<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Norman, G.R.</title>
    <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/4776/</link>
    <description>List of Publications</description>
    <language>en</language>
    
    <item>
      <title>Are specialist certification examinations a reliable measure of physician competence? (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/14450/</link>
      <pubDate>2008-10-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>High stakes postgraduate specialist certification examinations have considerable implications for the future careers of examinees. Medical colleges and professional boards have a social and professional responsibility to ensure their fitness for purpose. To date there is a paucity of published data about the reliability of specialist certification examinations and objective methods for improvement. Such data are needed to improve current assessment practices and sustain the international credibility of specialist certification processes. To determine the component and composite reliability of the Fellowship examination of the College of Physicians of South Africa, and identify strategies for further improvement, generalizability and multivariate generalizability theory were used to estimate the reliability of examination subcomponents and the overall reliability of the composite examination. Decision studies were used to identify strategies for improving the composition of the examination. Reliability coefficients of the component subtests ranged from 0.58 to 0.64. The composite reliability of the examination was 0.72. This could be increased to 0.8 by weighting all test components equally or increasing the number of patient encounters in the clinical component of the examination. Correlations between examination components were high, suggesting that similar parameters of competence were being assessed. This composite certification examination, if equally weighted, achieved an overall reliability sufficient for high stakes examination purposes. Increasing the weighting of the clinical component decreased the reliability. This could be rectified by increasing the number of patient encounters in the examination. Practical ways of achieving this are suggested.</description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: Theory, practice and paper darts (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/2880/</link>
      <pubDate>2000-09-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>In a recent review article, Colliver concluded that there was no convincing evidence that problem-based learning was more effective than conventional methods. He then went on to lay part of the blame on cognitive psychology, claiming that 'the theory is weak, its theoretical concepts are imprecise... the basic research is contrived and ad hoc'. This paper challenges these claims and presents evidence that (a) cognitive research is not contrived and irrelevant, (b) curriculum level interventions are doomed to fail and (c) education needs more theory-based research.</description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>A Cognitive Perspective on Medical Expertise: Theory and Implications (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/2722/</link>
      <pubDate>1990-01-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>A new theory of the development of expertise in medicine is outlined. Contrary to existing views, this theory assumes that expertise is not so much a matter of superior reasoning skills or in-depth knowledge of pathophysiological states as it is based on cognitive structures that describe the features of prototypical or even actual patients. These cognitive structures, referred to as 'illness scripts,' contain relatively little knowledge about pathophysiological causes of symptoms and complaints but a wealth of clinically relevant information about disease, its consequences, and the context under which illness develops. By contrast, intermediate-level students without clinical experience typically use pathophysiological, causal models of disease when solving problems. The authors review evidence supporting the theory and discuss its implications for the understanding of five phenomena extensively documented in the clinical-reasoning literature: (1) content specificity in diagnostic performance; (2) typical differences in data-gathering techniques between medical students and physicians; (3) difficulties involved in setting standards; (4) a decline in performance on certain measures of clinical reasoning with increasing expertise; and (5) a paradoxical association between errors and longer response times in visual diagnosis.</description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>Clinical inquiry and scientific inquiry (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/2724/</link>
      <pubDate>1990-01-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description></description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>