Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: Clinical reasoning is a vital competency for healthcare providers. In 2014, a clinical reasoning assessment rubric (CRAR) composed of analysis, heuristics, inference, information processing, logic, cognition and meta-cognition subdomains was developed for osteopathy students. METHODS: This study was conducted to verify the validity and reliability of the CRAR in nursing education. A total of 202 case vignette assessments completed by 68 students were used for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The Cronbach's α coefficient of the CRAR was calculated. RESULTS: The content validity indices ranged from 0.57 to 1.0. The EFA resulted in three factors: assessment in nursing, nursing diagnosis and planning, and cognition/meta-cognition in nursing. The CFA supported a 3-factor model. The Cronbach's α coefficient of the CRAR was 0.94. This study confirmed the content validity, construct validity, and reliability of the CRAR. Therefore, the CRAR is a useful rubric for assessing clinical reasoning in nursing students. CONCLUSIONS: The CRAR is a standardized rubric for assessing clinical reasoning in nurses. This scale will be useful for the development of educational programs for improving clinical reasoning in nursing education.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: