medigraphic.com
ISSN 0016-3813 (Print)

2002, Number 5

<< Back Next >>

Gac Med Mex 2002; 138 (5)

Evaluation of Diagnostic Clinical Reasoning. Use of Dynamic Attractors As An Alternative.

Prado-Vega R, Zacatelco-Ramírez OR, Ortiz-Montalvo A, Ponce de León-Castañeda ME

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 411-420
PDF size: 67.10 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to apply diagnostic clinical reasoning, based upon cognitive teaching, to help the student develop their own mental structure of an ailment or disease. Such a structure is built as mathematical chaotic deterministic type that can be evaluated through identification of dynamic attractors. To achieve our purpose, clinical diagnostic reasoning skills of two groups of students was compared against those of an expert through revision of 17 clinical cases. Such revision, selection of relevant data, allows for construction of conceptual maps in which several dynamic attractors can be identified, based on the largest number of connections that stem from some concepts. In the majority of cases, statistical analysis showed similarity among types of connections established by the expert; several similar dynamic attractors could be identified, leading us to conclude that cognitive-based teaching of diagnostic clinical reasoning is useful in developing this type of skill, and that it can be evaluated through identification of dynamic attractors.


REFERENCES

  1. Gleik J. Chaos: making a new science. New York: Penguin Books;1987.

  2. Firth WJ. Chaos-predicting the unpredictable. BMJ 1991;303:1565-1568.

  3. Freeman WJ. The physiology of perception. Sci Am 1991; 264(2): 78-85.

  4. Markham FW. A method for introducing the concepts of chaos theory to medical students. Theor Med and Bioeth 1998;19:1-4.

  5. Goodwin JS. A piece of my mind. Chaos, and the limits of modern medicine. JAMA 1997;278(17):1399-1400.

  6. Sungaila H. The new science of chaos: making a new science of leadership? J Educ Adm 1990;28 (2):4-23.

  7. Kauffman SA. Antichaos and adaptation. Sci Am 1991;64-70.

  8. Chaos theory. Enciclopedia Microsoft Encarta 98 (versión en CD - ROM). Microsoft Corporation;1993-1997.

  9. Goldberger AL, Rigney DR, West BJ. Chaos and fractals in human physiology. Sc Am 1990;262(2):35-41.

  10. Skarda CA, Freeman WJ. How brains make chaos in order to make sense of the world. Behav Brain Sci 1987;10:161-195.

  11. Lipsitz LA, Goldberger AL. Loss of “complexity” an aging. JAMA 1992;267(13):1806-1809.

  12. Prado-Vega R. Gorec KD, Zacatelco-Ramírez O, Oblitas LA. Programa de la integración de la información médica para la postulación diagnóstica con base cognitiva. Extensiones 2000;6(1-2):49-63.

  13. Patel VL, Groen GL. Knowledge based solution strategies in medical reasoning. Cognitive Sci 1986;10:91-116.

  14. Norman GR. Objective measurement of clinical performance. Med Educ 1985;19:43-47.

  15. Norman GR, Tugwell P, Feightner JW, Muzzin U, Jacoby LL. Knowledge and clinical problem-solving. Med Educ 1985;19:344-356.

  16. Posner GR. Instrumentos para la investigación y desarrollo del curriculo: Aportaciones potenciales de la ciencia cognoscitiva. Perfiles educativos 1979;6:17-40.

  17. Castañeda S. Procesos cognitivos y educación médica. México: Facultad de Medicina, UNAM;1994.

  18. Goldsmith TE, Johnson PJ, Acton WH. Assessing structural knowledge. J Educ Psychol 1991;83:88-96.

  19. McGaghie WC, Boerger RL, McCrimon DR, Ravitch MA. Agreement among medical experts about the structure of concepts in pulmonary physiology. Acad Med 1994; 69 Supp: 1994;(10):78-80.

  20. Feinstein AR. Clinical judgment revisited: the distraction of quantitative methods. Ann Intern Med 1994;120:799-805.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com