To determine the effectivenss of “clinical clerkship (CC)” in undergraduate clinical training, a questionaire was sent to 105 students who had received the classical bed side teaching (BST) in 1990 and to 103 who have received CC from 1992 through 1994. The effectiveness of clinical training was pointed out by 53, 7% of group BST and 61.8% of group CC. The numbers of effectively learned items were larger in the order of psychomotor, affective and cognitive domains in the group BST, while there were in the order of affective, psychomotor and cognitive domains the group CC, indicating that CC is more effective in learning in the affective domain than BST (p<0.01). In the affective domain, students learned by observing physicians' attitudes to patients in BST, while they learned through their own personal interactions with their assigned patients in CC. CC is therefore believed to be quite effective for students to learn humanistic attitudes.

Learning of humanistic attitudes in undergraduate medical education is increasingly expected to provide holistic care and comprehensive medical service. However, there has been no report that deals with doctors' attitudes toward patients in relation to the educational subject. Medical students, who had been implemented a clinical clerkship for two months, evaluated doctors' attitudes by questionnairs after clerkship. They scored by checklists and rating scales. In this article, we report the views of medical students on doctors' attitudes, and discuss important points for the success of the learning attitudes during undergraduate educational prosses.

We evaluated our undergraduate clinical clerkship system in 1992, using the multiplication method advocated by the Working Group on “Evaluation of clinical skills of medical students ” of the Japan Society for Medical Education. We divided the clinical training period into three terms: the first term was held from May through June, the second from September through October, and the third from December through January. We determined scores using checklists and rating scales in ten categories, totalled the scores for each period, and compared them between periods. The total scores for the third period were the highest, followed by those for the second period. Scores for basic knowledge, data gathering, and basic technical procedures increased with increase in the number of training hours. However, scores for manner, attitude, and interviewing skills were already high in the first period. We conclude that the multiplication method is useful for objectively evaluating students' clinical skills.