Skip to main content

Table 3 Student feedback about test ordering and interpretation. IWB/CRL sessions vs. traditional learning sessions

From: Interactive whiteboard use in clinical reasoning sessions to teach diagnostic test ordering and interpretation to undergraduate medical students

 IWB/CRL sessionsVertically integrated curriculump
 3rd year
n = 27
3rd year
n = 40
4th year
n = 56
5th year
n = 78
6th year
n = 32
 
1. Now when I complete a test ordering file, I understand the reason/indication for the test3.37 ± 1.013.95 ± 0.833.68 ± 0.794.01 ± 0.814.50 ± 0.62*< 0.001
2. Now when I complete a test ordering file, the most frequent reason/indication that I specify is (%):
• I never specify a reason or indication/I specify the resident/senior’s request0.061.557.164.140.6< 0.001
• To test (affirm or eliminate) a hypothesis27.910.317.926.946.9 
• To conform to recommendations23.012.821.46.49.4 
• As “a systematic approach”8.25.102.60 
• To assess the time course29.55.13.603.1 
• To adapt the treatment11.55.1000 
3. Now when I complete a test ordering file, I specify one or more nonclinical signs to be looked for2.81 ± 1.172.51 ± 1.102.63 ± 1.103.14 ± 1.183.61 ± 1.12*< 0.001
4. Now when I complete a test ordering file, I integrate the risks and limitations into the decision3.46 ± 1.07NK3.04 ± 0.853.50 ± 0.83#3.72 ± 0.77#0.002
5. Now I look for positive and negative nonclinical signs directly on the raw data and not on the report3.54 ± 1.03**2.77 ± 0.872.48 ± 0.852.70 ± 0.923.47 ± 0.88**< 0.001
  1. Student feedback on test ordering and interpretation. IWB/CRL sessions vs. traditional learning sessions. Data are presented as mean ± SD on a Likert scale (1: never; 2: rarely; 3: regularly; 4: often; 5: systematically)
  2. Sixth-year vs. other groups *p<0.05
  3. Sixth-year and fifth-year vs. fourth-year #p<0.05
  4. Third-year IWB/CRL+CM group and sixth-year vs. other groups **p<0.05