EDP Sciences logo
Authentification abonné
Rechercher
Menu
Accueil Tous les numéros Volume 16 / Numéro 4 (Novembre 2015) Pédagogie Médicale, 16 4 (2015) 205-217 Références
Accès gratuit
Numéro
Pédagogie Médicale
Volume 16, Numéro 4, Novembre 2015
Page(s) 205 - 217
Section Recherche et perspectives
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/pmed/2016018
Publié en ligne 30 mai 2016
  1. Higgs J, Jones MA. Clinical reasoning in the health professions (2nd ed.). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  2. Curry L, Wergin JF. Educating professionals: responding to new expectations for competence and accountability. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  3. Nendaz M, Charlin B, Leblanc V, Bordage G. Le raisonnement clinique: données issues de la recherche et implications pour l’enseignement. Pédagogie Médicale 2005;6:235-54. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  4. Ausubel DP, Novak JD, Hanesian H. Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bandura A. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  6. Vygotskij LS, Cole M. Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Nachdr. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bernard J, Reyes P. Apprendre, en médecine (1re partie). Pédagogie Médicale 2001;2:163-9. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  8. Piaget J. L’équilibration des structures cognitives. Paris : Presses Universitaires de France, 1975. [Google Scholar]
  9. Kaufman DM. ABC of learning and teaching in medicine: Applying educational theory in practice. BMJ 2003;25:213-6. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Harrison A, Glasgow N, Townsend T. Communication skills training early in the medical curriculum: The UAE experience. Med Teach 1996;18:35-41. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Humphris GM, Kaney S. Assessing the development of communication skills in undergraduate medical students. Med Educ 2001;35:225-31. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Knox JD, Bouchier IA. Communication skills teaching, learning and assessment. Med Educ 1985;19:285-9. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Poole AD, Sanson-Fisher RW. Understanding the patient: a neglected aspect of medical eduction. Soc Sci Med 1979;13:37-43. [Google Scholar]
  14. Cuenot S, Cochand P, Lanares J, Feihl F, Bonvin R, Guex P, et al. L’apport du patient simulé dans l’apprentissage de la relation médecin-malade : résultats d’une évaluation préliminaire. Pédagogie Médicale 2005;6:216-24. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cleland JA, Abe K, Rethans J-J. The use of simulated patients in medical education: AMEE Guide No 42. Med Teach 2009;31:477-86. [Google Scholar]
  16. Rethans J-J, Gorter S, Bokken L, Morrison L. Unannounced standardised patients in real practice: a systematic literature review. Med Educ 2007;41:537-49. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Vygotski L. Pensée et langage. Paris : Editions Sociales, 1985;32:44-6. [Google Scholar]
  18. Bruner JS. Acts of meaning. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  19. Berger PL, Luckmann T. The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor Books, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kopp KC, Johnson JA. Checklist agreement between standardized patients and faculty. J Dent Educ 1995;59:824-9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Finlay IG, Stott NC, Kinnersley P. The assessment of communication skills in palliative medicine: a comparison of the scores of examiners and simulated patients. Med Educ 1995;29:424-9. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Cooper C, Mira M. Who should assess medical students’ communication skills: their academic teachers or their patients? Med Educ 1998;32:419-21. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hodges B, McIlroy JH. Analytic global OSCE ratings are sensitive to level of training. Med Educ 2003;37:1012-6. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Rohrer D, Pashler H. Recent Research on Human Learning Challenges Conventional Instructional Strategies. Educ Res 2010;39:406-12. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  25. Peitzman SJ, Cuddy MM. Performance in Physical Examination on the USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skills Examination: Acad Med 2015;90:209-13. [Google Scholar]
  26. Messick S. Validity. In: Educational Measurement (3rd ed). American Council on Education and Macmillan. New York: RL Linn, 1989:13-104. [Google Scholar]
  27. American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington DC: AERA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  28. Pottier P, Hardouin J-B, Dejoie T, Castillo J-M, Le Loupp A-G, Planchon B, et al. Effect of Extrinsic and Intrinsic Stressors on Clinical Skills Performance in Third-Year Medical Students. J Gen Intern Med 2015;30:1259-69. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. LeBlanc VR, McConnell MM, Monteiro SD. Predictable chaos: a review of the effects of emotions on attention, memory and decision making. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2015;20:265-82. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Brauer DG, Ferguson KJ. The integrated curriculum in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 96. Med Teach 2015;37:312-22. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Chen R, Grierson LE, Norman GR. Evaluating the impact of high- and low-fidelity instruction in the development of auscultation skills. Med Educ 2015;49:276-85. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Collins JP, Harden RM. AMEE Medical Education Guide No. 13: real patients, simulated patients and simulators in clinical examinations. Med Teach 1998;20:508-21. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  33. Khan KZ, Gaunt K, Ramachandran S, Pushkar P. The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE): AMEE Guide No. 81. Part II: Organisation & Administration. Med Teach 2013;35:1447-63. [Google Scholar]

Les statistiques affichées correspondent au cumul d'une part des vues des résumés de l'article et d'autre part des vues et téléchargements de l'article plein-texte (PDF, Full-HTML, ePub... selon les formats disponibles) sur la platefome Vision4Press.

Les statistiques sont disponibles avec un délai de 48 à 96 heures et sont mises à jour quotidiennement en semaine.

Le chargement des statistiques peut être long.