The limits of this study are obvious. They include potential bias due to student attrition, focus on a
narrow intellectual domain in the medical basic sci- ences, and involvement of a narrow range of students
in two similar but not identical health professions. At this point it is premature to conclude how helpful
concept mapping may ultimately be in defining ex- actly how students and instructors store information
in physiology and other basic medical sciences 23. There is recognition, however, of the great variation
in how this information is stored. More studies are needed to uncover the sources of this variation.
Research is especially needed to determine whether variation in information storage is maintained when
the research context used to study pulmonary physiol- ogy or another system is constrained to limit con-
cept linkages.
This research was funded in part by grants from the Washington Square Health Foundation, the Charles E. Culpeper Foundation, and
the Bowman C. Lingle Trust. Earlier versions of this report were presented at the annual meeting
of the Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC, November 1997; the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Diego, CA, April 1998; and a meeting of the International Association of Medical Science Educators, Washing-
ton, DC, July 1999.
Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: W. C. McGaghie, Northwestern Univ. Medical School, Office of Medical
Education, 3–130 Ward Bldg., 303 E. Chicago Ave., Chicago, IL 60611-3008 E-mail: wcmcnorthwestern.edu.
Received 14 September 1999; accepted in final form 1 March 2000.
Refer ences
1. Acton WH, Johnson PJ, and Goldsmith TE. Structural
knowledge assessment: comparison of referent structures. J
Educ Psychol 86: 303–311, 1994.
2. Ar ocha JF, Patel VL, and Patel YC. Hypothesis generation and
the coordination of theory and evidence in novice diagnostic reasoning.
Med Dec Ma k ing 13: 198–211, 1993.
3. Bor dage G. Elaborated knowledge: a key to successful diagnos-
tic thinking. Aca d Med 69: 883–885, 1994.
4. Bor dage G and Lemieux M. Semantic structures and diagnos-
tic thinking of experts and novices. Aca d Med 66, Suppl:
S70–S72, 1991.
5. DeBliek R, McGaghie WC, and Donohue JF. Representation
of clinical case cues: a multidimensional scaling demonstration. In:
Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annua l Conference on Resea rch in Medica l Educa tion, compiled by Kerby S. Washing-
ton, DC: Assoc. Am. Med. Coll., 1984, p. 139–144.
6. Edmonson KM. Concept maps and the development of cases
for problem-based learning. Aca d Med 69: 108–110, 1994.
7. Ericsson KA and Simon HA. Protocol Ana lysis: Verba l
Reports a s Da ta . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1984.
8. Ericsson KA and Smith J. Prospects and limits of the
empirical study of expertise: an introduction. In: Towa rd a
Genera l Theory of Expertise, edited by Ericsson KA and Smith J. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1991, p. 1–38.
9. Forsythe GB, McGaghie WC, and Friedman CP. Construct
validity of medical clinical competence measures: a multitrait- multimethod matrix study using confirmatory factor analysis.
Am Educ Res J 23: 315–336, 1986.
10. Goldsmith TE and Davenport DM. Assessing structural
similarity of graphs. In: Pa thfinder Associa tive Network s:
Studies in Knowledge Orga niza tion, edited by Schvaneveldt RW. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1990, p. 75–87.
11. Goldsmith TE, Johnson PJ, and Acton WH. Assessing
structural knowledge. J Educ Psychol 83: 88–96, 1991.
12. Goldsmith TE and Kraiger K. Applications of structural
knowledge assessment to training evaluation. In: Im proving
Tra ining Effectiveness in Work Orga niza tions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997, p. 73–96.
13. Gonzalvo P, Can ˜ as JJ, and Bajo M-T. Structural representa-
tions in knowledge acquisition. J Educ Psychol 86: 601–616,
1994.
14. Harasym PH, Papa FJ, and Schumacker RE. The structure
of medical knowledge reflected in clinicians’ estimates of the probabilities of signssymptoms within diseases. In:
Adva nces in Medica l Educa tion, edited by Scherpbier AJJA, van der
Vleuten CPM, Rethans JJ, and van der Steeg AFW. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic, 1997, p. 602–607.
15. Johnson PJ, Goldsmith TE, and Teague KW. Similarity,
structure, and knowledge: a representational approach to assessment. In:
Cognitively Dia gnostic Assessm ent, edited by Nichols PD, Chipman SF, and Brennan RL. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum, 1995, p. 221–249.
16. Mahler S, Hoz R, Fischl D, Tov-ly E, and Ler nau OZ.
Didactic use of concept mapping in higher education: applica- tions in medical education.
Instr Sci 20: 25–47, 1991.
17. McGaghie WC, Boer ger RL, McCrimmon DR, and Ravitch MM. Agreement among medical experts about the structure of
concepts in pulmonary physiology. Aca d Med 69, Suppl:
S78–S80, 1994.
18. McGaghie WC, Boer ger RL, McCrimmon DR, and Ravitch MM. Learning pulmonary physiology: comparison of student
and faculty knowledge structures. Aca d Med 71, Suppl: S13–
S15, 1996.
19. McGaghie WC, McCrimmon DR, Thompson JA, Ravitch MM, and Mitchell G. Medical and veterinary student structural
knowledge of pulmonary physiology concepts. Aca d Med 75:
362–368, 2000.
20. Modell HI. Preparing students to participate in an active
