Cited by 104Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsHealth Education and ValidationHealth Sciences Research and Education

The development and psychometric testing of a theory‐based instrument to evaluate nurses’ perception of clinical reasoning competence

Liou, Shwu‐Ru, Liu, Hsiu‐Chen, Tsai, Hsiu‐Min, Tsai, Ying‐Huang, Lin, Yu‐Ching, Chang, Chia‐Hao, Cheng, Ching‐Yu·2016·Journal of Advanced Nursing

Abstract

Aim: The purpose of the study was to develop and psychometrically test the Nurses Clinical Reasoning Scale. Background: Clinical reasoning is an essential skill for providing safe and quality patient care. Identifying pre‐graduates’ and nurses’ needs and designing training courses to improve their clinical reasoning competence becomes a critical task. However, there is no instrument focusing on clinical reasoning in the nursing profession. Design: Cross‐sectional design was used. This study included the development of the scale, a pilot study that preliminary tested the readability and reliability of the developed scale and a main study that implemented and tested the psychometric properties of the developed scale. Method: The Nurses Clinical Reasoning Scale was developed based on the Clinical Reasoning Model. The scale includes 15 items using a Likert five‐point scale. Data were collected from 2013–2014. Two hundred and fifty‐one participants comprising clinical nurses and nursing pre‐graduates completed and returned the questionnaires in the main study. The instrument was tested for internal consistency and test–retest reliability. Its validity was tested with content, construct and known‐groups validity. Results: One factor emerged from the factor analysis. The known‐groups validity was confirmed. The Cronbach's alpha for the entire instrument was 0·9. Conclusion: The reliability and validity of the Nurses Clinical Reasoning Scale were supported. The scale is a useful tool and can be easily administered for the self‐assessment of clinical reasoning competence of clinical nurses and future baccalaureate nursing graduates. Study limitations and further recommendations are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jan.12831

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liou, S., Liu, H., Tsai, H., Tsai, Y., Lin, Y., Chang, C., & Cheng, C.
Affiliations
  • Chang Gung University of Science and Technology (TW)
  • Chiayi Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (TW)
Corresponding author
Cheng, Ching‐Yu
Venue
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-10-12
Volume
72
Issue
3
Pages
707-717
ISSN
  • 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2648
OpenAlex
W2104387687
Cited by
104
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2016: 1
FWCI
2.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Advanced Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Chang-Gung Medical Research Program (CMRPF6C0041)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
clinical reasoning, scale development, psychometric properties, clinical reasoning model, clinical nurses, self-assessment, nursing competencies, instrument validation
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, China, Clinical Competence, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nurses, Pilot Projects, Psychometrics, Thinking, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review