ArticleBMC nursing2021
Psychometric properties of a clinical reasoning assessment rubric for nursing education.
Article in BMC nursing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating large language models for pharmacotherapy simulations: a mixed-methods study.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Defect-based scenario simulation teaching in the specialized skills training of nurse anesthetists: a before-after within-subject design.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Improving clinical reasoning competency and communication skills using virtual simulation-based learning focused on a pathophysiological approach in Korea: a quasi-experimental study.Journal of Korean biological nursing science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical reasoning is a vital competency for healthcare providers. In 2014, a clinical reasoning assessment rubric (CRAR) composed of analysis, heuristics, inference, information processing, logic, cognition and meta-cognition subdomains was developed for osteopathy students.
methodsThis study was conducted to verify the validity and reliability of the CRAR in nursing education. A total of 202 case vignette assessments completed by 68 students were used for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The Cronbach's α coefficient of the CRAR was calculated.
resultsThe content validity indices ranged from 0.57 to 1.0. The EFA resulted in three factors: assessment in nursing, nursing diagnosis and planning, and cognition/meta-cognition in nursing. The CFA supported a 3-factor model. The Cronbach's α coefficient of the CRAR was 0.94. This study confirmed the content validity, construct validity, and reliability of the CRAR. Therefore, the CRAR is a useful rubric for assessing clinical reasoning in nursing students.
conclusionsThe CRAR is a standardized rubric for assessing clinical reasoning in nurses. This scale will be useful for the development of educational programs for improving clinical reasoning in nursing education.
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.