ArticleBMC medical education2025
Assessing decision-making skills with the Script Concordance Test (SCT) in clinical neurology and emergency medicine.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cognitive reshaping and resurgence of humanness: restructuring the medical education continuum in the era of generative AI.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Education Research: Teaching Neurologic Emergencies Through Serious Games: A Randomized Comparative Intervention Study.Neurology. Education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical reasoning is an essential medical competence that should be taught and assessed from the beginning of medical studies. These skills can be evaluated using the Script Concordance Test (SCT), which presents daily clinical scenarios characterised by uncertainty. Due to the lack of validated research on this method in Germany, particularly in the field of neurology, we developed and implemented an SCT at Ruhr University Bochum. We compared different teaching methods (clinical seminar vs. digital video course) and their outcomes on the examination.
methodsA group of 6th-year medical students who had received the same education completed an SCT after participating in either a clinical seminar or a digital video course. The SCT was developed using blueprints on stroke and epilepsy. The test consisted of 40 case vignettes with a total of 120 items. Initially, experts completed the test to establish the reference panel. The final high-stakes examination was created using the aggregate scoring method and an item analysis.
resultsThe SCT was completed by 15 experts and 59 students. The final SCT consisted of 112 items and achieved a Cronbach's alpha of 0.85. A significant difference (p < 0.05) was observed between the experts, who achieved a mean score of 81.75, and the students on the first assessment day, who achieved a mean score of 68.92. No significant differences were found between the groups (interactive video course and seminar) or assessment time points. The questionnaire revealed a sense of insecurity in clinical decision-making before the SCT and highlighted the need to incorporate clinical reasoning practices from the beginning of medical studies to mitigate fear in uncertain situations. The SCT helped students structure decision-making processes and and improved their confidence in making decisions.
conclusionThe SCT is a reliable and valid tool for assessing medical students throughout their university education. Regular exposure to the SCT format would facilitate familiarity with its structure. We propose utilising the SCT as a learning tool rather than solely for assessment purposes. For instance, it could be integrated into teaching methodologies as a think-aloud exercise or incorporated into progress tests.
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.