Cited by 16Innovations in Medical EducationEducational Technology and AssessmentClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Integrating Concept Maps into a Medical Student Oncology Curriculum

Brondfield, Sam, Seol, Allen, Hyland, Katherine, Teherani, Arianne, Hsu, Gerald·2021·Journal of Cancer Education

Abstract

Expanding frontiers of knowledge have prompted medical schools to reconsider how best to promote learning in the face of information overload. Concept mapping (CM) promotes knowledge retention and integration. Students have perceived CM positively in prior studies, but the feasibility and utility of integrating CM into a medical student oncology curriculum as a learning and assessment tool have not been described. At the University of California, San Francisco, 152 medical students in a second-year hematology/oncology course produced concept maps about a single cancer type over 4 weeks. We collected student evaluations about CM. Two of three graders independently scored each map using a standard rubric. We compared CM scores with USMLE Step 1 scores and clerkship grades using regression. All students produced a concept map. Student perception was mixed, and students provided feedback to improve CM utility as a learning tool. Grading was feasible, and inter-rater reliability was high. CM scores did not predict USMLE Step 1 scores or clerkship grades. CM was feasible as a learning tool, and we present strategies based on student feedback and literature review to improve utility. CM was feasible and reliable as an assessment tool; additional validity evidence may improve utility. Future studies should explore whether CM integrated into medical student oncology curricula early, serially, and collaboratively, with iterative practice and feedback, may predict meaningful learning an…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13187-019-01601-7

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brondfield, S., Seol, A., Hyland, K., Teherani, A., & Hsu, G.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
Corresponding author
Brondfield, Sam
Venue
Journal of Cancer Education
Published
2019-08-14
Volume
36
Issue
1
Pages
85-91
ISSN
  • 0885-8195 (ISSN-L)
  • 1543-0154
OpenAlex
W2969049829
Cited by
16
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Cancer Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and Assessment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
concept maps, medical education, assessment instruments, inter-rater reliability, USMLE Step 1 scores, clerkship grades, student perceptions, knowledge retention, information overload
MeSH terms
Clinical Clerkship, Curriculum, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Educational Measurement, Humans, Learning, Schools, Medical, Students, Medical, Reproducibility of Results

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