Cited by 624Simulation-Based Education in HealthcareClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsInnovations in Medical Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 64 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Virtual patients: a critical literature review and proposed next steps

Cook, David A, Triola, Marc M·2009·Medical Education

Abstract

Context The opposing forces of increased training expectations and reduced training resources have greatly impacted health professions education. Virtual patients (VPs), which take the form of interactive computer‐based clinical scenarios, may help to reconcile this paradox. Methods We summarise research on VPs, highlight the spectrum of potential variation and identify an agenda for future research. We also critically consider the role of VPs in the educational armamentarium. Results We propose that VPs’ most unique and cost‐effective function is to facilitate and assess the development of clinical reasoning. Clinical reasoning in experts involves a non‐analytical process that matures through deliberate practice with multiple and varied clinical cases. Virtual patients are ideally suited to this task. Virtual patients can also be used in learner assessment, but scoring rubrics should emphasise non‐analytical clinical reasoning rather than completeness of information or algorithmic approaches. Potential variations in VP design are practically limitless, yet few studies have rigorously explored design issues. More research is needed to inform instructional design and curricular integration. Conclusions Virtual patients should be designed and used to promote clinical reasoning skills. More research is needed to inform how to effectively use VPs.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03286.x

Cites

64 of 64 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

Show all 65 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Association of American Medical Colleges, 2007, Effective Use of Educational Technology in Medical Education: Summary Report of the 2006 AAMC Colloquium on Educational Technology
  2. 10.1097/00001888-199311000-00018 · DOI
  3. Harless WG, 1971, CASE: a computer‐aided simulation of the clinical encounter, J Med Educ, 46, 443
  4. Krahn CG, 1986, Using an advance organiser to improve knowledge application by medical students in computer‐based clinical simulations, J Comput Base Instruct, 13, 71
  5. Kumta SM, 2003, Fostering critical thinking skills through a web‐based tutorial programme for final year medical students – a randomised, controlled study, J Educ Multimed Hypermed, 12, 267
  6. Case SM, 2001, Constructing Written Test Questions for the Basic and Clinical Sciences

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–600 of 623

Metadata

Authors
Cook, D. A., & Triola, M. M.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • New York University (US)
Corresponding author
Cook, David A
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-03-18
Volume
43
Issue
4
Pages
303-311
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
OpenAlex
W2036488299
Cited by
624
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 49 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 45
FWCI
3.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
Keywords
virtual patients, clinical reasoning, clinical reasoning assessment, student assessment, rubric development, instructional design, curriculum integration, health professions education, deliberate practice, training materials
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Computer-Assisted Instruction, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Educational Measurement, Humans, Patient Simulation

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