The Script Concordance Test: A Tool to Assess the Reflective Clinician
Abstract
Background The Script Concordance (SC) test is a new assessment tool. It is designed to probe whether knowledge of examinees is efficiently organized for clinical actions. That kind of organization of knowledge is named a script. The SC test places examinees in written, but authentic, clinical situations in which they must interpret data to make decisions. Purpose The SC test is designed to measure the degree of concordance that exists between examinees' scripts and scripts of a panel of experts. The objective of this article is to provide interested educators with the practical "how to" information needed to build and use an SC test. Methods The theoretical background of the SC test is described. The principles of construction of an SC test are presented, including the writing of clinical cases, the choice of item format, the validation of the test, and the elaboration of the scoring system. Results A series of studies have shown that the SC test has interesting psychometric properties, in terms of reliability, face validity, and construct validity. Results from these studies are succinctly presented and commented. Conclusion The SC test is a simple and direct approach to testing organization and use of knowledge. It has the strong advantage for a testing method of being relatively easy to construct and use and to be machine-scorable. It can be either paper- or computer-based and can be used in undergraduate, postgraduate, or continuing medical education.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The script concordance test (SCT) is designed primarily for diagnostic medical scenarios and scores examinees based on their agreement with expert panel answers.
“The SCT is designed primarily for diagnostic medical scenarios, scoring examinees based on their agreement with expert panel answers.”
From Turkish adaptation of the clinical reasoning evaluation simulation tool (CREST-TR): a validity and reliability study (2025) · cites this paper as [20]
Cites
Medical Problem Solving: An Analysis of Clinical Reasoning
Elstein, A. S., Shulman, L. S., & Sprafka, S. A. (1978) · doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674189089 · Cited by 1,377 · see citing works
The assessment of professional competence: Developments, research and practical implications
Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M. (1996) · Advances in Health Sciences Education · doi:10.1007/bf00596229 · Cited by 1,247 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Assessment in medical education
Epstein, R. M. (2007) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra054784 · Cited by 1,872 · see citing works
Research in clinical reasoning: past history and current trends
Norman, G. (2005) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02127.x · Cited by 1,018 · see citing works
The Role of Large Language Models in Medical Education: Applications and Implications
Safranek, C. W., Sidamon-Eristoff, A. E., Gilson, A., & Chartash, D. (2023) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/50945 · Cited by 233 · see citing works
Analysing clinical reasoning characteristics using a combined methods approach.
Groves, M., Dick, M.-L., McColl, G., & Bilszta, J. (2013) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/1472-6920-13-144 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Bayzat, C., & Dinc, L. (2025) · BMC Nursing · doi:10.1186/s12912-025-03503-0 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Charlin, B., Roy, L., Brailovsky, C., Goulet, F., & van der Vleuten, C.
- Affiliations
- Université de Montréal (CA)
- Venue
- Teaching and Learning in Medicine
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2000-10
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 189-195
- ISSN
- 1040-1334 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-8015
- OpenAlex
- W2080818078
- Cited by
- 373
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 6.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Teaching and Learning in Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Medical Education and Admissions
- Keywords
- script concordance test, reflective practice, clinical reasoning, knowledge organization, clinical decision-making, test development, clinical case writing, item format, test validation, scoring system, psychometric properties, medical education assessment, continuing medical education
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Educational Measurement, Female, Humans, Research, 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