ArticleInternational journal of medical education2020
Examining response process validity of script concordance testing: a think-aloud approach.
Article in International journal of medical education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modified endocrinology script concordance test: evaluating the reliability and construct validity for assessing clinical reasoning.Singapore medical journal · 2026Article
- Script concordance test issues, the trail of expert calibration.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Evaluating clinical reasoning in first year DPT students using a script concordance test.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Reflective learning conversations model for simulation debriefing: a co-design process and development innovation.BMC medical education · 2023Article
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
objectivesThis study investigated whether medical student responses to Script Concordance Testing (SCT) items represent valid clinical reasoning. Using a think-aloud approach students provided written explanations of the reasoning that underpinned their responses, and these were reviewed for concordance with an expert reference panel.
methodsA set of 12, 11 and 15 SCT items were administered online to Year 3 (2018), Year 4 (2018) and Year 3 (2019) medical students respectively. Students' free-text descriptions of the reasoning supporting each item response were analysed, and compared with those of the expert panel. Response process validity was quantified as the rate of true positives (percentage of full and partial credit responses derived through correct clinical reasoning); and true negatives (percentage of responses with no credit derived through faulty clinical reasoning).
resultsTwo hundred and nine students completed the online tests (response rate = 68.3%). The majority of students who had chosen the response which attracted full or partial credit also provided justifications which were concordant with the experts (true positive rate of 99.6% for full credit; 99.4% for partial credit responses). Most responses that attracted no credit were based on faulty clinical reasoning (true negative of 99.0%).
conclusionsThe findings provide support for the response process validity of SCT scores in the setting of undergraduate medicine. The additional written think-aloud component, to assess clinical reasoning, provided useful information to inform student learning. However, SCT scores should be validated on each testing occasion, and in other contexts.
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.