CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 28Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsHealthcare Education and Workforce IssuesHealth Education and Validation

Development of the clinical reasoning competency scale for nurses

Open access
Bae, Juyeon, Lee, JuHee, Choi, Mona, Jang, Yeonsoo, Park, Chang Gi, Lee, Young Joo·2023·BMC Nursing
DOI 10.1186/s12912-023-01244-6PMC PMC10126534
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Clinical reasoning is emphasized as an important component of nursing education, since nurses’ lack of clinical reasoning leads to incorrect clinical decision-making. Therefore, a tool for measuring clinical reasoning competency needs to be developed. Methods: This methodological study was conducted to develop the Clinical Reasoning Competency Scale (CRCS) and examine its psychometric properties. The attributes and preliminary items of the CRCS were developed based on a systematic literature review and in-depth interviews. The validity and reliability of the scale were evaluated among nurses. Results: The exploratory factor analysis was conducted for the construct validation. The total explained variance of the CRCS was 52.62%. The CRCS consists of 8 items for plan setting, 11 items for intervention strategy regulation, and 3 items for self-instruction. The Cronbach’s α of the CRCS was 0.92. Criterion validity was verified with the Nurse Clinical Reasoning Competence (NCRC). The correlation between the total NCRC and CRCS scores was 0.78, all of which were significant correlations. Conclusion: The CRCS is expected to provide raw scientific and empirical data for various intervention programs to develop and improve nurses’ clinical reasoning competency.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12912-023-01244-6

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. [1]Juma S Goldszmidt M What physicians reason about during admission case review Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2017 22 691 711 10.1007/s10459-016-9701-x 27469243 PMC5498615 · DOI
  2. [2]Soh M Konopasky A Durning SJ Ramani D McBee E Ratcliffe T Sequence matters: patterns in task-based clinical reasoning Diagnosis (Berl) 2020 7 281 9 10.1515/dx-2019-0095 32324158 · DOI
  3. [3]Benner P From novice to expert Am J Nurs 1982 82 402 7 6917683
  4. [4]Levett-Jones T Hoffman K Dempsey J Jeong SY Noble D Norton CA The ‘five rights’ of clinical reasoning: an educational model to enhance nursing students’ ability to identify and manage clinically ‘at risk’ patients Nurse Educ Today 2010 30 515 20 10.1016/j.nedt.2009.10.020 19948370 · DOI · Paper page
  5. [5]American Nurses Association Nursing: scope and standards of practice 2015 3 Silver Spring American Nurses Association 27305802
  6. [6]Victor-Chmil J Critical thinking versus clinical reasoning versus clinical judgment: differential diagnosis Nurse Educ 2013 38 34 6 10.1097/NNE.0b013e318276dfbe 23222632 · DOI
  7. [7]Schraw G Dennison RS Assessing metacognitive awareness Contemp Educ Psychol 1994 19 460 75 10.1006/ceps.1994.1033 · DOI · Paper page
  8. [8]Kuiper RA Pesut DJ Promoting cognitive and metacognitive reflective reasoning skills in nursing practice: self-regulated learning theory J Adv Nurs 2004 45 381 91 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02921.x 14756832 · DOI · Paper page
  9. [9]Simmons B Clinical reasoning: concept analysis J Adv Nurs 2010 66 1151 8 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05262.x 20337790 · DOI
  10. [10]Holder AG Clinical reasoning: a state of the science report Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh 2018 15 20160024 10.1515/ijnes-2016-0024 30403653 · DOI · Paper page
  11. [12]Lee J Lee YJ Bae J Seo M Registered nurses’ clinical reasoning skills and reasoning process: a think-aloud study Nurse Educ Today 2016 46 75 80 10.1016/j.nedt.2016.08.017 27611485 · DOI
  12. [13]Hur HK Song HY Effects of simulation-based clinical reasoning education and evaluation of perceived education practices and simulation design characteristics by students nurses J Korea Contents Assoc 2015 15 206 18 10.5392/JKCA.2015.15.03.206 · DOI
  13. [14]Hur HK Roh YS Effects of a simulation based clinical reasoning practice program on clinical competence in nursing students Korean J Adult Nurs 2013 25 574 84 10.7475/kjan.2013.25.5.574 · DOI
  14. [15]Lee J Lee Y Lee S Bae J Effects of high-fidelity patient simulation led clinical reasoning course: focused on nursing core competencies, problem solving, and academic self-efficacy Jpn J Nurs Sci 2016 13 20 8 10.1111/jjns.12080 26011663 · DOI
  15. [16]Kang M Song YH Park SH Relationships among metacognition, flow, interactions and problem solving ability in web-based problem based learning J Res Curric Instr 2008 12 293 315 10.24231/rici.2008.12.2.293 · DOI
  16. [17]DeVellis RF Scale development: theory and applications 2016 4 Los Angeles SAGE Publications, Inc
  17. [18]Kuiper R. The effect of prompted self-regulated learning strategies in a clinical nursing preceptorship [master’s thesis]. Columbia (SC): University of South Carolina; 1999. 179 p.
  18. [20]Tian J Atkinson NL Portnoy B Lowitt NR The development of a theory-based instrument to evaluate the effectiveness of continuing medical education Acad Med 2010 85 1518 25 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181eac3fb 20736680 · DOI
  19. [24]Joung J Han JW Validity and reliability of a korean version of nurse clinical reasoning competence scale J Korea Acad Ind Coop Soc 2017 18 304 10 10.5762/KAIS.2017.18.4.304 · DOI
  20. [25]Schraw G Graham T Helping gifted students develop metacognitive awareness Roeper Rev 1997 20 4 8 10.1080/02783199709553842 · DOI
  21. [26]Zimmerman BJ Becoming a self-regulated learner: which are the key subprocesses? Contemp Educ Psychol 1986 11 307 13 10.1016/0361-476X(86)90027-5 · DOI
  22. [29]Ferketich S Focus on psychometrics. Aspects of item analysis Res Nurs Health 1991 14 165 8 10.1002/nur.4770140211 2047538 · DOI
  23. [31]Choi EJ Relationships between metacognition, problem solving process, and debriefing experience in simulation as problem-based learning (S-PBL) J Korea Contents Assoc 2016 16 459 69 10.5392/JKCA.2016.16.01.459 · DOI
  24. [32]Suh YJ Bae JY Lee JH Factors related to the undergraduate nursing students’ metacognition J Korea Converg Soc 2019 10 523 32 10.15207/JKCS.2019.10.11.523 · DOI
  25. [33]Son LK Schwartz BL Perfect TJ Schwartz BL The relation between metacognitive monitoring and control Applied metacognition 2002 Cambridge Cambridge University Press 15 38
  26. [34]Paul R Pintrich PR Boekaerts M Pintrich PR Zeidner M Chapter 14 - the role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning Handbook of self-regulation 2000 San Diego Academic Press 451 502
  27. [35]Nunnally JC Bernstein IH Psychometric theory 1994 3 New York McGraw-Hill

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bae, J., Lee, J., Choi, M., Jang, Y., Park, C. G., & Lee, Y. J.
Affiliations
  • Konkuk University (KR)
  • Yonsei University (KR)
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
  • Daegu Catholic University (KR)
Corresponding author
Lee, JuHee
ORCID
Venue
BMC Nursing
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2023-04-25
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
138-138
ISSN
1472-6955 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12912-023-01244-6
PMC
PMC10126534
OpenAlex
W4366988575
Cited by
28
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 1
FWCI
8.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Nursing (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • YUHSpace (Yonsei University Medical Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Mo-Im Kim Nursing Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Nursing
  • Seoul Nurses Association
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Leadership and Management › Healthcare Education and Workforce Issues
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
clinical reasoning, nursing competency assessment, scale development, psychometric properties, clinical decision-making, self-education

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