These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Critical reading in selected groups of medical students].
    Author: Viniegra L, Espinosa P.
    Journal: Rev Invest Clin; 1994; 46(5):407-15. PubMed ID: 7839022.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The shaping of professionals with a critical outlook in their field of endeavor is a goal of some educational institutions in our country. However, little participation from the students is demanded in our medical schools and this probably interferes in the development of skills for critical reading. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate critical reading in medical students with high scholastic achievement as a function of years of medical training. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We studied three groups of medical students who were homogeneous in regard to scholastic achievement (their mean was 9 or higher in a scale of 10). The groups were in the first, third and fifth year of their medical training (N was 24, 15 and 12 respectively). Two homogeneous groups of low achievers (mean of 7 or less in their first year of training with N of 20 and 16) were also included as contrast groups (no homogeneous groups of low achievers were present in higher years). The test applied was elaborated by us and has been validated. It evaluates reading comprehension (30 items) and interpretation (40 items) of medical information with questions to be answered true/false/don't know and which are scored -1 (incorrect), zero (don't know) or 1 (correct). The scores were analyzed using non-parametric techniques. We consider reading interpretation as a capacity better representing critical reading. RESULTS: In the three groups of high achievers, comprehension was the same (median of 26 out of a maximum of 30) and interpretation ranged from 21.5 to 23 with no group differences (Kruskal-Wallis test). The high achievers had significantly higher scores in reading and interpretation than the low achievers (U test p < 0.01). There was also a consistent higher score of comprehension over interpretation in the five groups (chi square of proportions p < 0.01) but the association of comprehension and interpretation was present only in three groups (high achievers in 1st and 3d year and low in 1st with correlations of Spearman ranging from 0.43 to 0.56). CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to detect any significant difference of years of medical training in the ability to comprehend or interpret medical information. We were able to detect differences in these abilities between high and low achievers.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]