CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 51Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsInnovations in Medical EducationSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare

Evaluating the Clinical Reasoning of Student Health Professionals in Placement and Simulation Settings: A Systematic Review

Open access
Brentnall, Jennie, Thackray, Debbie, Judd, Belinda·2022·International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
DOI 10.3390/ijerph19020936PMC PMC8775520
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

(1) Background: Clinical reasoning is essential to the effective practice of autonomous health professionals and is, therefore, an essential capability to develop as students. This review aimed to systematically identify the tools available to health professional educators to evaluate students’ attainment of clinical reasoning capabilities in clinical placement and simulation settings. (2) Methods: A systemic review of seven databases was undertaken. Peer-reviewed, English-language publications reporting studies that developed or tested relevant tools were included. Searches included multiple terms related to clinical reasoning and health disciplines. Data regarding each tool’s conceptual basis and evaluated constructs were systematically extracted and analysed. (3) Results: Most of the 61 included papers evaluated students in medical and nursing disciplines, and over half reported on the Script Concordance Test or Lasater Clinical Judgement Rubric. A number of conceptual frameworks were referenced, though many papers did not reference any framework. (4) Conclusions: Overall, key outcomes highlighted an emphasis on diagnostic reasoning, as opposed to management reasoning. Tools were predominantly aligned with individual health disciplines and with limited cross-referencing within the field. Future research into clinical reasoning evaluation tools should build on and refer to existing approaches and consider contributions across professional disciplinary divides.

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 · 10.3390/ijerph19020936

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • The Lasater Clinical Judgement Rubric (LCJR) focuses on assessing clinical judgement, not the broader spectrum of nursing students' clinical reasoning.

    “The LCJR focuses on assessing clinical judgement, not the broader spectrum of nursing students’ clinical reasoning [19].”

    From Turkish adaptation of the clinical reasoning evaluation simulation tool (CREST-TR): a validity and reliability study (2025) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Results (§3.1) describe the LCJR as assessing nursing students’ clinical judgement. But the Discussion (§4.4; page not available in our copy) says the rubric addresses multiple components consistent with broad definitions of clinical reasoning, contrary to the claim that it does not assess that broader spectrum. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 86

  1. [1]McLaughlin J.E. Wolcott M.D. Hubbard D. Umstead K. Rider T.R. A qualitative review of the design thinking framework in health professions education BMC Med. Educ. 2019 19 98 10.1186/s12909-019-1528-8 30947748 PMC6449899 · DOI
  2. [2]Young M. Thomas A. Lubarsky S. Ballard T. Gordon D. Gruppen L.D. Holmboe E. Ratcliffe T. Rencic J. Schuwirth L. Drawing boundaries: The difficulty in defining clinical reasoning Acad. Med. 2018 93 990 995 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002142 29369086 · DOI
  3. [3]Huhn K. Gilliland S.J. Black L.L. Wainwright S.F. Christensen N. Clinical reasoning in physical therapy: A concept analysis Phys. Ther. 2019 99 440 456 10.1093/ptj/pzy148 30496522 · DOI
  4. [4]Simmons B. Clinical reasoning: Concept analysis J. Adv. Nurs. 2010 66 1151 1158 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05262.x 20337790 · DOI
  5. [5]Daniel M. Rencic J. Durning S.J. Holmboe E. Santen S.A. Lang V. Ratcliffe T. Gordon D. Heist B. Lubarsky S. Clinical reasoning assessment methods: A scoping review and practical guidance Acad. Med. 2019 94 902 912 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002618 30720527 · DOI
  6. [6]Durning S.J. Artino A.R. Jr. Schuwirth L. van der Vleuten C. Clarifying assumptions to enhance our understanding and assessment of clinical reasoning Acad. Med. 2013 88 442 448 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182851b5b 23425980 · DOI
  7. [7]Young M. Thomas A. Gordon D. Gruppen L.D. Lubarsky S. Rencic J. Ballard T. Holmboe E. Da Silva A. Ratcliffe T. The terminology of clinical reasoning in health professions education: Implications and considerations Med. Teach. 2019 41 1277 1284 10.1080/0142159X.2019.1635686 31314612 · DOI
  8. [8]Young M.E. Crystallizations of constructs: Lessons learned from a literature review Perspect. Med. Educ. 2018 7 21 23 10.1007/s40037-018-0422-0 29704168 PMC6002278 · DOI
  9. [9]Carter A.G. Creedy D.K. Sidebotham M. Evaluation of tools used to measure critical thinking development in nursing and midwifery undergraduate students: A systematic review Nurse Educ. Today 2015 35 864 874 10.1016/j.nedt.2015.02.023 25817987 · DOI
  10. [10]Macauley K. Brudvig T.J. Kadakia M. Bonneville M. Systematic review of assessments that evaluate clinical decision making, clinical reasoning, and critical thinking changes after simulation participation J. Phys. Ther. Educ. 2017 31 64 75 10.1097/JTE.0000000000000011 · DOI
  11. [11]Charlin B. Tardif J. Boshuizen H.P.A. Scripts and medical diagnostic knowledge: Theory and applications for clinical reasoning instruction and research Acad. Med. 2000 75 182 190 10.1097/00001888-200002000-00020 10693854 · DOI
  12. [12]Schmidt H.G. Norman G.R. Boshuizen H.P.A. A cognitive perspective on medical expertise: Theory and implications Acad. Med. 1990 65 611 621 10.1097/00001888-199010000-00001 2261032 · DOI
  13. [14]Kononowicz A.A. Hege I. Edelbring S. Sobocan M. Huwendiek S. Durning S.J. The need for longitudinal clinical reasoning teaching and assessment: Results of an international survey Med. Teach. 2020 42 457 462 10.1080/0142159X.2019.1708293 32017640 · DOI
  14. [15]Renic J. Schuwirth L. Gruppen L.D. Durning S.J. Clinical reasoning performance assessment: Using situated cognition theory as a conceptual framework Diagnosis 2020 7 241 249 10.1515/dx-2019-0051 32031971 · DOI
  15. [16]Charlin B. Roy L. Brailovsky C. Goulet F. van der Vleuten C. The Script Concordance Test: A tool to assess the reflective clinician Teach. Learn. Med. 2000 12 189 195 10.1207/S15328015TLM1204_5 11273368 · DOI · Paper page
  16. [17]Lasater K. Clinical judgment development: Using simulation to create an assessment rubric J. Nurs. Educ. 2007 46 496 503 18019107
  17. [18]Scheffer B.K. Rubenfeld M.G. A consensus statement on critical thinking in nursing J. Nurs. Educ. 2000 39 352 359 10.3928/0148-4834-20001101-06 11103973 · DOI
  18. [19]American Philosophical Association Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction California Academic Press Millbrae, CA, USA 1990
  19. [20]Allen G.D. Rubenfeld M.G. Scheffer B.K. Reliability of assessment of critical thinking J. Prof. Nurs. 2004 20 15 22 10.1016/j.profnurs.2003.12.004 15011189 · DOI
  20. [21]Carter A.G. Creedy D.K. Sidebotham M. Development and psychometric testing of the carter assessment of critical thinking in midwifery (preceptor/mentor version) Midwifery 2016 34 141 149 10.1016/j.midw.2015.12.002 26719194 · DOI
  21. [22]Carter A.G. Creedy D.K. Sidebotham M. Critical thinking skills in midwifery practice: Development of a self-assessment tool for students Midwifery 2017 50 184 192 10.1016/j.midw.2017.04.010 28472740 · DOI
  22. [23]Carter A.G. Creedy D.K. Sidebotham M. Measuring critical thinking in pre-registration midwifery students: A multi-method approach Nurse Educ. Today 2018 61 169 174 10.1016/j.nedt.2017.11.026 29216601 · DOI
  23. [24]Cise J.S. Wilson C.S. Thie M.J. A qualitative tool for critical thinking skill development Nurse Educ. 2004 29 147 151 10.1097/00006223-200407000-00009 15273593 · DOI
  24. [25]Shin H. Park C.G. Kim H. Validation of Yoon’s critical thinking disposition instrument Asian Nurs. Res. 2015 9 342 348 10.1016/j.anr.2015.10.004 26724244 · DOI
  25. [26]Roberts D. The clinical viva: An assessment of clinical thinking Nurse Educ. Today 2013 33 402 406 10.1016/j.nedt.2013.01.014 23428363 · DOI
  26. [27]Levett-Jones T. Gersbach J. Arthur C. Roche J. Implementing a clinical competency assessment model that promotes critical reflection and ensures nursing graduates’ readiness for practice Nurse Educ. Pract. 2011 11 64 69 10.1016/j.nepr.2010.07.004 20727825 · DOI
  27. [28]Roach K.E. Frost J.S. Francis N.J. Giles S. Nordrum J.T. Delitto A. Validation of the revised physical therapist clinical performance instrument (PT CPI): Version 2006 Phys. Ther. 2012 92 416 428 10.2522/ptj.20110129 22135710 · DOI
  28. [29]Brudvig T.J. Macauley K. Segal N. Measuring clinical decision-making and clinical skills in DPT students across a curriculum: Validating a new survey tool J. Allied Health 2017 46 21 26 28255593
  29. [30]Nguyen K. Ben Khallouq B. Schuster A. Beevers C. Dil N. Kay D. Kibble J.D. Harris D.M. Developing a tool for observing group critical thinking skills in first-year medical students: A pilot study using physiology-based, high-fidelity patient simulations Adv. Physiol. Educ. 2017 41 604 611 10.1152/advan.00126.2017 29138219 · DOI
  30. [32]Gee B.M. Thompson K. Strickland J. Miller L.J. The development of a measurement tool evaluating knowledge related to sensory processing among graduate occupational therapy students: A process description Occup. Ther. Int. 2017 2017 6713012 10.1155/2017/6713012 29097978 PMC5612670 · DOI
  31. [34]Baker E.A. Ledford C.H. Fogg L. Way D.P. Park Y.S. The IDEA assessment tool: Assessing the reporting, diagnostic reasoning, and decision-making skills demonstrated in medical students’ hospital admission notes Teach. Learn. Med. 2015 27 163 173 10.1080/10401334.2015.1011654 25893938 · DOI
  32. [35]Pangaro L. A new vocabulary and other innovations for improving descriptive in-training evaluations Acad. Med. 1999 74 1203 1207 10.1097/00001888-199911000-00012 10587681 · DOI
  33. [36]Kelly W. Durning S. Denton G. Comparing a script concordance examination to a multiple-choice examination on a core internal medicine clerkshi Teach. Learn. Med. 2012 24 187 193 10.1080/10401334.2012.692239 22775780 · DOI
  34. [37]Power A. Lemay J.F. Cooke S. Justify your answer: The role of written think aloud in script concordance testing Teach. Learn. Med. 2017 29 59 67 10.1080/10401334.2016.1217778 27662118 · DOI
  35. [38]Endsley M.R. Theoretical Underpinning of Situation Awareness: A Critical Review, in Situation Awareness Analysis and Measurement Endsley M.R. Garland D.J. Lawrence Erlbaum Mahwah, NJ, USA 2000 3 32
  36. [39]Lavoie P. Cossette S. Pepin J. Testing nursing students’ clinical judgment in a patient deterioration simulation scenario: Development of a situation awareness instrument Nurse Educ. Today 2016 38 61 67 10.1016/j.nedt.2015.12.015 26749458 · DOI
  37. [40]Gantt L.T. Using the clark simulation evaluation rubric with associate degree and baccalaureate nursing students Nurs. Educ. Perspect. 2010 31 101 105 20455367
  38. [41]Benner P. From Novice to Expert: Excellence and Power in Clinical Nursing Addison-Wesley Menlo Park, CA, USA 1984
  39. [43]Furze J. Gale J.R. Black L. Cochran T.M. Jensen G.M. Clinical reasoning: Development of a grading rubric for student assessment J. Phys. Ther. Educ. 2015 29 34 45 10.1097/00001416-201529030-00006 · DOI
  40. [45]O’Neill E.S. Dluhy N.M. Chin E. Modelling novice clinical reasoning for a computerized decision support system J. Adv. Nurs. 2005 49 68 77 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03265.x 15610383 · DOI
  41. [46]Bandura A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change Psychol. Rev. 1977 84 191 215 10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 847061 · DOI · Paper page
  42. [47]Bandura A. Social Learning Theory Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA 1977
  43. [48]White K.A. Development and validation of a tool to measure self-confidence and anxiety in nursing students during clinical decision making J. Nurs. Educ. 2014 53 14 22 10.3928/01484834-20131118-05 24256004 · DOI
  44. [49]Tanner C.A. Thinking like a nurse: A research-based model of clinical judgement in nursing J. Nurs. Educ. 2006 45 204 211 16780008
  45. [51]Levett-Jones T. Hoffman K. Dempsey J. Jeong S.Y.-S. Noble D. Norton C.A. Roche J. Hickey N. 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 30 515 520 10.1016/j.nedt.2009.10.020 19948370 · DOI · Paper page
  46. [52]Shin H. Park C.G. Shim K. The Korean version of the Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric: A validation study Nurse Educ. Today 2015 35 68 72 10.1016/j.nedt.2014.06.009 25034956 · DOI
  47. [53]Vreugdenhil J. Spek B. Development and validation of Dutch version of Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric in hospital practice: An instrument design study Nurse Educ. Today 2018 62 43 51 10.1016/j.nedt.2017.12.013 29289636 · DOI
  48. [54]Georg C. Karlgren K. Ulfvarson J. Jirwe M. Welin E. A rubric to assess students’ clinical reasoning when encountering virtual patients J. Nurs. Educ. 2018 57 408 415 10.3928/01484834-20180618-05 29958310 · DOI
  49. [55]Shin H. Shim K. Lee Y. Quinn L. Validation of a new assessment tool for a pediatric nursing simulation module J. Nurs. Educ. 2014 53 623 629 10.3928/01484834-20141023-04 25350903 · DOI
  50. [56]Kim S.J. Kim S. Kang K.A. Oh J. Lee M.N. Development of a simulation evaluation tool for assessing nursing students’ clinical judgment in caring for children with dehydration Nurse Educ. Today 2016 37 45 52 10.1016/j.nedt.2015.11.011 26652125 · DOI
  51. [57]Liaw S.Y. Rashasegaran A. Wong L.F. Deneen C.C. Cooper S. Levett-Jones T. Goh H.S. Ignacio J. Development and psychometric testing of a Clinical Reasoning Evaluation Simulation Tool (CREST) for assessing nursing students’ abilities to recognize and respond to clinical deterioration Nurse Educ. Today 2018 62 74 79 10.1016/j.nedt.2017.12.009 29306102 · DOI · Paper page
  52. [59]Chatterjee S. Ng J. Kwan K. Matsumoto E.D. Assessing the surgical decision making abilities of novice and proficient urologists J. Urol. 2009 181 2251 2256 10.1016/j.juro.2009.01.032 19296971 · DOI
  53. [60]Derakhshandeh Z. Amini M. Kojuri J. Dehbozorgian M. Psychometric characteristics of Clinical Reasoning Problems (CRPs) and its correlation with routine multiple choice question (MCQ) in Cardiology department J. Adv. Med. Educ. Prof. 2018 6 37 42 29344528 PMC5757155
  54. [61]Im S. Kim D.K. Kong H.H. Roh H.R. Oh Y.R. Seo J.H. Assessing clinical reasoning abilities of medical students using clinical performance examination Korean J. Med. Educ. 2016 28 35 47 10.3946/kjme.2016.8 26838567 PMC4926939 · DOI
  55. [62]Huwendiek S. Reichert F. Duncker C. de Leng B.A. van der Vleuten C. Muijtjens A.M. Bosse H.M. Haag M. Hoffmann G.F. Tonshoff B. Electronic assessment of clinical reasoning in clerkships: A mixed-methods comparison of long-menu key-feature problems with context-rich single best answer questions Med. Teach. 2017 39 476 485 10.1080/0142159X.2017.1297525 28281369 · DOI
  56. [63]Fida M. Kassab S.E. Do medical students’ scores using different assessment instruments predict their scores in clinical reasoning using a computer-based simulation? Adv. Med. Educ. Pract. 2015 6 135 141 10.2147/AMEP.S77459 25759603 PMC4345894 · DOI
  57. [64]Beullens J. Struyf E. Van Damme B. Do extended matching multiple-choice questions measure clinical reasoning? Med. Educ. 2005 39 410 417 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02089.x 15813764 · DOI
  58. [65]Courteille O. Bergin R. Stockeld D. Ponzer S. Fors U. The use of a virtual patient case in an OSCE-based exam—A pilot study Med. Teach. 2008 30 e66 e76 10.1080/01421590801910216 18484444 · DOI
  59. [66]Berger A.J. Gillespie C.C. Tewksbury L.R. Overstreet I.M. Tsai M.C. Kalet A.L. Ogilvie J.B. Assessment of medical student clinical reasoning by “lay” vs. physician raters: Inter-rater reliability using a scoring guide in a multidisciplinary objective structured clinical examination Am. J. Surg. 2012 203 81 86 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2011.08.003 22172486 · DOI
  60. [67]Tutticci N. Lewis P.A. Coyer F. Measuring third year undergraduate nursing students’ reflective thinking skills and critical reflection self-efficacy following high fidelity simulation: A pilot study Nurse Educ. Pract. 2016 18 52 59 10.1016/j.nepr.2016.03.001 27235566 · DOI
  61. [68]Smith S. Kogan J.R. Berman N.B. Dell M.S. Brock D.M. Robins L.S. The development and preliminary validation of a rubric to assess medical students’ written summary statements in virtual patient cases Acad. Med. 2016 91 94 100 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000800 26726864 · DOI
  62. [69]Fleiszer D. Hoover M.L. Posel N. Razek T. Bergman S. Development and validation of a tool to evaluate the evolution of clinical reasoning in trauma using virtual patients J. Surg. Educ. 2018 75 779 786 10.1016/j.jsurg.2017.08.024 28927667 · DOI
  63. [70]Adamson K.A. Rater bias in simulation performance assessment: Examining the effect of participant race/ethnicity Nurs. Educ. Perspect. 2016 37 78 82 27209865
  64. [71]Adamson K.A. Kardong-Edgren S. A method and resources for assessing the reliability of simulation evaluation instruments Nurs. Educ. Perspect. 2012 33 334 339 10.5480/1536-5026-33.5.334 23061193 · DOI
  65. [72]Ashcraft A.S. Opton L. Bridges R.A. Caballero S. Veesart A. Weaver C. Simulation evaluation using a modified Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric Nurs. Educ. Perspect. 2013 34 122 126 23763027
  66. [73]Bussard M.E. Evaluation of clinical judgment in prelicensure nursing students Nurse Educ. 2018 43 106 108 10.1097/NNE.0000000000000432 28817474 · DOI
  67. [74]Manetti W. Evaluating the clinical judgment of prelicensure nursing students in the clinical setting Nurse Educ. 2018 43 272 276 10.1097/NNE.0000000000000489 29240015 · DOI
  68. [75]Strickland H.P. Cheshire M.H. March A.L. Clinical judgment during simulation: A comparison of student and faculty scores Nurs. Educ. Perspect. 2017 38 85 86 10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000000109 29194302 · DOI
  69. [76]Roman-Cereto M. Garcia-Mayor S. Kaknani-Uttumchandani S. Garcia-Gamez M. Leon-Campos A. Fernandez-Ordonez E. Ruiz-Garcia M.L. Marti-Garcia C. Lopez-Leiva I. Lasater K. Cultural adaptation and validation of the Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric in nursing students in Spain Nurse Educ. Today 2018 64 71 78 10.1016/j.nedt.2018.02.002 29459195 · DOI
  70. [79]Boulouffe C. Doucet B. Muschart X. Charlin B. Vanpee D. Assessing clinical reasoning using a script concordance test with electrocardiogram in an emergency medicine clerkship rotation Emerg. Med. J. 2014 31 313 316 10.1136/emermed-2012-201737 23539495 · DOI
  71. [80]Goos M. Schubach F. Seifert G. Boeker M. Validation of undergraduate medical student script concordance test (SCT) scores on the clinical assessment of the acute abdomen BMC Surg. 2016 16 57 10.1186/s12893-016-0173-y 27535826 PMC4989333 · DOI
  72. [81]Humbert A.J. Besinger B. Miech E.J. Assessing clinical reasoning skills in scenarios of uncertainty: Convergent validity for a script concordance test in an emergency medicine clerkship and residency Acad. Emerg. Med. 2011 18 627 634 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01084.x 21676061 · DOI
  73. [82]Kania R.E. Verillaud B. Tran H. Gagnon R. Kazitani D. Tran Ba Huy P. Herman P. Charlin B. Online script concordance test for clinical reasoning assessment in otorhinolaryngology: The association between performance and clinical experience Arch. Otolaryngol.-Head Neck Surg. 2011 137 751 755 10.1001/archoto.2011.106 21844407 · DOI
  74. [83]Kazour F. Richa S. Zoghbi M. El-Hage W. Haddad F.G. Using the Script Concordance Test to evaluate clinical reasoning skills in psychiatry Acad. Psychiatry 2017 41 86 90 10.1007/s40596-016-0539-6 27178278 · DOI
  75. [84]Lambert C. Gagnon R. Nguyen D. Charlin B. The Script Concordance Test in radiation oncology: Validation study of a new tool to assess clinical reasoning Radiat. Oncol. 2009 4 7 10.1186/1748-717X-4-7 19203358 PMC2644322 · DOI
  76. [85]Ruiz J.G. Tunuguntla R. Charlin B. Ouslander J.G. Symes S.N. Gagnon R. Phancao F. Roos B.A. The Script Concordance Test as a measure of clinical reasoning skills in geriatric urinary incontinence J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2010 58 2178 2184 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.03136.x 21054299 · DOI
  77. [86]Sibert L. Charlin B. Corcos J. Gagnon R. Lechevallier J. Grise P. Assessment of clinical reasoning competence in urology with the Script Concordance Test: An exploratory study across two sites from different countries Eur. Urol. 2002 41 227 233 10.1016/S0302-2838(02)00053-2 12180220 · DOI
  78. [87]Sibert L. Darmoni S.J. Dahamna B. Hellot M.F. Weber J. Charlin B. On line clinical reasoning assessment with Script Concordance Test in urology: Results of a French pilot study BMC Med. Educ. 2006 6 45 10.1186/1472-6920-6-45 16938134 PMC1574298 · DOI
  79. [88]Subra J. Chicoulaa B. Stillmunkes A. Mesthe P. Oustric S. Rouge Bugat M.E. Reliability and validity of the Script Concordance Test for postgraduate students of general practice Eur. J. Gen. Pract. 2017 23 208 213 10.1080/13814788.2017.1358709 28819998 PMC5806088 · DOI
  80. [89]Wan M.S. Tor E. Hudson J.N. Improving the validity of script concordance testing by optimising and balancing items Med. Educ. 2018 52 336 346 10.1111/medu.13495 29318646 · DOI
  81. [90]Groves M. Dick M.L. McColl G. Bilszta J. Analysing clinical reasoning characteristics using a combined methods approach BMC Med. Educ. 2013 13 144 10.1186/1472-6920-13-144 24165290 PMC4231458 · DOI · Paper page
  82. [91]Gagnon R. Charlin B. Lambert C. Carriere B. van der Vleuten C. Script concordance testing: More cases or more questions? Adv. Health Sci. Educ. 2009 14 367 375 10.1007/s10459-008-9120-8 18481187 · DOI
  83. [92]Dawson T. Comer L. Kossick M.A. Neubrander J. Can script concordance testing be used in nursing education to accurately assess clinical reasoning skills? J. Nurs. Educ. 2014 53 281 286 10.3928/01484834-20140321-03 24641082 · DOI
  84. [93]Funk K.A. Kolar C. Schweiss S.K. Tingen J.M. Janke K.K. Experience with the script concordance test to develop clinical reasoning skills in pharmacy students Curr. Pharm. Teach. Learn. 2017 9 1031 1041 10.1016/j.cptl.2017.07.021 29233371 · DOI
  85. [94]Cook D.A. Durning S.J. Sherbino J. Gruppen L.D. Management reasoning: Implications for health professions educators and a research agenda Acad. Med. 2019 94 1310 1316 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002768 31460922 · DOI
  86. [95]Boshuizen H.P.A. Schmidt H.G. The development of clinical reasoning expertise Clinical Reasoning in the Health Professions Higgs J. Jones M.A. Loftus S. Christensen N. Elsevier Edinburgh, UK 2019 57 66

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brentnall, J., Thackray, D., & Judd, B.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • University of Southampton (GB)
Corresponding author
Brentnall, Jennie
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2022-01-14
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
936
ISSN
1660-4601 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/ijerph19020936
PMC
PMC8775520
OpenAlex
W4206538831
Cited by
51
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 3
FWCI
2.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (acceptedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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 › Physiology › Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Keywords
clinical reasoning, clinical reasoning assessment, assessment instruments, health professions education, clinical practicum, simulation-based education, script concordance test, diagnostic reasoning, medical students, nursing students, clinical judgment
MeSH terms
Clinical Reasoning, Clinical Competence, Health Personnel, Humans, Students, Students, Nursing

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