How do physicians become medical experts? A test of three competing theories: distinct domains, independent influence and encapsulation models

Abstract

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 \((X_{D}^{2} ,X^{2} )\) 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 (\(X_{29}^{2} = 88.11\) vs \(X_{29}^{2} = 443.91\) [\(X_{D}^{2} = 355.80\)] vs \(X_{29}^{2} = 514.93\) [\(X_{D}^{2} = 426.82\)], respectively). The findings support a theory where basic sciences and medical aptitude are direct, correlated influences on clinical competency that encapsulates basic knowledge.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Baghdady, M. T., Carnahan, H., Lam, E. W., & Woods, N. N. (2013). Integration of basic sciences and clinical sciences in oral radiology education for dental students. Journal of Dental Education, 77(6), 757–763.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Baghdady, M. T., Carnahan, H., Lam, E., & Woods, N. N. (2014). Test-enhanced learning and its effect on comprehension and diagnostic accuracy. Medical Education, 48, 181–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Baghdady, M. T., Pharoah, M. J., Regher, G., Lam, E. W., & Woods, N. N. (2009). The role of basic sciences in diagnostic radiology. Journal of Dental Education, 73, 1187–1193.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables, Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Boshuizen, H. P., & Schmidt, H. G. (1992). On the role of biomedical knowledge in clinical reasoning by experts, intermediates and novices. Cognitive Science, 16, 153–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Collin, T., Violato, C., & Hecker, K. (2008). Aptitude, achievement and competence in medicine: A latent variable path model. Advances in Health Science Education, 14, 355–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. De Bruin, A. B. H., Schmidt, H. G., & Rikers, R. M. J. P. (2005). The role of basic science knowledge and clinical knowledge in diagnostic reasoning: A structural equation modeling approach. Academic Medicine, 80, 765–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dong, T., Swygert, K. A., Durning, S. J., Saguil, A., Gilliland, W. A., Cruess, D., et al. (2014). Validity evidence for medical school OSCEs: Associations with USMLE Step assessments. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 26(4), 379–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Donnon, T., Oddone, E., & Violato, C. (2007). The predictive validity of the MCAT for medical school performance and medical board licensing examinations: A meta-analysis of the published research. Academic Medicine, 82, 100–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Donnon, T., & Violato, C. (2006). Medical students’ clinical reasoning skills as a function of basic science achievement and clinical competency measures: A structural equation model. Academic Medicine, 81(Suppl), S120–S123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hopkins, R., Pratt, D., Bowen, J., & Regehr, G. (2015). Integrating basic science without integrating basic scientists: Reconsidering the place of individual teachers in curriculum reform. Academic Medicine, 90, 149–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structural analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kulasegaram, K. M., Manzone, J. C., Ku, C., Skye, A., Wadey, V., & Woods, N. N. (2015). Cause and effect: Testing a mechanism and method for the cognitive integration of basic science. Academic Medicine, 90(Nov suppl), S63–S69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kulasegaram, K. M., Martimianakis, M. A., Mylopoulos, M., Whitehead, C. R., & Woods, N. N. (2013). Cognition before curriculum: Rethinking the integration of basic science and clinical learning. Academic Medicine, 88, 1578–1585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lisk, K., Agur, A. M., & Woods, N. N. (2016a). Exploring cognitive integration of basic sciences and its effect on diagnostic reasoning. Perspectives in Medical Education, 5, 147–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lisk, K., Agur, A. M., & Woods, N. N. (2016b). Examining the effect of self-explanation on cognitive integration of basic and clinical sciences in novices. In Advances in Health Sciences Education, 24 December.

  17. Medical Council of Canada. http://mcc.ca/examinations. Accessed 29 June 2016.

  18. National Board of Medical Examiners. http://www.usmle.org/. Accessed 25 June 2016.

  19. Patel, V. L., Arocha, J. F., & Kaufman, D. R. (1994). Diagnostic reasoning and expertise. In D. L. Medin (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 187–252). San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Patel, V. L., Evans, D. A., & Groen, G. J. (1989). Reconciling basic science and clinical reasoning. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 1, 116–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Patel, V. L., & Kaufman, D. R. (2000). Clinical reasoning and biomedical knowledge: Implications for teaching. In J. Higgs & M. Jones (Eds.), Clinical reasoning in the health professions (pp. 117–128). Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Schmidt, H. G., & Boshuizen, H. P. (1993). On acquiring expertise in medicine. Educational and Psychological Review, 5, 205–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Schmidt, H. G., Norman, G. R., & Boshuizen, H. P. (1990). A cognitive perspective on medical expertise: Theory and implications. Academic Medicine, 65, 611–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Schmidt, H. G., & Rikers, R. M. (2007). How expertise develops in medicine: Knowledge encapsulation and illness script formation. Medical Education, 41, 1133–1139.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Violato, C., & Donnon, T. (2005). Does the Medical College Admission Test predict clinical reasoning skills? A longitudinal study employing the Medical Council of Canada Clinical Reasoning Examination. Academic Medicine, 80(10 suppl), S14–S16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Violato, C., & Hecker, K. G. (2007). How to use structural equation modeling in medical education research: A brief guide. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 19, 362–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Violato, C., Shen, E., & Gao, H. (2016). Does Step 3 of the United States Medical Licensing Exam Measure Clinical Competence? A Predictive Validity Study. Medical Science Educator. doi:10.1007/s40670-016-0263-6-&gt.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Woods, N. N. (2007). Science is fundamental: The role of biomedical knowledge in clinical reasoning. Medical Education, 41, 1173–1177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Woods, N. N., Brooks, L. R., & Norman, G. R. (2005). The value of basic science in clinical diagnosis: Creating coherence among signs and symptoms. Medical Education, 39, 107–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claudio Violato.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Violato, C., Gao, H., O’Brien, M.C. et al. How do physicians become medical experts? A test of three competing theories: distinct domains, independent influence and encapsulation models. Adv in Health Sci Educ 23, 249–263 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-017-9784-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Clinical reasoning
  • Assessment
  • Encapsulation theory
  • Medical expertise