Clinical Reasoning: A State of the Science Report
Abstract
Clinical reasoning is the cognitive process that nurses use to gather and incorporate information into a larger bank of personal knowledge. This incorporated information guides therapeutic actions, and helps determine client care. Since the process guides therapeutic actions regarding client care, failure to use the process effectively leads to poor clinical decision-making, inappropriate actions, or inaction. Because of the criticality of this process, this paper presents an analysis of the literature that reveals the current state of the science of clinical reasoning, identifies gaps in knowledge, and elucidates areas for future research. A systematic review of the databases the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsychInfo, the Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson), and PubMed revealed 873 articles on the topic of clinical reasoning. Quality appraisal narrowed the field to 27 pieces of literature. Appendix A gives the State of the Science Coding Sheet used to identify the selections used in this research. Appendix B contains a summary of this literature. Although analysis of this literature shows that three theories exist on how to utilize most effectively the clinical reasoning process presently; a clear consistent definition is lacking. Additional research should focus on closing gaps that exist in defining the process, understanding the process, establishing linkages to non-clinical reasoning processes, and developing measures to both develop and accurately measure clinical reasoning.
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 NCRS consists of 15 items based on the clinical reasoning model and lacks metacognitive attributes that assess the cognitive process in problem-solving.
“The NCRS, which consists of 15 items based on the clinical reasoning model, lacks metacognitive attributes that assess the cognitive process in problem-solving, which is crucial for clinical reasoning competence [23].”
From Turkish adaptation of the clinical reasoning evaluation simulation tool (CREST-TR): a validity and reliability study (2025) · cites this paper as [23]
Cites
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
Liou, S., Liu, H., Tsai, H., Tsai, Y., Lin, Y., Chang, C., & Cheng, C. (2016) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/jan.12831 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bayzat, C., & Dinc, L. (2025) · BMC Nursing · doi:10.1186/s12912-025-03503-0 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Holder, A. G.
- Affiliations
- East Tennessee State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Holder, Amy Golden
- Venue
- International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- Published
- 2018-01-01
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 1548-923X (ISSN-L)
- 2194-5772
- OpenAlex
- W2899989091
- Cited by
- 34
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 0.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Digital Commons - East Tennessee State University (East Tennessee State University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Education and Critical Thinking Development
- Keywords
- clinical reasoning, clinical decision-making, nursing knowledge, research gaps
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Competence, Clinical Protocols, Humans, Nurse Practitioners, Nursing Assessment, Patient Care Planning, Professional Autonomy, Nurse's Role
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