ArticleBMC nursing2026
Translation and psychometric evaluation of the Vietnamese version of the Clinical Reasoning Scale among nursing students.
Article in BMC nursing, 2026. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical reasoning is a core competency in nursing education. Despite its importance, Vietnam lacks a validated instrument to measure nursing students' clinical reasoning, limiting opportunities for evaluating this essential competency. Therefore, this study aimed to translate the Clinical Reasoning Scale (CRS) into Vietnamese and examine the psychometric properties of the Vietnamese version (CRS-V).
methodsData were collected from senior nursing students at ten 3-year colleges and 4-year universities across northern, central, and southern Vietnam. In total, 600 senior nursing students participated in this study. The CRS-V was cross-culturally adapted and administered via an online survey. Its validity was examined through content validity, concurrent validity, and construct validity using both exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, McDonald's omega, and a test-retest analysis.
resultsThe CRS-V had a good content validity index with scores ranging 0.85-1 for the items and an excellent overall content validity index of 0.96. The exploratory factor analysis identified a single factor comprising 16 items. The confirmatory factor analysis provided an acceptable fit model with one factor. The scale demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.96, McDonald's ω = 0.97). The test-retest stability of the CRS-V was good with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.83 (95% confidence interval = 0.74, 0.89). No floor or ceiling effects were observed.
conclusionsThis study provides initial evidence supporting the validity and reliability of the CRS-V among Vietnamese nursing students. Although the CRS-V may be useful for assessing clinical reasoning in nursing education, further validation studies are needed before broader educational or evaluative applications can be strongly recommended. TRIAL REGISTRATION 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.