Reasoning when it counts: students' rationales for action on a professionalism exam.
BACKGROUND
Previous research explored students' reasoning in the face of professional dilemmas, using interviews in response to videotaped scenarios. This study determined the effects of a change in context (to a written exam) and format (video versus text scenarios) on students' response patterns.


METHODS
Fifty-three students were randomized to videotaped or text-based scenarios in the context of a mock written exam. Responses were coded by two raters.


RESULTS
Interrater reliability was high (kappa = 0.872). There were no differences in response patterns between the video and text groups. When compared with the interview setting, students' exam responses showed a shift towards more "acceptable" rationales for action; however, they still considered implications for themselves.


CONCLUSIONS
This shift in responses indicates that students took the exam seriously. Their continued reference to implications for themselves might therefore reflect a sense that their status as students makes these considerations legitimate; alternatively, students' interpretation of altruism may be different than what the profession avows.
Ginsburg
Shiphra R
SR
shiphra.ginsburg@utoronto.ca
Regehr
Glenn
G
Mylopoulos
Maria
M
D002983:Clinical Competence / Q000592:standards*; D004504:Education, Medical, Undergraduate / Q000379:methods*; D004521:Educational Measurement / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D009042:Motivation; D011340:Problem Solving; D013337:Students, Medical / Q000523:psychology*; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D014741:Video Recording