Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Medical Decision Making
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Arocha, J. F.
Right arrow Articles by Patel, Y. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Arocha, J. F.
Right arrow Articles by Patel, Y. C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Hypothesis Generation and the Coordination of Theory and Evidence in Novice Diagnostic Reasoning

José F. Arocha

Vimla L. Patel

Yogesh C. Patel

This study investigates hypothesis generation and evaluation in clinical problem solving by medical trainees. The study focuses on 1) directionality of reasoning and 2) use of confir mation and disconfirmation strategies in generating and evaluating hypotheses. Two clinical problems were divided into segments of information containing presenting complaint, past history, and physical examination. The initial information indicated a typical myocardial infarct but subsequent information contradicted it. The results showed that the participating students predominantly used forward reasoning and confirmation strategies. When faced with con tradictory evidence: 1) second-year students ignored cues in the problem or reinterpreted them to fit the hypothesis; 2) third-year students generated concurrent hypotheses to account for different sets of data; and 3) fourth-year students generated several initial hypotheses and subsequently narrowed the hypothesis space by generating a single coherent diagnostic explanation. The results are discussed in terms of coordination of clinical evidence and its relationship to scientific reasoning. Key words: hypothesis generation; diagnostic reasoning; novice strategies; medical problem solving. (Med Decis Making 1993;13:198-211)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 13, No. 3, 198-211 (1993)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9301300305
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ptjournalHome page
I. Edwards, M. Jones, J. Carr, A. Braunack-Mayer, and G. M Jensen
Clinical Reasoning Strategies in Physical Therapy
Physical Therapy, April 1, 2004; 84(4): 312 - 330.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]