Measurement properties of self-reported clinical decision-making instruments in nursing: A COSMIN systematic review

被引:2
作者
Lavoie, Patrick [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Lapierre, Alexandra [1 ,2 ]
Maheu-Cadotte, Marc-Andre [1 ,2 ]
Desforges, Joey [1 ,2 ]
Cretaz, Maude [1 ,2 ]
Mailhot, Tanya [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Montreal, Fac Nursing, 2375 Cote St Catherine Rd, Montreal, PQ H3C 3J7, Canada
[2] Montreal Heart Inst, 5000 Belanger St, Montreal, PQ H1T 1C8, Canada
[3] Univ Montreal, Fac Nursing, CP 6128 Succursale Ctr Ville, Montreal, PQ H3C 3J7, Canada
来源
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NURSING STUDIES ADVANCES | 2023年 / 5卷
关键词
Clinical decision-making; Clinical reasoning; Education; nursing; Educational measurement; Judgment; Nursing education research; Problem solving; Psychometrics; Self-assessment; Systematic review; JUDGMENT; NURSES; MODELS; CONFIDENCE; STUDENTS;
D O I
10.1016/j.ijnsa.2023.100122
中图分类号
R47 [护理学];
学科分类号
1011 ;
摘要
Background: Nurses' clinical decision-making, i.e., the data collection, analysis, and evaluation process through which they reach clinical judgements and makes clinical decisions, is at the core of nursing practice and essential to provide safe and quality care. Instruments to assess nurses' perceptions of their clinical decision-making abilities or skills have been developed for research and education. Thus, it is essential to determine the most valid and reliable instruments available to reflect nurses' self-reported clinical decision-making accurately. Objective: To evaluate the measurement properties of self-reported clinical decision-making instruments in nursing. Methods: A systematic review based on the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) was conducted (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022364549). Five bibliographical databases were searched in July 2022 using descriptors and keywords related to nurses, clinical decision-making, and studies on measurement properties. Two independent reviewers conducted reference selection and data extraction. The evaluation of the instruments' measurement properties involved assessing the quality of the studies, the quality of each measurement property (i.e., validity, reliability, responsiveness), and the quality of evidence based on the COSMIN. Results: Nine instruments evaluated in eleven studies with registered nurses or nursing students from various clinical contexts were identified. Five of the nine instruments were originals; four were translations or adaptations. Most focused on analytical and intuitive decision-making, although some were based on clinical judgment and clinical reasoning theories. Structural validity and internal consistency were the most frequently reported measurement properties; other properties, such as measurement error, criterion validity, and responsiveness, were not assessed for any instruments. A gap was also identified in the involvement of nurses or nursing students in the instrument development process and the content validity assessment. Six instruments appear promising based on the COSMIN criteria, but further studies are needed to confirm their validity and reliability. Conclusions: The evidence regarding instruments to assess nurses' self-reported clinical decision making is still minimal. Although no instruments could be recommended based on the COSMIN criteria, the Nurses Clinical Reasoning Scale had the most robust supporting evidence, followed by the adapted version of the Clinical Decision Making in Nursing Scale. Future efforts should be made to systematically assess content validity through the involvement of the target populationand by ensuring that the results of other measurement properties, such as reliability, measurement error, or hypothesis testing, are rigorously assessed and reported. Tweetable abstract: Despite limited evidence, this COSMIN review identified six promising instruments to assess nurses' clinical #decision-making, especially the Nurses Clinical Reasoning Scale and an adaptation of the Clinical Decision Making in Nursing Scale. #nursingresearch #nursingeducation
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 55 条
  • [1] Albanesi Beatrice, 2021, Acta Biomed, V92, pe2021331, DOI 10.23750/abm.v92iS2.11773
  • [2] A review of clinical decision making: models and current research
    Banning, Maggi
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING, 2008, 17 (02) : 187 - 195
  • [3] BAYES T, 1958, BIOMETRIKA, V45, P296
  • [4] CLINICAL JUDGMENT - HOW EXPERT NURSES USE INTUITION
    BENNER, P
    TANNER, C
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NURSING, 1987, 87 (01) : 23 - 31
  • [5] Benner P., 1984, NOVICE EXPERT
  • [6] A generative co-design framework for healthcare innovation: development and application of an end-user engagement framework
    Bird M.
    McGillion M.
    Chambers E.M.
    Dix J.
    Fajardo C.J.
    Gilmour M.
    Levesque K.
    Lim A.
    Mierdel S.
    Ouellette C.
    Polanski A.N.
    Reaume S.V.
    Whitmore C.
    Carter N.
    [J]. Research Involvement and Engagement, 7 (1)
  • [7] Clinical Decision Making of Nurses Working in Hospital Settings
    Bjork, Ida Torunn
    Hamilton, Glenys A.
    [J]. NURSING RESEARCH AND PRACTICE, 2011, 2011
  • [8] Chan D, 2009, STATISTICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL MYTHS AND URBAN LEGENDS: DOCTRINE, VERITY AND FABLE IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES, P309
  • [9] The validity and reliability of clinical judgement and decision-making skills assessment in nursing: A systematic literature review
    Clemett, Victoria J.
    Raleigh, Mary
    [J]. NURSE EDUCATION TODAY, 2021, 102
  • [10] Clinical Reasoning Assessment Methods: A Scoping Review and Practical Guidance
    Daniel, Michelle
    Rencic, Joseph
    Durning, Steven J.
    Holmboe, Eric
    Santen, Sally A.
    Lang, Valerie
    Ratcliffe, Temple
    Gordon, David
    Heist, Brian
    Lubarsky, Stuart
    Estrada, Carlos A.
    Ballard, Tiffany
    Artino Jr, Anthony R.
    Da Silva, Ana Sergio
    Cleary, Timothy
    Stojan, Jennifer
    Gruppen, Larry D.
    [J]. ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 2019, 94 (06) : 902 - 912