilized the lowest rating category, making the scale function as a 4-category rating scale. Some SPs were inconsistent when assigning ratings in the middle categories. The investigators modified the rating instrument based on the findings, creating the Revised UIC Communication and Interpersonal Skills (RUCIS) Scale--a 13-item rating instrument that employs a 4-category behaviorally anchored rating scale for each item. The investigators implemented the RUCIS Scale in a subsequent communication skills OSCE for 85 residents. The analyses revealed that the RUCIS Scale functioned more effectively than the CIS Scale in several respects (e.g., a more uniform distribution of ratings across categories, and better fit of the items to the measurement model). However, SPs still rarely assigned ratings in the lowest rating category of each scale.