Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 90Innovations in Medical EducationEthics in medical practiceValues and Moral Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Clarifying the relationship of medical education and moral development

Self, D J, Olivarez, M, Baldwin, D C·1998·Academic Medicine

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the development of the moral reasoning skills of medical students through the course of their education, and to determine whether their scores would reflect the increases usually found at this age range and education level. METHOD: Using Rest's Defining Issues Test (DIT), the authors assessed the moral reasoning of a total of 95 Texas A&M medical students from the classes of 1991-94 at the beginning of their first semester, at the end of a required first-semester medical ethics course, and at the end of the students' fourth year. RESULTS: The mean score on the first test was 47.7; on the second, 53.7; and on the third, 56.5. The +6.0 change in mean scores from the first to second test was statistically significant (p < .0001), as was the +8.8 change from the first to final test (p < .0001). The +2.8 change from the second to final test was also significant, although at a lower level (p < .0302). Analysis revealed no significant correlation between moral reasoning scores and age; however, there was a significant correlation between moral reasoning scores and sex, with women scoring higher than men on all three tests. CONCLUSIONS: While data from the current study seem to contradict earlier findings that medical education inhibits an increase in moral reasoning skills, the current findings may alternatively be interpreted as resulting mainly from the required first-semester medical ethics course, which involved small-group discussion of moral dilemmas, an educational method shown elsewhere to be effective in enhancing moral reasoning skills.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00001888-199805000-00018

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cited by

See all 90

Metadata

Authors
Self, D. J., Olivarez, M., & Baldwin, D. C.
Affiliations
Texas A&M University (US)
Venue
Academic Medicine
Published
1998-05
Volume
73
Issue
5
Pages
517-20
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2054949118
Cited by
89
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 10
FWCI
2.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Ethics in medical practice
  • Social Sciences › Education › Values and Moral Education
Keywords
moral reasoning, medical students, medical ethics education, moral development, Defining Issues Test, sex differences, age differences, small group discussion, ethical dilemmas, medical education
MeSH terms
Adult, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Female, Humans, Human Development, Male, Morals, Students, Medical, Texas, Moral Development

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.