ArticleCureus2024
Translation, Reliability, and Validity of the Japanese Clinical Reasoning Skills Self-Evaluation Scale: An Instrument Design Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrently, little evidence supports the notion that improved practical skills through simulation education are reflected in actual clinical practice and ultimately lead to positive outcomes for participants. However, by clarifying the relationship between the simulation foundation and its practicality, insights can be gained to develop educational programs to improve clinical reasoning skills. However, no clear scale is currently available in Japan.
aimsTo create a valid Japanese version of the clinical reasoning skills self-evaluation scale and evaluate its reliability and validity.
methodsThis instrument design study included 580 nursing students and nurses surveyed online from February to March 2023. The clinical reasoning skills self-evaluation scale was translated into Japanese using a back-translation method, and semantic equivalence and content validity were assessed. The content validity index was assessed using a pilot test involving 26 clinical nurses, 25 nursing students, and an expert panel. Validity and reliability were tested using a convenience sample of 580 nursing students and nurses. Reliability was assessed using internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Construct validity was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis.
resultsCronbach's alpha for all dimensions was >0.7, and the questionnaire showed acceptable internal consistency. Test-retest reliability was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (0.674-0.797, all dimensions); the lowest value at a 95% confidence interval was 0.504 (at least moderate reliability).
conclusionOur scale has acceptable validity and reliability. It may help in clinical reasoning skill assessment for nurses and nursing students and aid in examining and supporting these skills.
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.