Cited by 34Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsHealth Sciences Research and EducationEducation and Critical Thinking Development

Clinical Reasoning: A State of the Science Report

Holder, Amy Golden·2018·International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship

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

Crossref · 10.1515/ijnes-2016-0024

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

Authors
Holder, A. G.
Affiliations
East Tennessee State University (US)
Corresponding author
Holder, Amy Golden
Venue
International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship
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