Types of clinical reasoning in a summative clerkship oral examination

Introduction Dual-process theory characterizes clinical reasoning (CR) as Type 1 (intuitive) and Type 2 (analytical) thinking. This study examined CR on a summative clinical clerkship structured clinical oral examination (SCOE). Methods and subjects 511 clinical clerks at the University of Toronto underwent SCOEs. Type 1, Type 2, and Global CR performance were compared to other internal medicine clerkship assessments using descriptive statistics and Spearman correlations. Results Clinical clerks achieved mean marks >75% on the three clinical reasoning stations, on Type 1 and 2 CR tasks, and the overall SCOE. Performance on the SCOE CR stations correlated with each of the other clerkship assessments: written examination, inpatient, and ambulatory clinic assessments. The correlation of performance between Type 1 and Type 2 clinical reasoning tasks was statistically significant but weak (r(s) = 0.28). This suggests that defined measures of Type 1 and Type 2 reasoning were indeed assessing distinct constructs. Conclusion Clinical clerks used both Type 1 and Type 2 reasoning with success. This study's characterization of Type 1 and Type 2 CR as separate domains, distinct from existing measures on the SCOE as well as the other clerkship assessments, can suggest a further addition to multimodal clerkship assessment.

Automated summary

This study explores clinical reasoning and finds that clinical clerks successfully utilize both Type 1 and Type 2 reasoning. The study also suggests that Type 1 and Type 2 reasoning are distinct domains and correlates with other clinical clerkship assessments.