Cited by 14Innovations in Medical EducationProblem and Project Based LearningHealth and Medical Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

CaPOW! Using Problem Sets in a Capstone Course to Improve Fourth-Year Medical Students’ Confidence in Self-Directed Learning

Abstract

Problem: Despite the importance of self-directed learning (SDL) in the field of medicine, individuals are rarely taught how to perform SDL or receive feedback on it. Trainee skill in SDL is limited by difficulties with self-assessment and goal setting. Approach: Ninety-two graduating fourth-year medical students from Duke University School of Medicine completed an individualized learning plan (ILP) for a transition-to-residency Capstone course in spring 2015 to help foster their skills in SDL. Students completed the ILP after receiving a personalized report from a designated faculty coach detailing strengths and weaknesses on specific topics (e.g., pulmonary medicine) and clinical skills (e.g., generating a differential diagnosis). These were determined by their performance on 12 Capstone Problem Sets of the Week (CaPOWs) compared with their peers. Students used transitional-year milestones to self-assess their confidence in SDL. Outcomes: SDL was successfully implemented in a Capstone course through the development of required clinically oriented problem sets. Coaches provided guided feedback on students’ performance to help them identify knowledge deficits. Students’ self-assessment of their confidence in SDL increased following course completion. However, students often chose Capstone didactic sessions according to factors other than their CaPOW performance, including perceived relevance to planned specialty and session timing. Next Steps: Future Capstone curriculum changes may further enhance SDL skills of graduating students. Students will receive increased formative feedback on their CaPOW performance and be incentivized to attend sessions in areas of personal weakness.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/acm.0000000000001193

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 7 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 14

Metadata

Authors
Clay, A. S., Ming, D. Y., Knudsen, N. W., Engle, D. L., Grochowski, C. O., Andolsek, K. M., & Chudgar, S. M.
Affiliations
Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Clay, Alison S.
Venue
Academic Medicine
Published
2017-03
Volume
92
Issue
3
Pages
380-384
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2343112576
Cited by
14
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2
FWCI
1.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Problem and Project Based Learning
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health and Medical Education
Keywords
self-directed learning, capstone course, medical students, individualized learning plans, faculty coaching, formative feedback, self-assessment, self-confidence, transition to residency, problem sets, goal setting, clinical skills
MeSH terms
Adult, Clinical Competence, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Female, Humans, Male, North Carolina, Self Concept, Students, Medical, Problem-Based Learning

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