ArticleInternational journal of medical education2019
Construct validity of script concordance testing: progression of scores from novices to experienced clinicians.
Article in International journal of medical education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Learning by Concordance as a Tool for Paediatric Dental Traumatology Education.European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 2025Article
- 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
- 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the construct validity of Script Concordance Testing (SCT) scores as a measure of the clinical reasoning ability of medical students and practising General Practitioners with different levels of clinical experience.
methodsPart I involved a cross-sectional study, where 105 medical students, 19 junior registrars and 13 experienced General Practitioners completed the same set of SCT questions, and their mean scores were compared using one-way ANOVA. In Part II, pooled and matched SCT scores for 5 cohorts of students (2012 to 2017) in Year 3 (N=584) and Year 4 (N=598) were retrospectively analysed for evidence of significant progression.
resultsA significant main effect of clinical experience was observed [F
conclusionsThe findings that candidate scores increased with increasing level of clinical experience add to current evidence in the international literature in support of the construct validity of Script Concordance Testing. Prospective longitudinal studies with larger sample sizes are recommended to further test and build confidence in the construct validity of SCT scores.
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.