Assessment Strategies Used by Nurse Educators to Evaluate Critical Thinking, Clinical Judgment or Clinical Reasoning in Undergraduate Nursing Students in Clinical Settings: A Scoping Review of the Literature

被引:2
作者
El Hussein, Mohamed Toufic [1 ,2 ]
Olfert, Marg [3 ]
Blayney, Sarah [4 ]
机构
[1] Mt Royal Univ, Fac Hlth Community & Educ, Sch Nursing & Midwifery, Calgary, AB, Canada
[2] Univ Calgary, Acute Care Nurse Practitioner Med Cardiol, Fac Nursing, Coronary Care Unit,Rockyview Gen Hosp, 4825 Mt Royal Gate SW, Calgary, AB T3E 6K6, Canada
[3] Mt Royal Univ, Sch Nursing & Midwifery, Room Y352,4825 Mt Royal Gate, Calgary, AB T3E 6K6, Canada
[4] Alberta Hlth Serv, Internal Med Med Teaching Unit, Calgary, AB, Canada
关键词
critical thinking; clinical reasoning; clinical judgment; scoping review; MODEL; UNCERTAINTY; VALIDATION;
D O I
10.1891/RTNP-2021-0027
中图分类号
R47 [护理学];
学科分类号
1011 ;
摘要
Background: Nursing students in Canada are typically enrolled in a four-year bachelor degree program that provides students with the necessary skills and knowledge to enter a highly demanding and challenging workforce. Strong critical thinking, clinical reasoning, and clinical judgment skills are essential skills for safe nursing practice. Therefore, educational institutes and their mentors are mandated to teach and assess these skills. In addition, nursing programs operate under an apprenticeship model, which entails the fulfillment of practical experience during which students are expected to develop and refine their skills in critical thinking, clinical reasoning, and clinical judgment. Purpose: The purpose of this scoping review of the literature is to assess the available evidence of how higher-level thinking, including critical thinking, clinical reasoning, and clinical judgment are evaluated in undergraduate nursing students in clinical settings. Methods: The inclusion criteria consisted of quantitative research articles published in the last 10 years. Search databases accessed included CINAHL Plus (EBSCO), Medline, and PubMed. Results: Seven articles that fit the inclusion criteria became the focus of this scoping review. Four tools to evaluate higher-thinking processes in clinical settings were located and scrutinized: Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric (LCJR), Script Concordance Testing, and Yoon's Critical Thinking Disposition Instrument. Relevance to Practice: The scoping review will provide direction and contextualize future studies that focus on the appraisal of nursing students' critical thinking, clinical reasoning, and clinical judgment in clinical settings.
引用
收藏
页码:179 / 197
页数:19
相关论文
共 26 条
  • [1] Al-Jundi A, 2017, J CLIN DIAGN RES, V11, DOI 10.7860/JCDR/2017/26047.9942
  • [2] Arksey H., 2005, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, V8, P19, DOI DOI 10.1080/1364557032000119616
  • [3] Benner P., 2008, CLIN REASONING DECIS
  • [4] Standardized assessment of reasoning in contexts of uncertainty - The script concordance approach
    Charlin, B
    Van Der Vleuten, C
    [J]. EVALUATION & THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS, 2004, 27 (03) : 304 - 319
  • [5] Scripts and clinical reasoning
    Charlin, Bernard
    Boshuizen, Henny P. A.
    Custers, Eugene J.
    Feltovich, Paul J.
    [J]. MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2007, 41 (12) : 1178 - 1184
  • [6] Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, CASP checklists
  • [7] Can Script Concordance Testing Be Used in Nursing Education to Accurately Assess Clinical Reasoning Skills?
    Dawson, Tyia
    Comer, Linda
    Kossick, Mark A.
    Neubrander, Judy
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NURSING EDUCATION, 2014, 53 (05) : 281 - 286
  • [8] Use of a Script Concordance Test to Assess Development of Clinical Reasoning in Nursing Students
    Deschenes, Marie-France
    Charlin, Bernard
    Gagnon, Robert
    Goudreau, Johanne
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NURSING EDUCATION, 2011, 50 (07) : 381 - 387
  • [9] Facione P. A., 1990, CALIFORNIA ACAD PRES, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.TSC.2009.07.002
  • [10] Assessment in the context of uncertainty:: how many members are needed on the panel of reference of a script concordance test?
    Gagnon, R
    Charlin, B
    Coletti, M
    Sauvé, E
    van der Vleuten, C
    [J]. MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2005, 39 (03) : 284 - 291