Marie-France Deschênes, Éric Dionne, Laura Robert-Boluda
{"title":"Preliminary Validation of a Clinical Reasoning Theory-Based Assessment Rubric: An e-Delphi Study.","authors":"Marie-France Deschênes, Éric Dionne, Laura Robert-Boluda","doi":"10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000001320","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Questions persist regarding the evaluation of cognitive processes related to clinical reasoning when resolving situations in a learning by concordance tool. This Delphi technique study aimed to validate a clinical reasoning assessment rubric based on script theory. Seventeen experts participated in the study. Two rounds of consultation were conducted to obtain a consensus on the accuracy and clarity of the rubric descriptors (clarity index and content validity index ≥ 0.9). The results inform future research procedures and the intended use of the rubric to facilitate evaluator inferences, provide student feedback, and support the development of learners' clinical reasoning.</p>","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000001320","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract: Questions persist regarding the evaluation of cognitive processes related to clinical reasoning when resolving situations in a learning by concordance tool. This Delphi technique study aimed to validate a clinical reasoning assessment rubric based on script theory. Seventeen experts participated in the study. Two rounds of consultation were conducted to obtain a consensus on the accuracy and clarity of the rubric descriptors (clarity index and content validity index ≥ 0.9). The results inform future research procedures and the intended use of the rubric to facilitate evaluator inferences, provide student feedback, and support the development of learners' clinical reasoning.
分享
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
