Cited by 44Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsInnovations in Medical EducationVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes

Novice Diagnostic Reasoning in Medicine: Accounting for Evidence

Arocha, José F., Patel, Vimla L.·1995·Journal of the Learning Sciences

Abstract

This study investigated the strategies used by beginning, intermediate, and advanced medical students when solving clinical cases containing inconsistent data. Written clinical cases were used in which the initial patient data suggested a very common and prototypical disease. Subsequent data in the cases were inconsistent with this first suggestion. The cases were presented on a computer so that the subjects had the opportunity to reason aloud about the evidence. Verbal protocols were collected and analyzed. Our results showed that the beginning students generated the suggested hypothesis and either ignored or reinterpreted the inconsistent evidence to fit their initial hypotheses. Advanced novices generated several hypotheses with a similar underlying problem; this allowed them to narrow their initial hypothesis set in the face of inconsistent evidence and make fewer data reinterpretations. Intermediate novices showed a similar pattern but failed to change their hypotheses with inconsistent data. They maintained several hypotheses of a diverse nature concurrently, without evaluating them efficiently. They showed a deterioration in performance—commonly known as the intermediate effect—which we interpreted as the result of a process of knowledge reorganization that interferes with problem solving. Results are discussed in terms of change in reasoning strategies as a function of the type of learning in medical school.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1207/s15327809jls0404_1

Cites

15 of 15 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 17 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Arocha, J. F., & Patel, V. L.
Affiliations
  • McGill University (CA)
  • Arizona State University (US)
Venue
Journal of the Learning Sciences
Published
1995-10
Volume
4
Issue
4
Pages
355-384
ISSN
  • 1050-8406 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7809
OpenAlex
W2009533928
Cited by
44
References
17
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of the Learning Sciences (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • American Educational Research Association
  • Medical Research Council Canada
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Keywords
diagnostic reasoning, medical students, intermediate effects, hypothesis generation, hypothesis revision, verbal protocols, clinical case solving, knowledge restructuring, medical education

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