Kelly Macauley, Karen Burket, Mallory Kargela, Kristen Krawczyk, Amy McQuade, Carla Sabus, Jason Rucker, Natalie Goldberg, Sarah Ross, Pamela Buzzard
{"title":"Validated Tools to Evaluate Clinical Reasoning in Simulation-Based Learning: A Systematic Review for Physical Therapist Education.","authors":"Kelly Macauley, Karen Burket, Mallory Kargela, Kristen Krawczyk, Amy McQuade, Carla Sabus, Jason Rucker, Natalie Goldberg, Sarah Ross, Pamela Buzzard","doi":"10.1097/JTE.0000000000000484","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>Effective clinical reasoning (CR) skills are essential for Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) students to manage complex patient scenarios and deliver quality patient-centered care and are often the focus of simulation-based learning experiences (SBLEs) within physical therapist education. Despite this increasing emphasis on CR, validated assessment tools for SBLEs remains limited. This systematic review aimed to identify and assess tools measuring CR, clinical decision making (CDM), and critical thinking (CT) in SBLEs within DPT programs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Guided by the PRISMA framework, this review included peer-reviewed articles published post-2017, detailing psychometric assessments of CR/CDM/CT tools applicable to physical therapist education. PubMed, CINAHL, ERIC, and Web of Science databases were searched for published studies that contained 1 or more tools assessment CR/CDM/CT. This search yielded 2084 studies, 23 of which were ultimately included in the review. Tool quality was assessed using the Modified Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MMERSQI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Included studies primarily featured single-group, cross-sectional designs with limited sample sizes, resulting in a mean MMERSQI score of 61.7 (range 36.5-75.5). Most tools demonstrated internal consistency and content validity, but concurrent validity and reliability were infrequently reported. Tools typically were used to assess self-reported skills or applied knowledge in formative, low-stakes contexts. Tools predominantly assessed diagnostic and procedural reasoning; interactive, predictive, ethical, collaborative, and narrative reasoning were less common.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>This systematic review identified several reliable and valid tools for assessing CR/CDM/CT. However, methodological shortcomings, including limited diversity in reasoning strategies assessed and inadequate multi-institutional validation, were also revealed. These gaps underscore the need for more comprehensive assessment tools and comparative research between simulation-based and traditional teaching methods to determine the most effective means of developing CR skills in physical therapy education. Future research should enhance methodological rigor to optimize CR skill development.</p>","PeriodicalId":517432,"journal":{"name":"Journal, physical therapy education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal, physical therapy education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JTE.0000000000000484","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
Background and purpose: Effective clinical reasoning (CR) skills are essential for Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) students to manage complex patient scenarios and deliver quality patient-centered care and are often the focus of simulation-based learning experiences (SBLEs) within physical therapist education. Despite this increasing emphasis on CR, validated assessment tools for SBLEs remains limited. This systematic review aimed to identify and assess tools measuring CR, clinical decision making (CDM), and critical thinking (CT) in SBLEs within DPT programs.
Methods: Guided by the PRISMA framework, this review included peer-reviewed articles published post-2017, detailing psychometric assessments of CR/CDM/CT tools applicable to physical therapist education. PubMed, CINAHL, ERIC, and Web of Science databases were searched for published studies that contained 1 or more tools assessment CR/CDM/CT. This search yielded 2084 studies, 23 of which were ultimately included in the review. Tool quality was assessed using the Modified Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MMERSQI).
Results: Included studies primarily featured single-group, cross-sectional designs with limited sample sizes, resulting in a mean MMERSQI score of 61.7 (range 36.5-75.5). Most tools demonstrated internal consistency and content validity, but concurrent validity and reliability were infrequently reported. Tools typically were used to assess self-reported skills or applied knowledge in formative, low-stakes contexts. Tools predominantly assessed diagnostic and procedural reasoning; interactive, predictive, ethical, collaborative, and narrative reasoning were less common.
Discussion and conclusion: This systematic review identified several reliable and valid tools for assessing CR/CDM/CT. However, methodological shortcomings, including limited diversity in reasoning strategies assessed and inadequate multi-institutional validation, were also revealed. These gaps underscore the need for more comprehensive assessment tools and comparative research between simulation-based and traditional teaching methods to determine the most effective means of developing CR skills in physical therapy education. Future research should enhance methodological rigor to optimize CR skill development.
背景和目的:有效的临床推理(CR)技能对于物理治疗博士(DPT)学生管理复杂的患者情况和提供高质量的以患者为中心的护理至关重要,并且通常是物理治疗师教育中基于模拟的学习体验(SBLEs)的重点。尽管越来越强调CR,但有效的sble评估工具仍然有限。本系统综述旨在识别和评估DPT项目中sble中CR、临床决策(CDM)和批判性思维(CT)的测量工具。方法:在PRISMA框架的指导下,纳入2017年后发表的同行评议文章,详细介绍了适用于物理治疗师教育的CR/CDM/CT工具的心理测量评估。检索PubMed、CINAHL、ERIC和Web of Science数据库中包含1个或多个评估CR/CDM/CT工具的已发表研究。这项搜索产生了2084项研究,其中23项最终被纳入了综述。使用改良医学教育研究质量仪(MMERSQI)评估工具质量。结果:纳入的研究主要采用单组、横截面设计,样本量有限,平均MMERSQI评分为61.7(范围36.5-75.5)。大多数工具展示了内部一致性和内容有效性,但是并发有效性和可靠性很少被报道。工具通常用于评估自我报告的技能或在形成性、低风险环境中的应用知识。工具主要评估诊断和程序推理;互动性、预测性、伦理性、合作性和叙述性推理则不太常见。讨论与结论:本系统综述确定了几种可靠有效的评估CR/CDM/CT的工具。然而,方法上的缺点,包括有限的多样性的推理策略评估和不充分的多机构验证,也被揭露。这些差距强调需要更全面的评估工具和基于模拟的教学方法与传统教学方法之间的比较研究,以确定在物理治疗教育中发展CR技能的最有效手段。未来的研究应提高方法的严谨性,以优化CR技能的发展。