| Autor: |
David Gordon, Joseph J. Rencic, Valerie J. Lang, Aliki Thomas, Meredith Young, Steven J. Durning |
| Rok vydání: |
2022 |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
Perspectives on Medical Education. 11:108-104 |
| ISSN: |
2212-277X |
| DOI: |
10.1007/s40037-022-00701-3 |
| Popis: |
The importance of clinical reasoning in patient care is well-recognized across all health professions. Validity evidence supporting high quality clinical reasoning assessment is essential to ensure health professional schools are graduating learners competent in this domain. However, through the course of a large scoping review, we encountered inconsistent terminology for clinical reasoning and inconsistent reporting of methodology, reflecting a somewhat fractured body of literature on clinical reasoning assessment. These inconsistencies impeded our ability to synthesize across studies and appropriately compare assessment tools. More specifically, we encountered: 1) a wide array of clinical reasoning-like terms that were rarely defined or informed by a conceptual framework, 2) limited details of assessment methodology, and 3) inconsistent reporting of the steps taken to establish validity evidence for clinical reasoning assessments. Consolidating our experience in conducting this review, we provide recommendations on key definitional and methodologic elements to better support the development, description, study, and reporting of clinical reasoning assessments. |
| Databáze: |
OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
|
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje |
K zobrazení výsledku je třeba se přihlásit.
|
