TY - JOUR
T1 - How do physicians become medical experts? A test of three competing theories
T2 - distinct domains, independent influence and encapsulation models
AU - Violato, Claudio
AU - Gao, Hong
AU - O’Brien, Mary Claire
AU - Grier, David
AU - Shen, E.
PY - 2018/5/1
Y1 - 2018/5/1
N2 - The distinction between basic sciences and clinical knowledge which has led to a theoretical debate on how medical expertise is developed has implications for medical school and lifelong medical education. This longitudinal, population based observational study was conducted to test the fit of three theories—knowledge encapsulation, independent influence, distinct domains—of the development of medical expertise employing structural equation modelling. Data were collected from 548 physicians (292 men—53.3%; 256 women—46.7%; mean age = 24.2 years on admission) who had graduated from medical school 2009–2014. They included (1) Admissions data of undergraduate grade point average and Medical College Admission Test sub-test scores, (2) Course performance data from years 1, 2, and 3 of medical school, and (3) Performance on the NBME exams (i.e., Step 1, Step 2 CK, and Step 3). Statistical fit indices (Goodness of Fit Index—GFI; standardized root mean squared residual—SRMR; root mean squared error of approximation—RSMEA) and comparative fit (XD2,X2) of three theories of cognitive development of medical expertise were used to assess model fit. There is support for the knowledge encapsulation three factor model of clinical competency (GFI = 0.973, SRMR = 0.043, RSMEA = 0.063) which had superior fit indices to both the independent influence and distinct domains theories (X292=88.11 vs X292=443.91 [XD2=355.80] vs X292=514.93 [XD2=426.82], respectively). The findings support a theory where basic sciences and medical aptitude are direct, correlated influences on clinical competency that encapsulates basic knowledge.
AB - The distinction between basic sciences and clinical knowledge which has led to a theoretical debate on how medical expertise is developed has implications for medical school and lifelong medical education. This longitudinal, population based observational study was conducted to test the fit of three theories—knowledge encapsulation, independent influence, distinct domains—of the development of medical expertise employing structural equation modelling. Data were collected from 548 physicians (292 men—53.3%; 256 women—46.7%; mean age = 24.2 years on admission) who had graduated from medical school 2009–2014. They included (1) Admissions data of undergraduate grade point average and Medical College Admission Test sub-test scores, (2) Course performance data from years 1, 2, and 3 of medical school, and (3) Performance on the NBME exams (i.e., Step 1, Step 2 CK, and Step 3). Statistical fit indices (Goodness of Fit Index—GFI; standardized root mean squared residual—SRMR; root mean squared error of approximation—RSMEA) and comparative fit (XD2,X2) of three theories of cognitive development of medical expertise were used to assess model fit. There is support for the knowledge encapsulation three factor model of clinical competency (GFI = 0.973, SRMR = 0.043, RSMEA = 0.063) which had superior fit indices to both the independent influence and distinct domains theories (X292=88.11 vs X292=443.91 [XD2=355.80] vs X292=514.93 [XD2=426.82], respectively). The findings support a theory where basic sciences and medical aptitude are direct, correlated influences on clinical competency that encapsulates basic knowledge.
KW - Assessment
KW - Clinical reasoning
KW - Encapsulation theory
KW - Medical expertise
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85023207380&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85023207380&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10459-017-9784-z
DO - 10.1007/s10459-017-9784-z
M3 - Article
C2 - 28702788
AN - SCOPUS:85023207380
SN - 1382-4996
VL - 23
SP - 249
EP - 263
JO - Advances in Health Sciences Education
JF - Advances in Health Sciences Education
IS - 2
ER -