ArticleBMC nursing2025
Turkish adaptation of the clinical reasoning evaluation simulation tool (CREST-TR): a validity and reliability study.
Article in BMC nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Evaluation of the Arabic Clinical Reasoning Scale Among Nursing Students.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo enhance the clinical reasoning skills of nursing students, it is essential to assess their level of clinical reasoning using valid and reliable measurement tools. The aim of this study was to adapt Clinical Reasoning Evaluation Simulation Tool to Turkish by ensuring its translation-back translation and content validity, testing its psychological properties, including the construct validity and reliability, and evaluating its usability.
methodsThis methodological study was conducted in three phases. The first phase involved examining the language and content validity of the tool. The second phase focused on assessing the construct validity and reliability of the tool with 26 third-year and 26 fourth-year nursing students enrolled at faculty of nursing of a state university who undertook the simulation-based assessment. The third phase involved evaluating its usability by six educators.
resultsAfter the linguistic validation of the tool, the content validity index (CVI) was calculated as 0.91 based on the opinions of five field experts. Following exploratory factor analysis, items 1 and 8 with factor loadings below 0.30, were excluded from the tool. The first item pertained to the domain of "considering the patient situation", while the eighth item involved to domain of "taking actions" using the "ISBAR" framework for effective communication. The tool was validated as a unidimensional consisting of seven domains and eight items with factor loadings ranging from 0.58 to 0.76. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that all fit index values showed satisfactory fit. AGFI (0.852) and SRMR (0.058) values were found to have acceptable fits, while χ²/SD (1.091), GFI (0.911), NFI (0.909), NNFI (0.986), CFI (0.991) and RMSEA (0.042) values provided good fits. Cronbach's alpha for the total tool was 0.88. The usability of the tool was positively evaluated by educators, although one educator disagreed regarding its ease of interpretation, clarity of descriptors, and user-friendliness.
conclusionThe Turkish version of the Clinical Reasoning Evaluation Simulation Tool was found to be a valid and reliable tool. This tool provides a concrete and objective evaluation of nursing students' clinical reasoning levels during simulation by instructors. In addition, the tool provides feedback on aspects that need improvement in line with the students' clinical reasoning performances. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.