Cited by 373Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsInnovations in Medical EducationMedical Education and Admissions

The Script Concordance Test: A Tool to Assess the Reflective Clinician

Charlin, Bernard, Roy, Louise, Brailovsky, Carlos, Goulet, Francois, van der Vleuten, Cees·2000·Teaching and Learning in Medicine

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

Crossref · 10.1207/s15328015tlm1204_5

Cites

2 of 2 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
Charlin, B., Roy, L., Brailovsky, C., Goulet, F., & van der Vleuten, C.
Affiliations
Université de Montréal (CA)
Venue
Teaching and Learning in Medicine
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