{"title":"Instruments for measuring clinical reasoning competence in current and future nurses based on COSMIN: A systematic review","authors":"Xiao Ren , Xiaohui Dong , Ye Tao , Xinyu Chen, Xianying Lu, Dingxi Bai, Qi Xue, Chaoming Hou, Jing Gao","doi":"10.1016/j.nepr.2025.104474","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aim</h3><div>To systematically evaluate the methodological quality and measurement properties of clinical reasoning assessment instruments for current and future nurses, providing an evidence-based basis for selecting appropriate instruments.</div></div><div><h3>Background</h3><div>Clinical reasoning is a core cognitive process and critical competence for safe nursing care. Despite multiple clinical reasoning assessment instruments, no systematic reviews have evaluated the measurement properties of these instruments against established methodological standards, limiting evidence-based selection.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Measurement properties are systematically reviewed according to the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic search of 11 databases was conducted from their inception to March 31, 2025 (Review period: October 2024-April 2025).</div><div>Methodological quality was assessed using the COSMIN Risk of Bias Checklist and measurement properties were synthesized according to the COSMIN criteria. Two trained reviewers independently screened the studies, with conflicts resolved through consensus.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Eighteen studies evaluating twelve clinical reasoning assessment instruments were included. No instrument reported cross-cultural validity, measurement error, or responsiveness. Based on COSMIN evidence grading, the Korean version of the clinical reasoning assessment rubric (K-CRAR) received Category C, while others were Category B.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Among Category B instruments, the Nurses Clinical Reasoning Scale (NCRS) has moderate to high-quality evidence for construct validity, internal consistency and hypothesis testing. Given its wide use, it is tentatively recommended. Future research should comprehensively assess its measurement properties, especially exploring cross-cultural validity and responsiveness.</div></div><div><h3>Study registration</h3><div>A protocol was registered on the PROSPERO (CRD42024611032).</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48715,"journal":{"name":"Nurse Education in Practice","volume":"87 ","pages":"Article 104474"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nurse Education in Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1471595325002306","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim
To systematically evaluate the methodological quality and measurement properties of clinical reasoning assessment instruments for current and future nurses, providing an evidence-based basis for selecting appropriate instruments.
Background
Clinical reasoning is a core cognitive process and critical competence for safe nursing care. Despite multiple clinical reasoning assessment instruments, no systematic reviews have evaluated the measurement properties of these instruments against established methodological standards, limiting evidence-based selection.
Design
Measurement properties are systematically reviewed according to the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines.
Methods
A systematic search of 11 databases was conducted from their inception to March 31, 2025 (Review period: October 2024-April 2025).
Methodological quality was assessed using the COSMIN Risk of Bias Checklist and measurement properties were synthesized according to the COSMIN criteria. Two trained reviewers independently screened the studies, with conflicts resolved through consensus.
Results
Eighteen studies evaluating twelve clinical reasoning assessment instruments were included. No instrument reported cross-cultural validity, measurement error, or responsiveness. Based on COSMIN evidence grading, the Korean version of the clinical reasoning assessment rubric (K-CRAR) received Category C, while others were Category B.
Conclusion
Among Category B instruments, the Nurses Clinical Reasoning Scale (NCRS) has moderate to high-quality evidence for construct validity, internal consistency and hypothesis testing. Given its wide use, it is tentatively recommended. Future research should comprehensively assess its measurement properties, especially exploring cross-cultural validity and responsiveness.
Study registration
A protocol was registered on the PROSPERO (CRD42024611032).
期刊介绍:
Nurse Education in Practice enables lecturers and practitioners to both share and disseminate evidence that demonstrates the actual practice of education as it is experienced in the realities of their respective work environments. It is supportive of new authors and will be at the forefront in publishing individual and collaborative papers that demonstrate the link between education and practice.