Cited by 180Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsInnovations in Medical EducationProblem Solving Skills Development

Knowledge and clinical problem‐solving

NORMAN, G. R., TUGWELL, P., FEIGHTNER, J. W., MUZZIN, LINDA J., JACOBY, L. L.·1985·Medical Education

Abstract

Summary. A consistent finding in the literature on measures of clinical problem‐solving scores is that there are very low correlations across different problems. This phenomenon is commonly labelled ‘content‐specificity’, implying that the scores differ because the content knowledge necessary to solve the problems differs. The present study tests this hypothesis by presenting groups of residents and clinical clerks with a series of simulated patient problems in which content was systematically varied. Each subject also completed a multiple choice test with questions linked to each diagnosis presented in the clinical problems. Three of the four problem‐solving scores showed low correlations, even to two presentations of the same problem, and no relationship to content differences. None of the scores were related to performance on the multiple choice test. The results suggest that variability in problem‐solving scores is related to factors other than content knowledge, and several possibilities are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1985.tb01336.x

Cites

4 of 4 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?

  • Expert knowledge is very specific to the domain in which the expert practices (context- or content-specific).

    “Firstly, the nature of expert knowledge is such that it is very specific to the domain in which the expert practices, that is, it is context-or content-specific (Norman et al 1985, Benner & Tanner 1987, Edwards 1998)”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
NORMAN, G. R., TUGWELL, P., FEIGHTNER, J. W., MUZZIN, L. J., & JACOBY, L. L.
Affiliations
McMaster University (CA)
Corresponding author
NORMAN, G. R.
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1985-09
Volume
19
Issue
5
Pages
344-356
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
OpenAlex
W2044473672
Cited by
180
References
4
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 6
FWCI
5.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Problem Solving Skills Development
Keywords
clinical problem solving, content specificity, content knowledge, medical residents, multiple-choice tests, inter-rater reliability, clinical reasoning
MeSH terms
Canada, Clinical Clerkship, Diagnosis, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Humans, Internship and Residency, Medicine, Problem Solving, Specialization

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