Cited by 210Innovations in Medical EducationClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsEducation and Critical Thinking Development

Critical Thinking in Graduate Medical Education: A Role for Concept Mapping Assessment?

West, Daniel C., Pomeroy, J. Richard, Park, Jeanny K., Gerstenberger, Elise A., Sandoval, Jonathan·2000·JAMA

Abstract

Context Tools to assess the evolving conceptual framework of physicians-in-training are limited, despite their critical importance to physicians' evolving clinical expertise. Concept mapping assessment (CMA) enables teachers to view students' organization of their knowledge at various points in training. Objective To assess whether CMA reflects expected differences and changes in the conceptual framework of resident physicians, whether concept maps can be scored reliably, and how well CMA scores relate to the results of standard in-training examination. Design, setting, and participants A group of 21 resident physicians (9 first-year and 12 second- and third-year residents) from a university-based pediatric training program underwent concept map training, drew a preinstruction concept map about seizures, completed an education course on seizures, and then drew a postinstruction map. Maps were scored independently by 3 raters using a standardized method. The study was conducted in May and June 1999. Main outcome measures Preinstruction map total scores and subscores in 4 categories compared with postinstruction map scores; map scores of second- and third-year residents compared with first-year residents; and interrater correlation of map scores. Results Total CMA scores increased after instruction from a mean (SD) preinstruction map score of 429 (119) to a mean postinstruction map score of 516 (196) (P =.03). Second- and third-year residents scored significantly higher than fi…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.284.9.1105

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 29 · Cited by 210

Authors
West, D. C., Pomeroy, J. R., Park, J. K., Gerstenberger, E. A., & Sandoval, J.
Affiliations
University of California, Davis (US)
Venue
JAMA
Published
2000-09-06
Volume
284
Issue
9
Pages
1105
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2013862396
Cited by
210
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 12
FWCI
2.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education and Critical Thinking Development
Keywords
critical thinking, graduate medical education, medical residents, conceptual framework, knowledge organization, seizures, inter-rater reliability, in-training examination, pediatric residency, cognitive domain
MeSH terms
California, Concept Formation, Educational Measurement, Humans, Internship and Residency, Learning, Pediatrics, Seizures

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review