Cited by 108Innovations in Medical EducationEducational Assessment and PedagogyClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Use of an educational taxonomy for evaluation of cognitive performance

Buckwalter, J A, Schumacher, R, Albright, J P, Cooper, R R·1981·Academic Medicine

Abstract

Complex cognitive processes, such as interpretation of information and problem-solving, form a critical part of medical practice; therefore, the aims of many educational programs include teaching these processes. However, systematic evaluation of students' interpretation of information or problem-solving may be difficult. To determine whether objective test items could measure cognitive processes more complex than recall of isolated facts, the committee of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons preparing the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination classified test items into three taxonomic levels according to the cognitive process required to answer the item: recall or recognition, interpretation, and problem-solving. Orthopedic residents from 20 universities took the examination and classified items according to the cognitive process they believed they used to answer the questions. Two methods of analysis showed that residents agreed closely with the taxonomic levels assigned by the committee, suggesting that items did test the cognitive process they were designed to measure and that objective assessment of complex cognitive processes is practical and potentially very useful in medical education.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00001888-198102000-00006

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?

  • Questions were classified by cognitive taxonomy based on Buckwalter et al: Taxonomy 1 recall and recognition of facts, Taxonomy 2 interpretation of data, images, or diagnostic studies, and Taxonomy 3 complex clinical reasoning, problem-solving, and management decisions.

    “Additionally, questions were classified by cognitive taxonomy based on established medical education frameworks defined by Buckwalter et al: Taxonomy 1 (T1): Recall and recognition of facts, Taxonomy 2 (T2): Interpretation of data, images, or diagnostic studies, and Taxonomy 3 (T3): Complex clinical reasoning, problem-solving, and management decisions (Buckwalter et al. 1981).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Buckwalter, J. A., Schumacher, R., Albright, J. P., & Cooper, R. R.
Venue
Academic Medicine
Published
1981-02
Volume
56
Issue
2
Pages
115-21
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1991227778
Cited by
108
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 6
FWCI
1.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
educational taxonomy, problem solving, information interpretation, recall and recognition, Orthopaedic In-Training Examination, orthopaedic residents, medical education assessment
MeSH terms
Cognition, Education, Medical, Educational Measurement, Humans, Internship and Residency, Orthopedics, Problem Solving, Mental Recall

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