基于临床推理理论的评估标准的初步验证:电子德尔菲研究

Pub Date : 2024-09-12 DOI:10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000001320
Marie-France Deschênes, Éric Dionne, Laura Robert-Boluda
{"title":"基于临床推理理论的评估标准的初步验证:电子德尔菲研究","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

摘要:在通过协调学习工具解决情境时,与临床推理相关的认知过程的评估问题一直存在。这项德尔菲技术研究旨在验证基于脚本理论的临床推理评估标准。17 位专家参与了研究。研究人员进行了两轮咨询,就评分标准描述符的准确性和清晰度(清晰度指数和内容效度指数≥ 0.9)达成了共识。研究结果为今后的研究程序和评分标准的预期使用提供了参考,以促进评估者的推断,为学生提供反馈,并支持学习者临床推理能力的发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
Preliminary Validation of a Clinical Reasoning Theory-Based Assessment Rubric: An e-Delphi Study.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1