Acton WH, Johnson PJ, and Goldsmith TE. Structural Ar ocha JF, Patel VL, and Patel YC. Hypothesis generation and Bor dage G. Elaborated knowledge: a key to successful diagnos- Bor dage G and Lemieux M. Semantic structures and diagnos- DeBliek R, McGaghie

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