ArticleAnatomical sciences education2025
Exploring response process validity of uncertainty tolerance scales implemented among health professions students.
Article in Anatomical sciences education, 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.
- Exploring response process validity of uncertainty tolerance scales implemented among health professions students.Anatomical sciences 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
Uncertainty tolerance (UT) describes how individuals perceive and respond to uncertainty. Quantitative UT scales developed with physicians have been widely used in the health professions literature; however, recent studies have raised questions about their validity when implemented among students. This study explored response process validity of two commonly implemented UT scales, the Physician's Reactions to Uncertainty (PRU1995) and Tolerance for Ambiguity (TFA) scales, addressing the research question: How do health professions students conceptualize uncertainty tolerance in scale items, and what features of the scales (e.g., clarity, context, or relatability of items) influence their conceptualizations? Cognitive interviewing captured the thought processes of Australian (11) and US (22) health professions students while responding to PRU1995 or TFA items. Interviews were analyzed using a team-based approach to framework analysis. The study found that students conceptualized items in ways that were specific to the student role and context and struggled to relate to clinically contextualized scale items. Factors that moderated students' responses were identified, including limited responsibility for patient outcomes, self-reflection, and goals related to academic success. Having identified student-specific conceptualizations of the UT construct as well as issues of item relatability, context, and clarity, we caution against using the PRU1995 or TFA scales among health professions students. This work has potential for informing UT measurement in research and education and advancing theoretical models of UT in health professions students.
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.