Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Feb 11;25(1):221.
doi: 10.1186/s12909-025-06784-w.

Enhancing clinical reasoning skills in medical students through team-based learning: a mixed-methods study

Affiliations

Enhancing clinical reasoning skills in medical students through team-based learning: a mixed-methods study

Kosuke Ishizuka et al. BMC Med Educ. .

Abstract

Background: Clinical reasoning skills are essential competencies for medical students; therefore, effective, evidence-informed teaching methodologies are needed worldwide. This study investigated the benefits of team-based learning (TBL) for developing the skills in medical students.

Method: A mixed-methods sequential explanatory design was used to investigate the effectiveness of TBL for medical students acquiring clinical reasoning skills. The study participants comprised 92 fourth-year medical students at Yokohama City University School of Medicine, participating in TBL sessions that covered 10 major clinical symptoms identified in the core curriculum. Each session lasted 240 min. Before and after the educational intervention, student performance was measured using the script concordance test (SCT) on a 30-point scale, and self-assessed clinical reasoning competency was measured on a 7-point Likert scale. The SCT included pre-tests and post-tests of 30 questions each, with students randomly assigned to one of two test sets. Following the quantitative evaluation, a qualitative content analysis was conducted to explore the advantages of TBL for learning clinical reasoning skills. The analytic categories were set according to the six levels of Fink's taxonomy of significant learning.

Result: Student performance improved significantly after the educational intervention (A test: 16.5 ± 4.4 to 18.7 ± 4.5, p = 0.019; B test: 18.1 ± 3.7 to 19.8 ± 4.4, p = 0.028). After the educational intervention, self-assessed clinical reasoning competency was significantly higher in "recalling appropriate physical examination and tests on clinical hypothesis generation," "recalling appropriate differential diagnosis from patient's chief complaint," "verbalizing points that fit/don't fit the recalled differential diagnosis appropriately," "verbalizing and reflecting appropriately on own mistakes," "selecting keywords from the whole aspect of the patient," and "practicing the appropriate clinical reasoning process" (all p < 0.001). The content analysis extracted 23 subcategories and 233 codes of the advantages of TBL for learning clinical reasoning skills, covering all six levels of Fink's taxonomy of significant learning: Foundational knowledge (7 codes); Application (40 codes); Integration (69 codes); Human dimension (89 codes); Caring (8 codes); and Learning how to learn (20 codes).

Conclusion: This study demonstrates that TBL supports the acquisition of critical clinical reasoning skills among medical students.

Keywords: Clinical reasoning; Fink’s taxonomy; Script concordance test; Team-based learning.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Consent for publication: Informed consent from all subjects for publication of identifying information in an online open-access publication was obtained. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests. Declarations: None. Ethical approval and consent to participate: This research was performed following the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethics committee/Institutional Review Board Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine (Yokohama, Japan). The researchers explained to the participants and obtained their informed and voluntary consent. Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they do not have any conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Visual diagram (Mixed-methods, sequential explanatory design)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The steps in the TBL course
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
The SCT included pre-tests and post-tests of 30 questions each, with students randomly assigned to one of two test sets
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Performance evaluation based on SCT

References

    1. Kassirer JP. Teaching clinical reasoning: case-based and coached. Acad Med. 2010;85:1118–24. - PubMed
    1. Groves M, O’Rourke P, Alexander H. Clinical reasoning: the relative contribution of identification, interpretation and hypothesis errors to misdiagnosis. Med Teach. 2003;25:621–5. - PubMed
    1. Committee on Diagnostic Error in Health Care; Board on Health Care Services; Institute of Medicine. In: Balogh EP, Miller BT, Ball JR, editors. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Improving diagnosis in Health Care. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2015. - PubMed
    1. Cooper N, Bartlett M, Gay S, Hammond A, Lillicrap M, Matthan J, Singh M. UK Clinical reasoning in Medical Education (CReME) consensus statement group. Consensus statement on the content of clinical reasoning curricula in undergraduate medical education. Med Teach. 2021;43:152–9. - PubMed
    1. Daniel M, Rencic J, Durning SJ, et al. Clinical reasoning Assessment methods: a scoping review and practical Guidance. Acad Med. 2019;94:902–12. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources