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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“| Coaching process related | Session duration | Long session | [68,98,109] |”
From Coaching in undergraduate and graduate medical education: a scoping review of success factors, barriers, and outcomes (2026) · cites this paper as [109]
In the citing paper
“| Coaching outcomes | Student | Learning orientation | [75,109] |”
From Coaching in undergraduate and graduate medical education: a scoping review of success factors, barriers, and outcomes (2026) · cites this paper as [109]
In the citing paper
“| Coaching success factors | Coaching | Self-assessment | [67,90,109] |”
From Coaching in undergraduate and graduate medical education: a scoping review of success factors, barriers, and outcomes (2026) · cites this paper as [109]
Citations
Cites
Self-Assessment in the Health Professions: A Reformulation and Research Agenda
Eva, K. W., & Regehr, G. (2005) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-200510001-00015 · Cited by 992
Self-assessment, Self-direction, and the Self-regulating Professional
Regehr, G., & Eva, K. W. (2006) · Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000224027.85732.b2 · Cited by 159
Li, S. T., Paterniti, D. A., Co, J. P. T., & West, D. C. (2010) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e3181e1931c · Cited by 133
Course Offerings in the Fourth Year of Medical School
Elnicki, D. M., Gallagher, S., Willett, L. R., et al. (2015) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000000796 · Cited by 90
Artino, A. R., & Jones, K. D. (2013) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e3182953763 · Cited by 44
Shepard, M. E., Sastre, E. A., Davidson, M., & Fleming, A. E. (2012) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.3109/0142159x.2012.638013 · Cited by 28
Is Residentsʼ Progress on Individualized Learning Plans Related to the Type of Learning Goal Set?
Li, S. T., Paterniti, D. A., Tancredi, D. J., et al. (2011) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e31822be22b · Cited by 26
Cited by
Sorted by citations
What do we know about coaching in medical education? A literature review
Lovell, B. (2018) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.13482 · Cited by 277
Mukherjee, B., Pfleeger, J., Custodio, H., Roca, M. R., Khalsa, G., & Clanton, C. (2026) · Medical Education Online · doi:10.1080/10872981.2026.2687304 · Cited by 1
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.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Academic Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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