ArticleThe European journal of general practice2017
Reliability and validity of the script concordance test for postgraduate students of general practice.
Article in The European journal of general practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluating the Clinical Reasoning of Student Health Professionals in Placement and Simulation Settings: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Effect of structured preceptorship on clinical reasoning of pediatric residents in Indonesia: a randomized controlled trial.Korean journal of medical education · 2026Trial
- Modified endocrinology script concordance test: evaluating the reliability and construct validity for assessing clinical reasoning.Singapore medical journal · 2026Article
- Observational
- Evaluating clinical reasoning in first year DPT students using a script concordance test.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Reliability of a script agreement test for undergraduate speech-language therapy students.CoDAS · 2023Article
- Initial validation of a script concordance test to measure the development of clinical reasoning among physical therapy residents.Journal of clinical education in physical therapy · 2023Article
- Assessing clinical reasoning in airway related cases among anesthesiology fellow residents using Script Concordance Test (SCT).Medical education online · 2022Article
- Teaching emergency situations during a psychiatry residency programme using a blended learning approach: a pilot study.BMC medical education · 2021Article
- Construct validity of script concordance testing: progression of scores from novices to experienced clinicians.International journal of medical education · 2019Article
- Assessing clinical reasoning skills using Script Concordance Test (SCT) and extended matching questions (EMQs): A pilot for urology trainees.Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism · 2019Article
- Developing Script Concordance Test Items in Otolaryngology to Improve Clinical Reasoning Skills: Validation using Consensus Analysis and Psychometrics.International journal of applied & basic medical researchArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErratum.2017
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe script concordance test (SCT) is a validated method of examining students' clinical reasoning. Medical students' professional skills are assessed during their postgraduate years as they study for a specialist qualification in general practice. However, no specific provision is made for assessing their clinical reasoning during their postgraduate study.
objectiveThe aim was to demonstrate the reliability and validity of the SCT in general practice and to determine if this tool could be used to assess medical students' progress in acquiring clinical reasoning.
methodsA 135-question SCT was administered to postgraduate medical students at the beginning of their first year of specialized training in general practice, and then every six months throughout their three-year training, as well as to a reference panel of 20 expert general practitioners. For score calculation, we used the combined scoring method as the calculator made available by the University of Montreal's School of Medicine in Canada. For the validity, student' scores were compared with experts, p <.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsNinety students completed all six assessments. The experts' mean score (76.7/100) was significantly higher than the students' score across all assessments (p <.001), with a Cronbach's alpha value of over 0.65 for all assessments.
conclusionThe SCT was found to be reliable and capable of discriminating between students and experts, demonstrating that this test is a valid tool for assessing clinical reasoning skills in general practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.