Cited by 223Innovations in Medical EducationClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsSurgical Simulation and Training

The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of clinical skills

Open access
Duvivier, Robbert J, van Dalen, Jan, Muijtjens, Arno M, Moulaert, Véronique RMP, van der Vleuten, Cees PM, Scherpbier, Albert JJA·2011·BMC Medical Education

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The role of deliberate practice in medical students' development from novice to expert was examined for preclinical skill training. METHODS: Students in years 1-3 completed 34 Likert type items, adapted from a questionnaire about the use of deliberate practice in cognitive learning. Exploratory factor analysis and reliability analysis were used to validate the questionnaire. Analysis of variance examined differences between years and regression analysis the relationship between deliberate practice and skill test results. RESULTS: 875 students participated (90%). Factor analysis yielded four factors: planning, concentration/dedication, repetition/revision, study style/self reflection. Student scores on 'Planning' increased over time, score on sub-scale 'repetition/revision' decreased. Student results on the clinical skill test correlated positively with scores on subscales 'planning' and 'concentration/dedication' in years 1 and 3, and with scores on subscale 'repetition/revision' in year 1. CONCLUSIONS: The positive effects on test results suggest that the role of deliberate practice in medical education merits further study. The cross-sectional design is a limitation, the large representative sample a strength of the study. The vanishing effect of repetition/revision may be attributable to inadequate feedback. Deliberate practice advocates sustained practice to address weaknesses, identified by (self-)assessment and stimulated by feedback. Further studies should use a longitudinal prospective design and extend the scope to expertise development during residency and beyond.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1472-6920-11-101

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Deliberate practice using reflection and feedback to develop knowledge and skills is providing valuable insights for educators helping students develop autonomous learning.

    “The role of deliberate practice (Duvivier et al. 2011), using reflection and feedback as tools to develop both knowledge and skills is starting to provide very valuable insights for educators helping students develop autonomous learning.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Ericsson AK Charness N Feltovich P Hoffman RR Eds Cambridge handbook on expertise and expert performance 2006 Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Duvivier, R. J., van Dalen, J., Muijtjens, A. M., Moulaert, V. R., van der Vleuten, C. P., & Scherpbier, A. J.
Affiliations
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • Adelante (NL)
Corresponding author
Duvivier, Robbert J
Venue
BMC Medical Education
Published
2011-12
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
101-101
ISSN
1472-6920 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2097623694
Cited by
223
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 4
FWCI
9.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Universiteit Maastricht
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 › Surgery › Surgical Simulation and Training
Keywords
deliberate practice, clinical skills acquisition, medical students, novice to expert development, self-assessment, feedback, planning, learning styles, self-reflection
MeSH terms
Adult, Clinical Competence, Competency-Based Education, Cross-Sectional Studies, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Educational Measurement, Female, Health Status, Humans, Male, Motivation, Practice, Psychological, Surveys and Questionnaires, Schools, Medical, Students, Medical, Young Adult

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