Is the Cognitive Complexity of Commitment-to-Change Statements Associated With Change in Clinical Practice? An Application of Bloom's Taxonomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study categorizes 4 practice change options, including commitment-to-change (CTC) statements using Bloom's taxonomy to explore the relationship between a hierarchy of CTC statements and implementation of changes in practice. Our hypothesis was that deeper learning would be positively associated with implementation of planned practice changes. METHODS: Thirty-five family physicians were recruited from existing practice-based small learning groups. They were asked to use their usual small-group process while exploring an educational module on peripheral neuropathy. Part of this process included the completion of a practice reflection tool (PRT) that incorporates CTC statements containing a broader set of practice change options-considering change, confirmation of practice, and not convinced a change is needed ("enhanced" CTC). The statements were categorized using Bloom's taxonomy and then compared to reported practice implementation after 3 months. RESULTS: Nearly all participants made a CTC statement and successful practice implementation at 3 months. By using the "enhanced" CTC options, additional components that contribute to practice change were captured. Unanticipated changes accounted for one-third of all successful changes. Categorizing statements on the PRT using Bloom's taxonomy highlighted the progression from knowledge/comprehension to application/analysis to synthesis/evaluation. All PRT statements were classified in the upper 2 levels of the taxonomy, and these higher-level (deep learning) statements were related to higher levels of practice implementation. CONCLUSION: The "enhanced" CTC options captured changes that would not otherwise be identified and may be worthy of further exploration in other CME activities. Using Bloom's taxonomy to code the PRT statements proved useful in highlighting the progression through increasing levels of cognitive complexity-reflecting deep learning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".