Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36894974›Full record

ArticleBMC nursing2023

Nursing students' clinical judgment skills in simulation and clinical placement: a comparison of student self-assessment and evaluator assessment.

Anne Mette Høegh-Larsen, Marianne Thorsen Gonzalez, Inger Åse Reierson, Sissel Iren Eikeland Husebø, Dag Hofoss, Monika Ravik

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nursing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Evaluation of 3D-Printed Models in Dentoalveolar Trauma Simulation: A Randomized Trial in Undergraduate Dental Training.Dental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology · 2025
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anne Mette Høegh-LarsenDepartment of Nursing and Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University of South-Eastern Norway, Postbox 235, Kongsberg, 3603, Norway. anne.mette.hoegh-larsen@usn.no.
Marianne Thorsen GonzalezDepartment of Nursing and Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University of South-Eastern Norway, Postbox 235, Kongsberg, 3603, Norway.
Inger Åse ReiersonDepartment of Nursing and Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University of South-Eastern Norway, Postbox 235, Kongsberg, 3603, Norway.
Sissel Iren Eikeland HusebøDepartment of Quality and Health Technology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.
Dag HofossDepartment of Nursing and Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University of South-Eastern Norway, Postbox 235, Kongsberg, 3603, Norway.
Monika RavikDepartment of Nursing and Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University of South-Eastern Norway, Postbox 235, Kongsberg, 3603, Norway.
University of South-Eastern Norway · NOStavanger University Hospital · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical judgment is an important and desirable learning outcome in nursing education. Students must be able to self-assess their clinical judgment in both the simulation and clinical settings to identify knowledge gaps and further improve and develop their skills. Further investigation is needed to determine the optimal conditions for and reliability of this self-assessment.

aimsThis study aimed to compare the same group of students' self-assessment of clinical judgment with an evaluator's assessment in both simulation and clinical settings. The study further aimed to investigate whether the Dunning-Kruger effect is present in nursing students' self-assessment of clinical judgment.

methodsThe study applied a quantitative comparative design. It was conducted in two learning settings: an academic simulation-based education course, and a clinical placement course in an acute care hospital. The sample consisted of 23 nursing students. The Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric was used to collect data. The scores were compared using a t-test, intraclass correlation coefficient, Pearson's correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman plots. The Dunning-Kruger effect was investigated using linear regression analysis and a scatter plot.

resultsThe results showed an inconsistency between student self-assessment and evaluator assessment of clinical judgment in both simulation-based education and clinical placement. Students overestimated their clinical judgment when compared to the more experienced evaluator's assessment. Differences between students' scores and the evaluator's scores were larger when the evaluator's scores were low, indicating the presence of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

conclusionIt is vital to acknowledge that student self-assessment alone may not be a reliable predictor of a student's clinical judgment. Students who had a lower level of clinical judgment were likely to be less aware that this was the case. For future practice and research, we recommend a combination of student self-assessment and evaluator assessment to provide a more realistic view of students' clinical judgment skills.

Indexed as

Clinical judgmentClinical placementNursing education researchNursing studentsSelf-assessmentSimulation training

Identifiers

PMID36894974
PMCPMC9996978
OpenAlexW4323661958

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.