OBJECTIVE General guidelines for teaching clinical reasoning have received much attention, despite a paucity of instructional approaches with demonstrated effectiveness. As suggested in a recent experimental study, self-explanation while solving clinical cases may be an effective strategy to foster reasoning in clinical clerks dealing with less familiar cases. However, the mechanisms that mediate this benefit have not been specifically investigated. The aim of this study was to explore the types of knowledge used by students when solving familiar and less familiar clinical cases with self-explanation.METHODS In a previous study, 36 third-year medical students diagnosed familiar and less familiar clinical cases either by engaging in self-explanation or not. Based on an analysis of previously collected data, the present study compared the content of self-explanation protocols generated by seven randomly selected students while solving four familiar and four less familiar cases. In total, 56 verbal protocols (28 familiar and 28 less familiar) were segmented and coded using the following categories: paraphrases, biomedical inferences, clinical inferences, monitoring statements and errors.RESULTS Students provided more self-explanation segments from less familiar cases (M = 275.29) than from familiar cases (M = 248.71, p = 0.046). They provided significantly more paraphrases (p = 0.001) and made more errors (p = 0.008). A significant interaction was found between familiarity and the type of inferences (biomedical versus clinical, p = 0.016). When self-explaining less familiar cases, students provided significantly more biomedical inferences than familiar cases.

NCT00640393.

Performance-based assessment (PBA) is a valued assessment approach in medical education, be it in a clerkship, residency, or practice context. Raters are intrinsic to PBA and the increased use of PBA has lead to an increased interest in rater cognition. Although several researchers have tackled factors that may influence the variability in rater judgment, the critical examination of rater observation of performance and the translation of that data into judgements are being investigated. The purpose of this study was to qualitatively investigate the cognitive processes of raters, and to create a framework that conceptualizes those processes when raters assess a complex performance. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 11 faculty members (nominated as excellent assessors) from a Department of Medicine to investigate how raters observe, interpret, and translate performance into judgments. The transcribed verbal protocols were analyzed using Constructivist Grounded Theory in order to develop a theoretical model of raters' assessment processes. Several themes emerged from the data and were grouped according to three macro-level themes describing how the raters balance two sources of data [(1) external sources of information and (2) internal/personal sources of information] by relying on specific cognitive processes to assess an examinee performance. The results from our study demonstrate that assessment is a difficult cognitive task that involves nuance using specific cognitive processes to weigh external and internal data against each other. Our data clearly draws attention to the constant struggle between objectivity and subjectivity that is observed in assessment as illustrated by the importance given to nuancing the examinee's observed performance.

and keywordsAbstract: The role of primary care physicians (PCP) in Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) prevention is increasingly emphasized. Yet, little is known about the patterns of contacts with PCP among persons who inject drugs (PWID). We sought to assess the six-month prevalence of PCP visiting among PWID at risk of HCV infection, and to explore the associated factors. Baseline data were collected from HCV-seronegative PWID recruited in HEPCO, an observational Hepatitis Cohort study (2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)