Cited by 261Innovations in Medical EducationClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsEmpathy and Medical Education

Learning from clinical work: the roles of learning cues and credibility judgements

Open access
Watling, Christopher, Driessen, Erik, van der Vleuten, Cees P M, Lingard, Lorelei·2012·Medical Education

Abstract

Medical Education 2012: 46 : 192–200 Context: How learners interpret their clinical experiences to create meaningful learning has not been well studied. We explored experiences considered by doctors to be influential in their learning in order to better understand this process. Methods: Using a grounded theory approach, we interviewed 22 academic doctors who had been in practice for ≤ 5 years. Participants were asked to reflect on experiences they considered to have been influential during their training. Constant comparative analysis for emerging themes was conducted iteratively with data collection. Results: A model of clinical learning emerged in which the clinical work itself is central. As they observe and participate in clinical work, learners can attend to a variety of sources of information that facilitate the interpretation of the experience and the construction of knowledge from it. These ‘learning cues’ include feedback, role models, clinical outcomes, patient or family responses, and comparisons with peers. The integration of a cue depends on the learner’s judgement of its credibility. Certain cues, such as clinical outcomes or feedback from patients, are seen as innately credible, whereas other cues, particularly feedback from supervisors, are subjected to critical judgement. Conclusions: Learners make complex judgements regarding the credibility of information about clinical performance. Credibility judgements influence the learning that arises from the clinical experience. Further understanding of how such judgements are made could guide educators in providing credible information to learners.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04126.x

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Watling, C., Driessen, E., van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Lingard, L.
Affiliations
  • Western University (CA)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Watling, Christopher
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-01-12
Volume
46
Issue
2
Pages
192-200
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
OpenAlex
W1944495410
Cited by
261
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 6
FWCI
16.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Empathy and Medical Education
Keywords
clinical learning, clinical supervision, feedback, role models, clinical outcomes, peer comparison, patient feedback, knowledge construction, early-career physicians, clinical experience
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Clinical Competence, Cues, Education, Medical, Female, Humans, Judgment, Learning, Male, Sampling Studies, Knowledge, Feedback, Psychological

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