clinical problem solving abilities nursing

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Communication Skills, Problem-Solving Ability, Understanding of Patients’ Conditions, and Nurse’s Perception of Professionalism among Clinical Nurses: A Structural Equation Model Analysis

Ae young kim.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

Correspondence: [email protected] ; Tel.: +82-10-3372-5920; Fax: +82-2-824-7961

Received 2020 Jun 18; Accepted 2020 Jul 5; Issue date 2020 Jul.

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ).

This study was intended to confirm the structural relationship between clinical nurse communication skills, problem-solving ability, understanding of patients’ conditions, and nurse’s perception of professionalism. Due to changes in the healthcare environment, it is becoming difficult to meet the needs of patients, and it is becoming very important to improve the ability to perform professional nursing jobs to meet expectations. In this study method, structural model analysis was applied to identify factors influencing the perception of professionalism in nurses. The subjects of this study were 171 nurses working at general hospitals in city of Se, Ga, and Geu. Data analysis included frequency analysis, identification factor analysis, reliability analysis, measurement model analysis, model fit, and intervention effects. In the results of the study, nurse’s perception of professionalism was influenced by factors of communication skills and understanding of the patient’s condition, but not by their ability to solve problems. Understanding of patient’s condition had a mediating effect on communication skills and nursing awareness. Communication skills and understanding of the patient’s condition greatly influenced the nurse’s perception of professionalism. To improve the professionalism of clinical nurses, nursing managers need to emphasize communication skills and understanding of the patient’s condition. The purpose of this study was to provide a rationale for developing a program to improve job skills by strengthening the awareness of professional positions of clinical nurses to develop nursing quality of community.

Keywords: communication, clinical nurse, perception of professionalism, patient’s condition, structural equation model

1. Introduction

Changes in the environment related to climate and pollution are causing health problems and various diseases such as respiratory and circulatory problems, metabolic disorders, and chronic diseases. Moreover, access to modern healthcare facilities has created greater expectations among patients receiving personalized healthcare and high-quality healthcare. As the difficulty of satisfying the demands of patients increases, enhancing nursing capabilities has become increasingly important [ 1 ]. To improve this, hospitals are making efforts to change the internal and external environments so as to increase the number of nurses, reduce the length of hospital stays, and enable efficient nursing practice. Despite these efforts, the workloads of nurses and the demand for clinical nurses are continuously increasing [ 2 , 3 ]. As a result, nurses are developing negative attitudes and prejudices toward patients, as well as negative perceptions of professionalism. To address this, the cultivation and strengthening of nursing professionals’ capabilities is essential.

Nurses’ perception of professionalism is an important element influencing their ability to perform independent nursing, and a good perception of their profession results in a positive approach to solving patients’ problems [ 4 , 5 ]. In addition, the characteristics and abilities of individual nurses can influence the level of care and enable them to understand patients, solve problems, and provide holistic care, which is the ultimate goal of the nursing process [ 6 , 7 ]. Thus, patients expect nurses to not only have medical knowledge of the disease but to also be able to comprehensively assess the patient’s problems and be independent and creative in nursing [ 8 ]. This attitude can have a major impact on the quality of nursing services and can inspire pride in the nursing occupation and professional achievement. These findings can also be used by nurses to prevent burnout and maintain professionalism [ 9 , 10 ].

To respond to the increasing demands for diverse qualitative and quantitative nursing services and to strengthen the capabilities of nursing professionals, efforts have been made to move nursing education toward scientific and creative education. However, in point-of-care environments, not only are nurses prevented from making independent decisions regarding nursing, but also the diverse personal capabilities necessary for such independent behavior are not sufficiently developed [ 11 ]. Therefore, it is important to enhance clinical nurses’ perceptions of the nursing profession; maintain a balance of nursing capabilities; provide novel, high-quality nursing services; and identify assistive nursing education methods and obstructive environmental factors [ 10 ].

Communication skills involve a person’s ability to accurately understand (through both verbal and non-verbal indications) another person, and sufficiently deliver what the person desires [ 12 , 13 ]. Good communication skills are a primary requirement for providing professional nursing services because they enable an in-depth understanding of patients, solving of complicated problems, and reasonable and logical analysis of situations [ 14 , 15 , 16 ]. When effective communication takes place, nurses’ problem-solving abilities and perceived professionalism strengthen [ 17 , 18 ].

According to Park [ 19 ], nurses have difficulties in interpersonal relationships when social tension and interaction skills are low and communication is poor. In addition, these factors are negatively affected not only in the work of the nurse but also in the perception of the profession. Communication skills are associated with both the formation of relationships with patients and the ability to perform holistic nursing [ 20 ]. In order to improve and develop the overall nursing function of a clinical nurse like this, it is important to complement the relevant integrated nursing abilities [ 21 , 22 ].

Previous studies have investigated the importance of communication skills for nurses, and the relationships between nurses’ problem-solving ability and their understanding of the patients’ conditions. Nonetheless, data that can comprehensively explain the structural relationships between these qualities and how they affect the job perception of nurses remains insufficient.

Therefore, the present study aims to identify the structural model for the relationships between nurses’ communication skills, problem-solving ability, understanding of patients’ conditions, and nurse’s perception of professionalism. Additionally, the study provides basic data necessary for developing programs for improving nursing abilities.

The purpose of this study is to construct a theoretical model that explains the structural relationships among nurses’ communication skills, problem-solving ability, understanding of patients’ conditions, and nurse’s perception of professionalism. In addition, the study aimed to verify this model using empirical data.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. study design.

To create and analyze the structural model for clinical nurses’ communication skills, problem-solving ability, understanding of patients’ conditions, and nurse’s perception of professionalism, the theoretical relationships among the variables were developed based on related theories.

In this study, communication skills were set as the exogenous variables, whereas problem-solving ability, understanding of patients’ conditions, and perception of the nursing occupation were set as the endogenous variables. In addition, communication skills were set as the independent variables and nursing job perceptions as the dependent variable. This is because the ability of communication helps to maintain an intimate relationship with the patient and to assess the patient’s condition through each other’s relationship and to solve problems and develop correct understanding. Communication skills, problem-solving ability, and understanding of patients’ conditions were set as the parameters for determining causality. The research model is shown in Figure 1 .

Study model.

2.2. Study Participants

The structural equation model has less than 12 measurement variables. The sample size usually requires 200 to 400 participants [ 23 ]. A total of 250 participants were selected for the study. In line with ethical standards and practices, participants received a full explanation on the purpose of the study. They were briefed that the information collected would be used for research purposes only. Furthermore, they were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any time.

2.3. Data Collection Method

Data collection for this study was performed by two researchers unrelated to the hospital from April 20 to May 1, 2019. A questionnaire was used to collect data from clinical nurses working in five hospitals in Seoul, Gyeonggi, and Gangwon provinces. Of the 250 questionnaires disseminated, we received 225 completed returns. However, 54 were considered inaccurate, inconsistent, or unsatisfactory for coding purposes. Thus, 171 fully completed valid questionnaires comprised the final dataset for analysis.

2.4. Research Instruments

2.4.1. communication skills.

In this study, the communication skill instrument developed by Lee and Jang [ 24 ] was used. Its contents were modified and supplemented to clearly understand the communication skills of nurses. Our questionnaire comprised 20 questions with five questions each concerning “interpretation ability,” “self-reveal,” “leading communication,” and “understanding others’ perspectives.” The answers were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 0 = “strongly disagree” to 4 = “strongly agree.” For this study, the Cronbach’s alpha value was 0.81.

2.4.2. Problem-Solving Ability

The tool developed by Lee [ 25 ] was used to measure the problem-solving ability of clinical nurses. The survey comprised 25 questions, with five questions each concerning “problem recognition,” “information-gathering,” “divergent thinking,” “planning power,” and “evaluation.” Items were scored on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 0 = “strongly disagree” to 4 = “strongly agree.” The internal consistency confidence value Cronbach’s alpha was 0.79.

2.4.3. Understanding Patients’ Condition

To measure nurses’ understanding of patients’ conditions, we developed 10 questions by revising and supplementing items from an existing understanding-measurement tool [ 26 ]. With a total of ten questions, we measured “diagnostic name,” “patient-treatment planning,” and “nursing intervention processes.” Items were scored using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 0 = “strongly disagree” to 4 = “strongly agree.” The internal consistency confidence value Cronbach’s alpha was 0.81.

2.4.4. Nurse’s Perception of Professionalism

Nurse’s perception of professionalism was measured using a tool developed by revising the 25 questions created by Kang et al. [ 1 ]. With a total of ten questions, we measured “vocation” and “autonomy.” Items were scored using a five-point Likert scale. The internal consistency confidence value Cronbach’s alpha was 0.81.

2.5. Data Analysis

To identify the relationships among the set variables, the data were computed statistically using the program included in IBM SPSS 24.0 and AMOS 23.0. (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). The analysis methods were as follows:

Frequency analysis was conducted to identify the subjects’ demographic and general characteristics.

The reliability of the questionnaire was verified using Cronbach’s α coefficients.

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to verify the convergent validity of the selected measurement tool.

The normality of the data was determined through analyzing the skewness and kurtosis of the measurement variables.

The fitness of the model was verified using structural equation modeling (SEM).

Bootstrapping was utilized to verify the mediating effect in the set study model, as well as the mediating effects of the nurses’ problem-solving ability and understanding of patients’ conditions.

3.1. Demographic Characteristics

The demographic and general characteristics of the study subjects are shown in Table 1 . Overall, 71 respondents were aged 25–29 years (41.5%), representing the most numerous age group. University graduates comprised 113 (66.1%) of the sample, while 50 (29.2%) held graduate degrees, with eight (4.7%) holding master’s degrees. Fifty-three respondents (31.0%) had over seven years of clinical experience, 43 (25.1%) had two to three years of experience, 42 (24.6%) had four to six years of experience, and 33 (19.3%) had less than two years of experience. Additionally, 121 respondents (70.8%) worked at secondary hospitals, while 50 (29.2%) worked at tertiary hospitals; 159 respondents (93.0%) reported that they were general nurses.

Participants’ general characteristics ( N = 171, %).

3.2. Technical Metrics of the Measurement Variables

The multivariate normality of the findings related to the factors of the latent variables was verified through standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis. The present study meets the criteria for the skewness and kurtosis values mentioned by Hu and Bentler [ 27 ].

All sub-factors of the latent variables secured normality.

In this study, a normal distribution was obtained for each of the four sub-factors of communication skills, five sub-factors of problem-solving ability, three sub-factors for understanding the patient’s condition, and two sub-factors of the nurse’s perception of professionalism as shown in Table 2 .

Technical metrics of the measurement variables ( N = 171).

3.3. Correlations between the Measured Variables

The correlations between the measurement variables were analyzed using Pearson’s product–moment correlation coefficient analysis ( Table 3 ). The correlations among all individual measurement variables were found to show a positive correlation.

Correlations between the observed variables.

3.4. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Measurement Model

This study examined how well the measurement variables represented the latent variables in the measurement model. Each set path coefficient was evaluated using non-standardization factors, standardization factors, and standard errors. The path coefficients refer to the factor loadings in CFA. The standardization factors of the individual paths were shown to be at least 0.50 (except for vocation: 0.36), and the critical ratio (CR) was at least 1.96. This indicated that the measurement tool had good convergent validity ( Table 4 ).

Confirmatory factor analysis of the measurement model.

*** p < 0.001; CR: critical ratio.

3.5. Verification of the Structural Model

The structural model for relationships among clinical nurses’ communication skills, problem-solving ability, understanding of patients’ condition, and nurse’s perception of professionalism that would be suitable for predicting the influencing relationships was verified. Since the fitness index of the modified model was shown to be higher than that of the initial model, the final model for this study was set as shown in Figure 2 .

Final model. * χ 2 = 124.074 (df = 61, p <0.001), GFI(Goodness of Fit Index)= 0.90, RMSEA(Root Mean Square Error Approximation)=0.07, NFI(Normed Fit Index)=0.87, IFI(Incremental Fit Index)= 0.93, TLI(Tucker-Lewis Index)= 0.91, CFI(Comparative Fit Index)= 0.92.

3.6. Influencing Relationships between Variables of the Study Model

The standardization factors and CR values of the final model were examined to determine whether there were direct relationships between communication skills, problem-solving ability, understanding of patients’ conditions, and nurse’s perception of professionalism. The results are shown

For the relationship between communication ski in Table 5 .lls and problem-solving ability, the standardization factor was 0.85 and the CR value was 7.37; communication skills showed a statistically significant effect. Consequently. The relationship between communication skills and understanding of patients’ conditions also showed a statistically significant effect. Consequently, Hypothesis 1 was supported.

The relationships between the human effects of the measurement model.

* p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001; CR: critical ratio.

For the relationship between communication skills and nurse’s perception of professionalism, the standardization factor was 0.54, and the CR value was 2.02. Communication skills showed a statistically significant effect. Consequently. For the relationship between problem-solving ability and nurse’s perception of professionalism, the standardization factor was −0.056, and the CR value was −0.39. Problem-solving ability had no statistically significant effect. Consequently.

The relationship between nurses’ understanding of patients’ conditions and nurse’s perception of professionalism had a statistically significant effect. Consequently Figure 2 shows the influencing relationships between the study variables of the final study model, considering non-standardization and standardization factors of the relationships between the study variables.

3.7. Direct and Indirect Effects of the Variables

To grasp the significance of the mediating effect in the final study model, the direct and indirect effects of each variable were examined. To examine the mediating effect of the problem-solving ability and understanding of patients’ conditions variables, the bootstrapping method provided by the AMOS 23.0 program included in IBM was utilized. The results are shown in Table 6 .

Mediating effect analysis.

* p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001

The indirect effect of communication skills on nurse’s perception of professionalism through nurses’ understanding of patients’ conditions was statistically significant. That is, clinical nurses’ communication skills have an indirect positive effect on their nurse’s perception of professionalism, with nurses’ understanding of patients’ conditions acting as a parameter. We also found that the effect of communication skills on nurse’s perception of professionalism was statistically significant. Therefore, communication skills have a partially mediated effect on nurse’s perception of professionalism, with understanding of patients’ conditions acting as a parameter. However, communication skills were found to have no indirect positive effect on nurse’s perception of professionalism when problem-solving ability was set as a parameter.

4. Discussion

In this study, we developed and analyzed a hypothetical model regarding clinical nurses’ communication skills, problem-solving ability, and understanding of patients’ conditions, and how these factors influence their nurse’s perception of professionalism.

4.1. Effect of Communication Skills on Nurses’ Perception of Professionalism

Communication skills were found to have statistically significant effects on their relationship with nurses’ problem-solving ability, understanding of patients’ conditions, and nurse’s perception of professionalism. Nurses’ communication skills not only affected their problem-solving ability but also their understanding of patients’ conditions and nurse’s perception of professionalism. Good communication among nurses can reduce uncomfortable situations and improve interactions with patients, which can consequently enhance problem-solving [ 28 ]. Supporting our findings, Ancel [ 17 ] reported that communication skills afford the maintenance of amicable cooperative relationships with patients across diverse medical classes, thereby enhancing the efficiency of nursing-related problem-solving.

Nurses’ communication is also closely related to their understanding of patients’ conditions, particularly regarding the treatment processes. Nurses frequently experience difficulties as a result of poor communication with not only patients and their family members but also other medical personnel. Further, poor delivery of explanations and questions affects nurses’ understanding of patients’ situations and problems, and patients can also feel concern regarding whether nurses accurately understand their problems [ 29 ]. Nurses frequently experience psychological abuse when communicating with patients and develop stress or discomfort [ 30 ]; this can lead to distrustful relationships with and inhibited understanding of patients [ 31 , 32 ]. Vermeir et al. [ 18 ] reported that scientific approaches are required to understand patients in-depth. To accurately understand both oneself and others, the most important method is successful communication. Such findings support the present study’s indication that nurses’ communication is a basic means of solving nursing problems, with both actions being interrelated.

Our finding that nurses’ communication skills are structurally related to their nurse’s perception of professionalism supports the findings of many previous studies. Regarding nurse’s perception of professionalism, Adams et al. [ 33 ] as well as Lee and Kim [ 34 ] explained that a good perception leads to higher-level capabilities, fostering high-level nursing of patients and the development of autonomous vocation. The above studies reported that, since nurses’ communication skills are related to their nurse’s perception of professionalism, communication skills should be considered a predictor of success. Further, McGlynn et al. [ 35 ] recommended positively reinforcing communication skills to improve nurse’s perception of professionalism. This supports the findings of the present study, indicating that communication and nursing professional perception are interrelated.

Thus, communication skills are important for nursing patients. They enable nurses to accurately understand patients’ problems, serve (by forming patient trust) an important function in the process of administering nursing interventions, and positively affect nurses’ perception of their profession. As such, each concept is important. However, nurses working in the clinic are critically aware of their professionalism. In order to reinforce this, communication skills are required, and the emphasis is placed on strengthening the nurses’ ability to solve problems as well as assess and understand patients. As a result, communication skills play an important role in helping nurses understand patients’ problems accurately, build patient trust in nursing interventions, and create structural relationships that have a positive impact on the perception of nursing occupations. Therefore, efforts to improve nurses’ communication skills not only improve their problem-solving abilities and understanding of patients’ conditions but also improve their nurse’s perception of professionalism. To maintain the professionalism of nurses, “competency development programs” would be helpful, thereby emphasizing the need for their application in nursing colleges and clinical practice.

4.2. Relationship between Nurses’ Problem-Solving Ability and Nurse’s Perception of Professionalism

We found clinical nurses’ problem-solving ability to have no positive effect on their perception of professionalism. This contrasts with previous studies, which reported that problem-solving ability is helpful for such perception of professionalism [ 36 ]. We also found that problem-solving ability does not affect nursing professional perception through a mediating effect.

The present findings indicate that the distinctiveness of the fields of nursing should not be overlooked. In nursing organizations that have a culture of discouraging diversity, when negative results are obtained from attempts to solve nursing problems, confusion regarding the identity of nursing professionals means perception of the profession is not reinforced; in many cases, the opposite perception is formed. Furthermore, for those in lower-level positions, nurse’s perception of professionalism is thought to be low because they cannot voice their opinions and have difficulties such as excessive workloads. Although few previous studies have directly examined this, Vermeir et al. [ 18 ] explained that, as the role expectation for nurses increases, factors for job turnover increase as a result of a sense of confusion regarding the nurses’ role and increases in stress. These findings indicate that factors that degrade nurses’ problem-solving ability induce skepticism regarding nursing and possibly career change, thereby supporting the findings of this study.

However, in the present study, positive results with low levels of relevancy in the structural model but high correlations were found. It is expected that, if nurses’ environmental conditions are improved and their nursing capabilities are developed so that they can solve nursing problems with confidence, their nursing professional perception will improve.

4.3. Relationship between Nurses’ Understanding of Patients’ Conditions and Nurse’s Perception of Professionalism

Our findings indicated that the relationship between nurses’ understanding of patients’ conditions and nurse’s perception of professionalism was statistically significant. This supports Nilsson et al. [ 21 ] and Philip et al. [ 29 ], who reported that, in the fields of nursing, when patients accurately understand nurses’ instructions or explanations and health information, they can participate in, independently adjust, and engage in creative decision-making related to self-nursing.

McGlynn et al. [ 35 ] suggested that understanding patient problems is an important element in resolving negative situations; meanwhile, Heo and Lim [ 37 ] indicated that clinical nurses provide high-quality nursing services and develop self-efficacy when they apply professional knowledge and a desire to understand patients’ problems. These study findings accord with our own findings.

The aforementioned findings suggest that the development and application of programs that can enhance nurses’ understanding of patients’ conditions should be emphasized, and that studies of various patient types, the characteristics of patients by age group and hospital areas, as well as the introduction of simulation education programs to improve nurses’ understanding of patients’ conditions should be continuously implemented.

5. Conclusions

This study aimed to verify the structural relationships between clinical nurses’ communication skills and their problem-solving ability, understanding of patients’ conditions, and nurse’s perception of professionalism. We also aimed to identify, through a structural model, the mediating effects of nurses’ problem-solving ability and understanding of patients’ conditions in the relationship between communication skills and nurse’s perception of professionalism.

The findings of this study are as follows (all significance levels = 0.05). In the relationship between communication skills and problem-solving ability, the value of the standardization factor was 0.85 and the CR value was 7.37, indicating that communication skills had a statistically significant effect. In the relationship between nurses’ communication skills and understanding of patients’ conditions, the value of the standardization factor was 0.61 and the CR value was 6.35, indicating that communication skills had a statistically significant effect. In the relationship between communication skills and nurse’s perception of professionalism, the value of the standardization factor was 0.54 and the CR value was 2.02, indicating that communication skills had a statistically significant effect. However, in the relationship between problem-solving ability and nurse’s perception of professionalism, the value of the standardization factor was −0.05 and the CR value was −0.39, indicating that problem-solving ability has no statistically significant effect. Finally, in the relationship between nurses’ understanding of patients’ conditions and nurse’s perception of professionalism, the value of the standardization factor was 0.56, and the CR value was 2.14, indicating that nurses’ understanding of patients’ conditions has a statistically significant effect.

There are some limitations to this study. First, as we only examined nurses at secondary and tertiary university hospitals, our findings may not be generalizable to all clinical nurses. Replication studies examining a range of levels of medical institutions and associated workers are necessary. Second, the structural relationship between problem-solving ability and the nurse’s perception of professionalism turned out to be insignificant or mediated. Subsequent studies on the various approaches to revisit this structural relationship should be performed. Third, theories should be systematically developed to establish the values of the nursing profession, and additional studies are necessary to explore other variables.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the staff nurses who participated in the survey and took the time to complete the initial assessment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.Y.K. and I.O.S.; methodology, A.Y.K.; software, I.O.S.; validation, A.Y.K. and I.O.S.; formal analysis, A.Y.K. and I.O.S.; investigation, A.Y.K.; resources, A.Y.K.; data curation, A.Y.K.; writing—original draft preparation, A.Y.K.; writing—review and editing, A.Y.K. and I.O.S.; visualization, A.Y.K. and I.O.S.; supervision, I.O.S.; project administration, I.O.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

• 1. Kang J.W., Lee Y.N., Kang P. Nurses’ perceptions of the professionalism in comprehensive nursing care service wards. J. KSSSS. 2019;45:45–66. [ Google Scholar ]
• 2. Dean A.R., Beyer E., Carter K. Connecting a school of nursing and a professional nurse organization to promote concussion awareness. J. Emerg. Nurs. 2018;44:86–88. doi: 10.1016/j.jen.2017.10.005. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 3. Durmaz Y.C., Serin E.K., Polat H.T. Determination of problem-solving and communication skills of nursing/midwifery students. Int. J. Caring Sci. 2018;11:1771–1777. [ Google Scholar ]
• 4. Kim H.J., Kim H.Y. Experience of job stress among nurses working in long-term care hospital: A phenomenological approach. Korean J. Adult Nurs. 2016;28:572–584. doi: 10.7475/kjan.2016.28.5.572. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 5. Ning S., Zhong H., Qiujie L. The impact of nurse empowerment on job satisfaction. J. Adv. Nurs. 2009;65:2642–2648. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05133.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 6. Niknam F., Khammarnia M., Zand F., Fallahnejad E., Sharifian R. Evaluating physicians and nurses’ satisfaction with computerized physician order entry system in Iran. J. Health Manag. Inform. 2018;5:51–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• 7. Oprescu F., McAllister M., Duncan D., Jones C. Professional development needs of nurse educators. An Australian case study. Nurs. Educ. Pract. 2017;27:165–168. doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2017.07.004. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 8. Bang M., Sim S. Relationship among empathy ability, creativity confluence competency and problem-solving ability in nursing students. Indian J. Public Health Res. Dev. 2018;9:939–944. doi: 10.5958/0976-5506.2018.00851.3. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 9. Kwak S.Y., Kim Y.S., Lee K.J., Kim M. Influence of nursing informatics competencies and problem-solving ability on nursing performance ability among clinical nurses. J. Korean Acad. Nurs. Adm. 2017;23:146. doi: 10.5977/jkasne.2017.23.2.146. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 10. Morita K., Matsui H., Yamana H., Fushimi K., Imamura T., Yasunaga Y. Association between advanced practice nursing and 30-day mortality in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: A retrospective cohort study. J. Crit. Care. 2017;41:209–215. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2017.05.025. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 11. Hoeksel R., Eddy L., Dekker L., Doutrich D. Becoming a transformative nurse educator: Finding safety and authenticity. Int. J. Nurs. Educ. Scholarsh. 2019;1:1–8. doi: 10.1515/ijnes-2018-0073. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 12. Ceravolo D.J., Schwartz D.G., Foltz K.M., Castner J. Strengthening communication to overcome lateral violence. J. Nurs. Manag. 2012;20:599–606. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2012.01402.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 13. Boyd C., Dare J. Communication Skills for Nurses. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; New York, NY, USA: 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• 14. Curtis K., Tzannes A., Rudge T. How to talk to doctors—A guide for effective communication. Int. Nurs. Rev. 2011;58:13–20. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-7657.2010.00847.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 15. Clements A., Curtis K., Horvat L., Shaban R.Z. The effect of a nurse team leader on communication and leadership in major trauma resuscitation. Int. Emerg. Nurs. 2015;23:3–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ienj.2014.04.004. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 16. Pangh B., Jouybari L., Vakili M.A., Sanagoo A., Torik A. The effect of reflection on nurse-patient communication skills in emergency medical centers. J. Caring Sci. 2019;8:75–81. doi: 10.15171/jcs.2019.011. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 17. Ancel G. Problem-solving training: Effects on the problem-solving skills and self-efficacy of nursing students. Eurasian J. Educ. Res. 2016;64:231–246. doi: 10.14689/ejer.2016.64.13. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 18. Vermeir P., Blot S., Degroote S., Vandijck D., Mariman A., Vanacker T., Peleman R., Verhaeghe R., Vogelaers D. Communication satisfaction and job satisfaction among critical care nurses and their impact on burnout and intention to leave: A questionnaire study. Intensive Crit. Care Nurs. 2018;48:21–27. doi: 10.1016/j.iccn.2018.07.001. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 19. Park S.J. Effects of video debriefing on self-efficacy, problem solving ability and learning satisfaction of nursing students in ICU-based simulation education. J. Korean Soc. Simul. Nurs. 2017;5:31–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• 20. Hopkinson S.G., Oblea P., Napier C., Lasiowski J., Trego L.L. Identifying the constructs of empowering nurse leader communication through an instrument development process. J. Nurs. Manag. 2019;27:722–731. doi: 10.1111/jonm.12729. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 21. Nilsson J., Engstrom M., Florin J., Gardulf A., Carlsson M. A short version of the nurse professional competence scale for measuring nurses’ self-reported competence. Nurse Educ. Today. 2018;71:233–239. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2018.09.028. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 22. Hwang H.J., Lim J.H. The effects of nursing professional intuition and self-leadership on organizational commitment in clinical nurses. JLCC. 2018;18:1155–1171. doi: 10.22251/jlcci.2018.18.24.1155. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 23. Bae B.R. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS 7: Principles and Practice. Choungram Books; Seoul, Korea: 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• 24. Lee J.A., Jang M.H. The influences of critical thinking ability, communication skills, leadership, and professionalism on clinical practice ability in nursing students. J. East.West. Nurs. Res. 2017;25:124–133. doi: 10.14370/jewnr.2017.23.2.124. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 25. Lee S.J. Ph.D. Thesis. Chon-nam National University; Gwangju, Korea: 2009. The Effects of Action Learning Program on Nurses’ Problem Solving and Communication Skills. [ Google Scholar ]
• 26. Paek K.S. Impact of health literacy on adherence to self-care behavior among the elderly with hypertension in a community. Crisionomy (KRCEM) 2015;8:157–174. [ Google Scholar ]
• 27. Hu L.Z., Bentler P.M. Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 1999;6:1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 28. Kim H.S., Han S.J. The survey on the influence of clinical nurse’s critical thinking disposition, problem-solving skill and self-efficacy on patients’ safety competencies. J. Korea Acad. Ind. Coop. Soc. 2016;17:598–608. doi: 10.5762/KAIS.2016.17.6.598. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 29. Philip S., Woodward-Kron R., Manias E., Noronha M. Overseas qualified nurses’ (OQNs) perspectives and experiences of intra professional and nurse-patient communication through a community of practice. Collegian. 2019;26:86–94. doi: 10.1016/j.colegn.2018.04.002. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 30. Nikmanesh P., Mohammedzadeh B., Nobakht S., Yusefi A.R. Nurses communication skills training and its effect on patients’ satisfaction in teaching hospitals of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. J. Maz. Univ. Med. Sci. 2018;6:22–29. doi: 10.18502/jhs.v6i4.201. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 31. Kim S.H., Lee M.A. Effects of emotional labor and communication competence on turnover intention in nurses. J. Korean Acad. Nurs. Adm. 2014;20:332–341. doi: 10.11111/jkana.2014.20.3.332. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 32. Kim S.M., Park M.J., Yang Y.K. Effects on problem solving ability and learning satisfaction of nursing students of receiving a teaching method using standardized patients—Blood transfusion. J. Korean Acad. Nurs. Adm. 2015;22:406–415. doi: 10.7739/jkafn.2015.22.4.406. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 33. Adams A.M.N., Chamberlain D., Giles T.M. The perceived and experienced role of the nurse unit manager in supporting the wellbeing of intensive care unit nurses: An integrative literature review. Aust. Crit. Care. 2019;32:319–329. doi: 10.1016/j.aucc.2018.06.003. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 34. Lee S.Y., Kim Y.Y. The effects of self-efficacy and self-directed learning readiness to self-leadership of nursing student. J. Digit. Converg. 2016;14:309–318. doi: 10.14400/JDC.2016.14.3.309. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 35. McGlynn K., Griffin M.Q., Donahue M., Fitzpatrick J.J. Registered nurse job satisfaction and satisfaction with the professional practice model. J. Nurs. Manag. 2012;20:260–265. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2011.01351.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 36. Dan X., Zhang Q.M., Shi J.J., Xu S.H., Liu J.Y., Liu Y.H., Ma H.W. Improving job satisfaction of Chinese nurses: The positive effects of structural empowerment and psychological capital. TMR Integr. Nurs. 2018;2:169–177. [ Google Scholar ]
• 37. Heo M.L., Lim S.B. Development of the patient caring communication scale. Korean Soc. Nurs. Sci. 2019;49:80–91. doi: 10.4040/jkan.2019.49.1.80. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• View on publisher site
• PDF (649.3 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Hughes RG, editor. Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008 Apr.

Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses.

Chapter 6 clinical reasoning, decisionmaking, and action: thinking critically and clinically.

Patricia Benner ; Ronda G. Hughes ; Molly Sutphen .

Affiliations

This chapter examines multiple thinking strategies that are needed for high-quality clinical practice. Clinical reasoning and judgment are examined in relation to other modes of thinking used by clinical nurses in providing quality health care to patients that avoids adverse events and patient harm. The clinician’s ability to provide safe, high-quality care can be dependent upon their ability to reason, think, and judge, which can be limited by lack of experience. The expert performance of nurses is dependent upon continual learning and evaluation of performance.

• Critical Thinking

Nursing education has emphasized critical thinking as an essential nursing skill for more than 50 years. 1 The definitions of critical thinking have evolved over the years. There are several key definitions for critical thinking to consider. The American Philosophical Association (APA) defined critical thinking as purposeful, self-regulatory judgment that uses cognitive tools such as interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, and explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations on which judgment is based. 2 A more expansive general definition of critical thinking is

. . . in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism. Every clinician must develop rigorous habits of critical thinking, but they cannot escape completely the situatedness and structures of the clinical traditions and practices in which they must make decisions and act quickly in specific clinical situations. 3

There are three key definitions for nursing, which differ slightly. Bittner and Tobin defined critical thinking as being “influenced by knowledge and experience, using strategies such as reflective thinking as a part of learning to identify the issues and opportunities, and holistically synthesize the information in nursing practice” 4 (p. 268). Scheffer and Rubenfeld 5 expanded on the APA definition for nurses through a consensus process, resulting in the following definition:

Critical thinking in nursing is an essential component of professional accountability and quality nursing care. Critical thinkers in nursing exhibit these habits of the mind: confidence, contextual perspective, creativity, flexibility, inquisitiveness, intellectual integrity, intuition, openmindedness, perseverance, and reflection. Critical thinkers in nursing practice the cognitive skills of analyzing, applying standards, discriminating, information seeking, logical reasoning, predicting, and transforming knowledge 6 (Scheffer & Rubenfeld, p. 357).

The National League for Nursing Accreditation Commission (NLNAC) defined critical thinking as:

the deliberate nonlinear process of collecting, interpreting, analyzing, drawing conclusions about, presenting, and evaluating information that is both factually and belief based. This is demonstrated in nursing by clinical judgment, which includes ethical, diagnostic, and therapeutic dimensions and research 7 (p. 8).

These concepts are furthered by the American Association of Colleges of Nurses’ definition of critical thinking in their Essentials of Baccalaureate Nursing :

Critical thinking underlies independent and interdependent decision making. Critical thinking includes questioning, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, inference, inductive and deductive reasoning, intuition, application, and creativity 8 (p. 9).

Course work or ethical experiences should provide the graduate with the knowledge and skills to:

• Use nursing and other appropriate theories and models, and an appropriate ethical framework;
• Apply research-based knowledge from nursing and the sciences as the basis for practice;
• Use clinical judgment and decision-making skills;
• Engage in self-reflective and collegial dialogue about professional practice;
• Evaluate nursing care outcomes through the acquisition of data and the questioning of inconsistencies, allowing for the revision of actions and goals;
• Engage in creative problem solving 8 (p. 10).

Taken together, these definitions of critical thinking set forth the scope and key elements of thought processes involved in providing clinical care. Exactly how critical thinking is defined will influence how it is taught and to what standard of care nurses will be held accountable.

Professional and regulatory bodies in nursing education have required that critical thinking be central to all nursing curricula, but they have not adequately distinguished critical reflection from ethical, clinical, or even creative thinking for decisionmaking or actions required by the clinician. Other essential modes of thought such as clinical reasoning, evaluation of evidence, creative thinking, or the application of well-established standards of practice—all distinct from critical reflection—have been subsumed under the rubric of critical thinking. In the nursing education literature, clinical reasoning and judgment are often conflated with critical thinking. The accrediting bodies and nursing scholars have included decisionmaking and action-oriented, practical, ethical, and clinical reasoning in the rubric of critical reflection and thinking. One might say that this harmless semantic confusion is corrected by actual practices, except that students need to understand the distinctions between critical reflection and clinical reasoning, and they need to learn to discern when each is better suited, just as students need to also engage in applying standards, evidence-based practices, and creative thinking.

The growing body of research, patient acuity, and complexity of care demand higher-order thinking skills. Critical thinking involves the application of knowledge and experience to identify patient problems and to direct clinical judgments and actions that result in positive patient outcomes. These skills can be cultivated by educators who display the virtues of critical thinking, including independence of thought, intellectual curiosity, courage, humility, empathy, integrity, perseverance, and fair-mindedness. 9

The process of critical thinking is stimulated by integrating the essential knowledge, experiences, and clinical reasoning that support professional practice. The emerging paradigm for clinical thinking and cognition is that it is social and dialogical rather than monological and individual. 10–12 Clinicians pool their wisdom and multiple perspectives, yet some clinical knowledge can be demonstrated only in the situation (e.g., how to suction an extremely fragile patient whose oxygen saturations sink too low). Early warnings of problematic situations are made possible by clinicians comparing their observations to that of other providers. Clinicians form practice communities that create styles of practice, including ways of doing things, communication styles and mechanisms, and shared expectations about performance and expertise of team members.

By holding up critical thinking as a large umbrella for different modes of thinking, students can easily misconstrue the logic and purposes of different modes of thinking. Clinicians and scientists alike need multiple thinking strategies, such as critical thinking, clinical judgment, diagnostic reasoning, deliberative rationality, scientific reasoning, dialogue, argument, creative thinking, and so on. In particular, clinicians need forethought and an ongoing grasp of a patient’s health status and care needs trajectory, which requires an assessment of their own clarity and understanding of the situation at hand, critical reflection, critical reasoning, and clinical judgment.

Critical Reflection, Critical Reasoning, and Judgment

Critical reflection requires that the thinker examine the underlying assumptions and radically question or doubt the validity of arguments, assertions, and even facts of the case. Critical reflective skills are essential for clinicians; however, these skills are not sufficient for the clinician who must decide how to act in particular situations and avoid patient injury. For example, in everyday practice, clinicians cannot afford to critically reflect on the well-established tenets of “normal” or “typical” human circulatory systems when trying to figure out a particular patient’s alterations from that typical, well-grounded understanding that has existed since Harvey’s work in 1628. 13 Yet critical reflection can generate new scientifically based ideas. For example, there is a lack of adequate research on the differences between women’s and men’s circulatory systems and the typical pathophysiology related to heart attacks. Available research is based upon multiple, taken-for-granted starting points about the general nature of the circulatory system. As such, critical reflection may not provide what is needed for a clinician to act in a situation. This idea can be considered reasonable since critical reflective thinking is not sufficient for good clinical reasoning and judgment. The clinician’s development of skillful critical reflection depends upon being taught what to pay attention to, and thus gaining a sense of salience that informs the powers of perceptual grasp. The powers of noticing or perceptual grasp depend upon noticing what is salient and the capacity to respond to the situation.

Critical reflection is a crucial professional skill, but it is not the only reasoning skill or logic clinicians require. The ability to think critically uses reflection, induction, deduction, analysis, challenging assumptions, and evaluation of data and information to guide decisionmaking. 9 , 14 , 15 Critical reasoning is a process whereby knowledge and experience are applied in considering multiple possibilities to achieve the desired goals, 16 while considering the patient’s situation. 14 It is a process where both inductive and deductive cognitive skills are used. 17 Sometimes clinical reasoning is presented as a form of evaluating scientific knowledge, sometimes even as a form of scientific reasoning. Critical thinking is inherent in making sound clinical reasoning. 18

An essential point of tension and confusion exists in practice traditions such as nursing and medicine when clinical reasoning and critical reflection become entangled, because the clinician must have some established bases that are not questioned when engaging in clinical decisions and actions, such as standing orders. The clinician must act in the particular situation and time with the best clinical and scientific knowledge available. The clinician cannot afford to indulge in either ritualistic unexamined knowledge or diagnostic or therapeutic nihilism caused by radical doubt, as in critical reflection, because they must find an intelligent and effective way to think and act in particular clinical situations. Critical reflection skills are essential to assist practitioners to rethink outmoded or even wrong-headed approaches to health care, health promotion, and prevention of illness and complications, especially when new evidence is available. Breakdowns in practice, high failure rates in particular therapies, new diseases, new scientific discoveries, and societal changes call for critical reflection about past assumptions and no-longer-tenable beliefs.

Clinical reasoning stands out as a situated, practice-based form of reasoning that requires a background of scientific and technological research-based knowledge about general cases, more so than any particular instance. It also requires practical ability to discern the relevance of the evidence behind general scientific and technical knowledge and how it applies to a particular patient. In dong so, the clinician considers the patient’s particular clinical trajectory, their concerns and preferences, and their particular vulnerabilities (e.g., having multiple comorbidities) and sensitivities to care interventions (e.g., known drug allergies, other conflicting comorbid conditions, incompatible therapies, and past responses to therapies) when forming clinical decisions or conclusions.

Situated in a practice setting, clinical reasoning occurs within social relationships or situations involving patient, family, community, and a team of health care providers. The expert clinician situates themselves within a nexus of relationships, with concerns that are bounded by the situation. Expert clinical reasoning is socially engaged with the relationships and concerns of those who are affected by the caregiving situation, and when certain circumstances are present, the adverse event. Halpern 19 has called excellent clinical ethical reasoning “emotional reasoning” in that the clinicians have emotional access to the patient/family concerns and their understanding of the particular care needs. Expert clinicians also seek an optimal perceptual grasp, one based on understanding and as undistorted as possible, based on an attuned emotional engagement and expert clinical knowledge. 19 , 20

Clergy educators 21 and nursing and medical educators have begun to recognize the wisdom of broadening their narrow vision of rationality beyond simple rational calculation (exemplified by cost-benefit analysis) to reconsider the need for character development—including emotional engagement, perception, habits of thought, and skill acquisition—as essential to the development of expert clinical reasoning, judgment, and action. 10 , 22–24 Practitioners of engineering, law, medicine, and nursing, like the clergy, have to develop a place to stand in their discipline’s tradition of knowledge and science in order to recognize and evaluate salient evidence in the moment. Diagnostic confusion and disciplinary nihilism are both threats to the clinician’s ability to act in particular situations. However, the practice and practitioners will not be self-improving and vital if they cannot engage in critical reflection on what is not of value, what is outmoded, and what does not work. As evidence evolves and expands, so too must clinical thought.

Clinical judgment requires clinical reasoning across time about the particular, and because of the relevance of this immediate historical unfolding, clinical reasoning can be very different from the scientific reasoning used to formulate, conduct, and assess clinical experiments. While scientific reasoning is also socially embedded in a nexus of social relationships and concerns, the goal of detached, critical objectivity used to conduct scientific experiments minimizes the interactive influence of the research on the experiment once it has begun. Scientific research in the natural and clinical sciences typically uses formal criteria to develop “yes” and “no” judgments at prespecified times. The scientist is always situated in past and immediate scientific history, preferring to evaluate static and predetermined points in time (e.g., snapshot reasoning), in contrast to a clinician who must always reason about transitions over time. 25 , 26

Techne and Phronesis

Distinctions between the mere scientific making of things and practice was first explored by Aristotle as distinctions between techne and phronesis. 27 Learning to be a good practitioner requires developing the requisite moral imagination for good practice. If, for example, patients exercise their rights and refuse treatments, practitioners are required to have the moral imagination to understand the probable basis for the patient’s refusal. For example, was the refusal based upon catastrophic thinking, unrealistic fears, misunderstanding, or even clinical depression?

Techne, as defined by Aristotle, encompasses the notion of formation of character and habitus 28 as embodied beings. In Aristotle’s terms, techne refers to the making of things or producing outcomes. 11 Joseph Dunne defines techne as “the activity of producing outcomes,” and it “is governed by a means-ends rationality where the maker or producer governs the thing or outcomes produced or made through gaining mastery over the means of producing the outcomes, to the point of being able to separate means and ends” 11 (p. 54). While some aspects of medical and nursing practice fall into the category of techne, much of nursing and medical practice falls outside means-ends rationality and must be governed by concern for doing good or what is best for the patient in particular circumstances, where being in a relationship and discerning particular human concerns at stake guide action.

Phronesis, in contrast to techne, includes reasoning about the particular, across time, through changes or transitions in the patient’s and/or the clinician’s understanding. As noted by Dunne, phronesis is “characterized at least as much by a perceptiveness with regard to concrete particulars as by a knowledge of universal principles” 11 (p. 273). This type of practical reasoning often takes the form of puzzle solving or the evaluation of immediate past “hot” history of the patient’s situation. Such a particular clinical situation is necessarily particular, even though many commonalities and similarities with other disease syndromes can be recognized through signs and symptoms and laboratory tests. 11 , 29 , 30 Pointing to knowledge embedded in a practice makes no claim for infallibility or “correctness.” Individual practitioners can be mistaken in their judgments because practices such as medicine and nursing are inherently underdetermined. 31

While phronetic knowledge must remain open to correction and improvement, real events, and consequences, it cannot consistently transcend the institutional setting’s capacities and supports for good practice. Phronesis is also dependent on ongoing experiential learning of the practitioner, where knowledge is refined, corrected, or refuted. The Western tradition, with the notable exception of Aristotle, valued knowledge that could be made universal and devalued practical know-how and experiential learning. Descartes codified this preference for formal logic and rational calculation.

Aristotle recognized that when knowledge is underdetermined, changeable, and particular, it cannot be turned into the universal or standardized. It must be perceived, discerned, and judged, all of which require experiential learning. In nursing and medicine, perceptual acuity in physical assessment and clinical judgment (i.e., reasoning across time about changes in the particular patient or the clinician’s understanding of the patient’s condition) fall into the Greek Aristotelian category of phronesis. Dewey 32 sought to rescue knowledge gained by practical activity in the world. He identified three flaws in the understanding of experience in Greek philosophy: (1) empirical knowing is the opposite of experience with science; (2) practice is reduced to techne or the application of rational thought or technique; and (3) action and skilled know-how are considered temporary and capricious as compared to reason, which the Greeks considered as ultimate reality.

In practice, nursing and medicine require both techne and phronesis. The clinician standardizes and routinizes what can be standardized and routinized, as exemplified by standardized blood pressure measurements, diagnoses, and even charting about the patient’s condition and treatment. 27 Procedural and scientific knowledge can often be formalized and standardized (e.g., practice guidelines), or at least made explicit and certain in practice, except for the necessary timing and adjustments made for particular patients. 11 , 22

Rational calculations available to techne—population trends and statistics, algorithms—are created as decision support structures and can improve accuracy when used as a stance of inquiry in making clinical judgments about particular patients. Aggregated evidence from clinical trials and ongoing working knowledge of pathophysiology, biochemistry, and genomics are essential. In addition, the skills of phronesis (clinical judgment that reasons across time, taking into account the transitions of the particular patient/family/community and transitions in the clinician’s understanding of the clinical situation) will be required for nursing, medicine, or any helping profession.

Thinking Critically

Being able to think critically enables nurses to meet the needs of patients within their context and considering their preferences; meet the needs of patients within the context of uncertainty; consider alternatives, resulting in higher-quality care; 33 and think reflectively, rather than simply accepting statements and performing tasks without significant understanding and evaluation. 34 Skillful practitioners can think critically because they have the following cognitive skills: information seeking, discriminating, analyzing, transforming knowledge, predicating, applying standards, and logical reasoning. 5 One’s ability to think critically can be affected by age, length of education (e.g., an associate vs. a baccalaureate decree in nursing), and completion of philosophy or logic subjects. 35–37 The skillful practitioner can think critically because of having the following characteristics: motivation, perseverance, fair-mindedness, and deliberate and careful attention to thinking. 5 , 9

Thinking critically implies that one has a knowledge base from which to reason and the ability to analyze and evaluate evidence. 38 Knowledge can be manifest by the logic and rational implications of decisionmaking. Clinical decisionmaking is particularly influenced by interpersonal relationships with colleagues, 39 patient conditions, availability of resources, 40 knowledge, and experience. 41 Of these, experience has been shown to enhance nurses’ abilities to make quick decisions 42 and fewer decision errors, 43 support the identification of salient cues, and foster the recognition and action on patterns of information. 44 , 45

Clinicians must develop the character and relational skills that enable them to perceive and understand their patient’s needs and concerns. This requires accurate interpretation of patient data that is relevant to the specific patient and situation. In nursing, this formation of moral agency focuses on learning to be responsible in particular ways demanded by the practice, and to pay attention and intelligently discern changes in patients’ concerns and/or clinical condition that require action on the part of the nurse or other health care workers to avert potential compromises to quality care.

Formation of the clinician’s character, skills, and habits are developed in schools and particular practice communities within a larger practice tradition. As Dunne notes,

A practice is not just a surface on which one can display instant virtuosity. It grounds one in a tradition that has been formed through an elaborate development and that exists at any juncture only in the dispositions (slowly and perhaps painfully acquired) of its recognized practitioners. The question may of course be asked whether there are any such practices in the contemporary world, whether the wholesale encroachment of Technique has not obliterated them—and whether this is not the whole point of MacIntyre’s recipe of withdrawal, as well as of the post-modern story of dispossession 11 (p. 378).

Clearly Dunne is engaging in critical reflection about the conditions for developing character, skills, and habits for skillful and ethical comportment of practitioners, as well as to act as moral agents for patients so that they and their families receive safe, effective, and compassionate care.

Professional socialization or professional values, while necessary, do not adequately address character and skill formation that transform the way the practitioner exists in his or her world, what the practitioner is capable of noticing and responding to, based upon well-established patterns of emotional responses, skills, dispositions to act, and the skills to respond, decide, and act. 46 The need for character and skill formation of the clinician is what makes a practice stand out from a mere technical, repetitious manufacturing process. 11 , 30 , 47

In nursing and medicine, many have questioned whether current health care institutions are designed to promote or hinder enlightened, compassionate practice, or whether they have deteriorated into commercial institutional models that focus primarily on efficiency and profit. MacIntyre points out the links between the ongoing development and improvement of practice traditions and the institutions that house them:

Lack of justice, lack of truthfulness, lack of courage, lack of the relevant intellectual virtues—these corrupt traditions, just as they do those institutions and practices which derive their life from the traditions of which they are the contemporary embodiments. To recognize this is of course also to recognize the existence of an additional virtue, one whose importance is perhaps most obvious when it is least present, the virtue of having an adequate sense of the traditions to which one belongs or which confront one. This virtue is not to be confused with any form of conservative antiquarianism; I am not praising those who choose the conventional conservative role of laudator temporis acti. It is rather the case that an adequate sense of tradition manifests itself in a grasp of those future possibilities which the past has made available to the present. Living traditions, just because they continue a not-yet-completed narrative, confront a future whose determinate and determinable character, so far as it possesses any, derives from the past 30 (p. 207).

It would be impossible to capture all the situated and distributed knowledge outside of actual practice situations and particular patients. Simulations are powerful as teaching tools to enable nurses’ ability to think critically because they give students the opportunity to practice in a simplified environment. However, students can be limited in their inability to convey underdetermined situations where much of the information is based on perceptions of many aspects of the patient and changes that have occurred over time. Simulations cannot have the sub-cultures formed in practice settings that set the social mood of trust, distrust, competency, limited resources, or other forms of situated possibilities.

One of the hallmark studies in nursing providing keen insight into understanding the influence of experience was a qualitative study of adult, pediatric, and neonatal intensive care unit (ICU) nurses, where the nurses were clustered into advanced beginner, intermediate, and expert level of practice categories. The advanced beginner (having up to 6 months of work experience) used procedures and protocols to determine which clinical actions were needed. When confronted with a complex patient situation, the advanced beginner felt their practice was unsafe because of a knowledge deficit or because of a knowledge application confusion. The transition from advanced beginners to competent practitioners began when they first had experience with actual clinical situations and could benefit from the knowledge gained from the mistakes of their colleagues. Competent nurses continuously questioned what they saw and heard, feeling an obligation to know more about clinical situations. In doing do, they moved from only using care plans and following the physicians’ orders to analyzing and interpreting patient situations. Beyond that, the proficient nurse acknowledged the changing relevance of clinical situations requiring action beyond what was planned or anticipated. The proficient nurse learned to acknowledge the changing needs of patient care and situation, and could organize interventions “by the situation as it unfolds rather than by preset goals 48 (p. 24). Both competent and proficient nurses (that is, intermediate level of practice) had at least two years of ICU experience. 48 Finally, the expert nurse had a more fully developed grasp of a clinical situation, a sense of confidence in what is known about the situation, and could differentiate the precise clinical problem in little time. 48

Expertise is acquired through professional experience and is indicative of a nurse who has moved beyond mere proficiency. As Gadamer 29 points out, experience involves a turning around of preconceived notions, preunderstandings, and extends or adds nuances to understanding. Dewey 49 notes that experience requires a prepared “creature” and an enriched environment. The opportunity to reflect and narrate one’s experiential learning can clarify, extend, or even refute experiential learning.

Experiential learning requires time and nurturing, but time alone does not ensure experiential learning. Aristotle linked experiential learning to the development of character and moral sensitivities of a person learning a practice. 50 New nurses/new graduates have limited work experience and must experience continuing learning until they have reached an acceptable level of performance. 51 After that, further improvements are not predictable, and years of experience are an inadequate predictor of expertise. 52

The most effective knower and developer of practical knowledge creates an ongoing dialogue and connection between lessons of the day and experiential learning over time. Gadamer, in a late life interview, highlighted the open-endedness and ongoing nature of experiential learning in the following interview response:

Being experienced does not mean that one now knows something once and for all and becomes rigid in this knowledge; rather, one becomes more open to new experiences. A person who is experienced is undogmatic. Experience has the effect of freeing one to be open to new experience … In our experience we bring nothing to a close; we are constantly learning new things from our experience … this I call the interminability of all experience 32 (p. 403).

Practical endeavor, supported by scientific knowledge, requires experiential learning, the development of skilled know-how, and perceptual acuity in order to make the scientific knowledge relevant to the situation. Clinical perceptual and skilled know-how helps the practitioner discern when particular scientific findings might be relevant. 53

Often experience and knowledge, confirmed by experimentation, are treated as oppositions, an either-or choice. However, in practice it is readily acknowledged that experiential knowledge fuels scientific investigation, and scientific investigation fuels further experiential learning. Experiential learning from particular clinical cases can help the clinician recognize future similar cases and fuel new scientific questions and study. For example, less experienced nurses—and it could be argued experienced as well—can use nursing diagnoses practice guidelines as part of their professional advancement. Guidelines are used to reflect their interpretation of patients’ needs, responses, and situation, 54 a process that requires critical thinking and decisionmaking. 55 , 56 Using guidelines also reflects one’s problem identification and problem-solving abilities. 56 Conversely, the ability to proficiently conduct a series of tasks without nursing diagnoses is the hallmark of expertise. 39 , 57

Experience precedes expertise. As expertise develops from experience and gaining knowledge and transitions to the proficiency stage, the nurses’ thinking moves from steps and procedures (i.e., task-oriented care) toward “chunks” or patterns 39 (i.e., patient-specific care). In doing so, the nurse thinks reflectively, rather than merely accepting statements and performing procedures without significant understanding and evaluation. 34 Expert nurses do not rely on rules and logical thought processes in problem-solving and decisionmaking. 39 Instead, they use abstract principles, can see the situation as a complex whole, perceive situations comprehensively, and can be fully involved in the situation. 48 Expert nurses can perform high-level care without conscious awareness of the knowledge they are using, 39 , 58 and they are able to provide that care with flexibility and speed. Through a combination of knowledge and skills gained from a range of theoretical and experiential sources, expert nurses also provide holistic care. 39 Thus, the best care comes from the combination of theoretical, tacit, and experiential knowledge. 59 , 60

Experts are thought to eventually develop the ability to intuitively know what to do and to quickly recognize critical aspects of the situation. 22 Some have proposed that expert nurses provide high-quality patient care, 61 , 62 but that is not consistently documented—particularly in consideration of patient outcomes—and a full understanding between the differential impact of care rendered by an “expert” nurse is not fully understood. In fact, several studies have found that length of professional experience is often unrelated and even negatively related to performance measures and outcomes. 63 , 64

In a review of the literature on expertise in nursing, Ericsson and colleagues 65 found that focusing on challenging, less-frequent situations would reveal individual performance differences on tasks that require speed and flexibility, such as that experienced during a code or an adverse event. Superior performance was associated with extensive training and immediate feedback about outcomes, which can be obtained through continual training, simulation, and processes such as root-cause analysis following an adverse event. Therefore, efforts to improve performance benefited from continual monitoring, planning, and retrospective evaluation. Even then, the nurse’s ability to perform as an expert is dependent upon their ability to use intuition or insights gained through interactions with patients. 39

Intuition and Perception

Intuition is the instant understanding of knowledge without evidence of sensible thought. 66 According to Young, 67 intuition in clinical practice is a process whereby the nurse recognizes something about a patient that is difficult to verbalize. Intuition is characterized by factual knowledge, “immediate possession of knowledge, and knowledge independent of the linear reasoning process” 68 (p. 23). When intuition is used, one filters information initially triggered by the imagination, leading to the integration of all knowledge and information to problem solve. 69 Clinicians use their interactions with patients and intuition, drawing on tacit or experiential knowledge, 70 , 71 to apply the correct knowledge to make the correct decisions to address patient needs. Yet there is a “conflated belief in the nurses’ ability to know what is best for the patient” 72 (p. 251) because the nurses’ and patients’ identification of the patients’ needs can vary. 73

A review of research and rhetoric involving intuition by King and Appleton 62 found that all nurses, including students, used intuition (i.e., gut feelings). They found evidence, predominately in critical care units, that intuition was triggered in response to knowledge and as a trigger for action and/or reflection with a direct bearing on the analytical process involved in patient care. The challenge for nurses was that rigid adherence to checklists, guidelines, and standardized documentation, 62 ignored the benefits of intuition. This view was furthered by Rew and Barrow 68 , 74 in their reviews of the literature, where they found that intuition was imperative to complex decisionmaking, 68 difficult to measure and assess in a quantitative manner, and was not linked to physiologic measures. 74

Intuition is a way of explaining professional expertise. 75 Expert nurses rely on their intuitive judgment that has been developed over time. 39 , 76 Intuition is an informal, nonanalytically based, unstructured, deliberate calculation that facilitates problem solving, 77 a process of arriving at salient conclusions based on relatively small amounts of knowledge and/or information. 78 Experts can have rapid insight into a situation by using intuition to recognize patterns and similarities, achieve commonsense understanding, and sense the salient information combined with deliberative rationality. 10 Intuitive recognition of similarities and commonalities between patients are often the first diagnostic clue or early warning, which must then be followed up with critical evaluation of evidence among the competing conditions. This situation calls for intuitive judgment that can distinguish “expert human judgment from the decisions” made by a novice 79 (p. 23).

Shaw 80 equates intuition with direct perception. Direct perception is dependent upon being able to detect complex patterns and relationships that one has learned through experience are important. Recognizing these patterns and relationships generally occurs rapidly and is complex, making it difficult to articulate or describe. Perceptual skills, like those of the expert nurse, are essential to recognizing current and changing clinical conditions. Perception requires attentiveness and the development of a sense of what is salient. Often in nursing and medicine, means and ends are fused, as is the case for a “good enough” birth experience and a peaceful death.

• Applying Practice Evidence

Research continues to find that using evidence-based guidelines in practice, informed through research evidence, improves patients’ outcomes. 81–83 Research-based guidelines are intended to provide guidance for specific areas of health care delivery. 84 The clinician—both the novice and expert—is expected to use the best available evidence for the most efficacious therapies and interventions in particular instances, to ensure the highest-quality care, especially when deviations from the evidence-based norm may heighten risks to patient safety. Otherwise, if nursing and medicine were exact sciences, or consisted only of techne, then a 1:1 relationship could be established between results of aggregated evidence-based research and the best path for all patients.

Evaluating Evidence

Before research should be used in practice, it must be evaluated. There are many complexities and nuances in evaluating the research evidence for clinical practice. Evaluation of research behind evidence-based medicine requires critical thinking and good clinical judgment. Sometimes the research findings are mixed or even conflicting. As such, the validity, reliability, and generalizability of available research are fundamental to evaluating whether evidence can be applied in practice. To do so, clinicians must select the best scientific evidence relevant to particular patients—a complex process that involves intuition to apply the evidence. Critical thinking is required for evaluating the best available scientific evidence for the treatment and care of a particular patient.

Good clinical judgment is required to select the most relevant research evidence. The best clinical judgment, that is, reasoning across time about the particular patient through changes in the patient’s concerns and condition and/or the clinician’s understanding, are also required. This type of judgment requires clinicians to make careful observations and evaluations of the patient over time, as well as know the patient’s concerns and social circumstances. To evolve to this level of judgment, additional education beyond clinical preparation if often required.

Sources of Evidence

Evidence that can be used in clinical practice has different sources and can be derived from research, patient’s preferences, and work-related experience. 85 , 86 Nurses have been found to obtain evidence from experienced colleagues believed to have clinical expertise and research-based knowledge 87 as well as other sources.

For many years now, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have often been considered the best standard for evaluating clinical practice. Yet, unless the common threats to the validity (e.g., representativeness of the study population) and reliability (e.g., consistency in interventions and responses of study participants) of RCTs are addressed, the meaningfulness and generalizability of the study outcomes are very limited. Relevant patient populations may be excluded, such as women, children, minorities, the elderly, and patients with multiple chronic illnesses. The dropout rate of the trial may confound the results. And it is easier to get positive results published than it is to get negative results published. Thus, RCTs are generalizable (i.e., applicable) only to the population studied—which may not reflect the needs of the patient under the clinicians care. In instances such as these, clinicians need to also consider applied research using prospective or retrospective populations with case control to guide decisionmaking, yet this too requires critical thinking and good clinical judgment.

Another source of available evidence may come from the gold standard of aggregated systematic evaluation of clinical trial outcomes for the therapy and clinical condition in question, be generated by basic and clinical science relevant to the patient’s particular pathophysiology or care need situation, or stem from personal clinical experience. The clinician then takes all of the available evidence and considers the particular patient’s known clinical responses to past therapies, their clinical condition and history, the progression or stages of the patient’s illness and recovery, and available resources.

In clinical practice, the particular is examined in relation to the established generalizations of science. With readily available summaries of scientific evidence (e.g., systematic reviews and practice guidelines) available to nurses and physicians, one might wonder whether deep background understanding is still advantageous. Might it not be expendable, since it is likely to be out of date given the current scientific evidence? But this assumption is a false opposition and false choice because without a deep background understanding, the clinician does not know how to best find and evaluate scientific evidence for the particular case in hand. The clinician’s sense of salience in any given situation depends on past clinical experience and current scientific evidence.

Evidence-Based Practice

The concept of evidence-based practice is dependent upon synthesizing evidence from the variety of sources and applying it appropriately to the care needs of populations and individuals. This implies that evidence-based practice, indicative of expertise in practice, appropriately applies evidence to the specific situations and unique needs of patients. 88 , 89 Unfortunately, even though providing evidence-based care is an essential component of health care quality, it is well known that evidence-based practices are not used consistently.

Conceptually, evidence used in practice advances clinical knowledge, and that knowledge supports independent clinical decisions in the best interest of the patient. 90 , 91 Decisions must prudently consider the factors not necessarily addressed in the guideline, such as the patient’s lifestyle, drug sensitivities and allergies, and comorbidities. Nurses who want to improve the quality and safety of care can do so though improving the consistency of data and information interpretation inherent in evidence-based practice.

Initially, before evidence-based practice can begin, there needs to be an accurate clinical judgment of patient responses and needs. In the course of providing care, with careful consideration of patient safety and quality care, clinicians must give attention to the patient’s condition, their responses to health care interventions, and potential adverse reactions or events that could harm the patient. Nonetheless, there is wide variation in the ability of nurses to accurately interpret patient responses 92 and their risks. 93 Even though variance in interpretation is expected, nurses are obligated to continually improve their skills to ensure that patients receive quality care safely. 94 Patients are vulnerable to the actions and experience of their clinicians, which are inextricably linked to the quality of care patients have access to and subsequently receive.

The judgment of the patient’s condition determines subsequent interventions and patient outcomes. Attaining accurate and consistent interpretations of patient data and information is difficult because each piece can have different meanings, and interpretations are influenced by previous experiences. 95 Nurses use knowledge from clinical experience 96 , 97 and—although infrequently—research. 98–100

Once a problem has been identified, using a process that utilizes critical thinking to recognize the problem, the clinician then searches for and evaluates the research evidence 101 and evaluates potential discrepancies. The process of using evidence in practice involves “a problem-solving approach that incorporates the best available scientific evidence, clinicians’ expertise, and patient’s preferences and values” 102 (p. 28). Yet many nurses do not perceive that they have the education, tools, or resources to use evidence appropriately in practice. 103

Reported barriers to using research in practice have included difficulty in understanding the applicability and the complexity of research findings, failure of researchers to put findings into the clinical context, lack of skills in how to use research in practice, 104 , 105 amount of time required to access information and determine practice implications, 105–107 lack of organizational support to make changes and/or use in practice, 104 , 97 , 105 , 107 and lack of confidence in one’s ability to critically evaluate clinical evidence. 108

When Evidence Is Missing

In many clinical situations, there may be no clear guidelines and few or even no relevant clinical trials to guide decisionmaking. In these cases, the latest basic science about cellular and genomic functioning may be the most relevant science, or by default, guestimation. Consequently, good patient care requires more than a straightforward, unequivocal application of scientific evidence. The clinician must be able to draw on a good understanding of basic sciences, as well as guidelines derived from aggregated data and information from research investigations.

Practical knowledge is shaped by one’s practice discipline and the science and technology relevant to the situation at hand. But scientific, formal, discipline-specific knowledge are not sufficient for good clinical practice, whether the discipline be law, medicine, nursing, teaching, or social work. Practitioners still have to learn how to discern generalizable scientific knowledge, know how to use scientific knowledge in practical situations, discern what scientific evidence/knowledge is relevant, assess how the particular patient’s situation differs from the general scientific understanding, and recognize the complexity of care delivery—a process that is complex, ongoing, and changing, as new evidence can overturn old.

Practice communities like individual practitioners may also be mistaken, as is illustrated by variability in practice styles and practice outcomes across hospitals and regions in the United States. This variability in practice is why practitioners must learn to critically evaluate their practice and continually improve their practice over time. The goal is to create a living self-improving tradition.

Within health care, students, scientists, and practitioners are challenged to learn and use different modes of thinking when they are conflated under one term or rubric, using the best-suited thinking strategies for taking into consideration the purposes and the ends of the reasoning. Learning to be an effective, safe nurse or physician requires not only technical expertise, but also the ability to form helping relationships and engage in practical ethical and clinical reasoning. 50 Good ethical comportment requires that both the clinician and the scientist take into account the notions of good inherent in clinical and scientific practices. The notions of good clinical practice must include the relevant significance and the human concerns involved in decisionmaking in particular situations, centered on clinical grasp and clinical forethought.

The Three Apprenticeships of Professional Education

We have much to learn in comparing the pedagogies of formation across the professions, such as is being done currently by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. The Carnegie Foundation’s broad research program on the educational preparation of the profession focuses on three essential apprenticeships:

To capture the full range of crucial dimensions in professional education, we developed the idea of a three-fold apprenticeship: (1) intellectual training to learn the academic knowledge base and the capacity to think in ways important to the profession; (2) a skill-based apprenticeship of practice; and (3) an apprenticeship to the ethical standards, social roles, and responsibilities of the profession, through which the novice is introduced to the meaning of an integrated practice of all dimensions of the profession, grounded in the profession’s fundamental purposes. 109

This framework has allowed the investigators to describe tensions and shortfalls as well as strengths of widespread teaching practices, especially at articulation points among these dimensions of professional training.

Research has demonstrated that these three apprenticeships are taught best when they are integrated so that the intellectual training includes skilled know-how, clinical judgment, and ethical comportment. In the study of nursing, exemplary classroom and clinical teachers were found who do integrate the three apprenticeships in all of their teaching, as exemplified by the following anonymous student’s comments:

With that as well, I enjoyed the class just because I do have clinical experience in my background and I enjoyed it because it took those practical applications and the knowledge from pathophysiology and pharmacology, and all the other classes, and it tied it into the actual aspects of like what is going to happen at work. For example, I work in the emergency room and question: Why am I doing this procedure for this particular patient? Beforehand, when I was just a tech and I wasn’t going to school, I’d be doing it because I was told to be doing it—or I’d be doing CPR because, you know, the doc said, start CPR. I really enjoy the Care and Illness because now I know the process, the pathophysiological process of why I’m doing it and the clinical reasons of why they’re making the decisions, and the prioritization that goes on behind it. I think that’s the biggest point. Clinical experience is good, but not everybody has it. Yet when these students transition from school and clinicals to their job as a nurse, they will understand what’s going on and why.

The three apprenticeships are equally relevant and intertwined. In the Carnegie National Study of Nursing Education and the companion study on medical education as well as in cross-professional comparisons, teaching that gives an integrated access to professional practice is being examined. Once the three apprenticeships are separated, it is difficult to reintegrate them. The investigators are encouraged by teaching strategies that integrate the latest scientific knowledge and relevant clinical evidence with clinical reasoning about particular patients in unfolding rather than static cases, while keeping the patient and family experience and concerns relevant to clinical concerns and reasoning.

Clinical judgment or phronesis is required to evaluate and integrate techne and scientific evidence.

Within nursing, professional practice is wise and effective usually to the extent that the professional creates relational and communication contexts where clients/patients can be open and trusting. Effectiveness depends upon mutual influence between patient and practitioner, student and learner. This is another way in which clinical knowledge is dialogical and socially distributed. The following articulation of practical reasoning in nursing illustrates the social, dialogical nature of clinical reasoning and addresses the centrality of perception and understanding to good clinical reasoning, judgment and intervention.

Clinical Grasp *

Clinical grasp describes clinical inquiry in action. Clinical grasp begins with perception and includes problem identification and clinical judgment across time about the particular transitions of particular patients. Garrett Chan 20 described the clinician’s attempt at finding an “optimal grasp” or vantage point of understanding. Four aspects of clinical grasp, which are described in the following paragraphs, include (1) making qualitative distinctions, (2) engaging in detective work, (3) recognizing changing relevance, and (4) developing clinical knowledge in specific patient populations.

Making Qualitative Distinctions

Qualitative distinctions refer to those distinctions that can be made only in a particular contextual or historical situation. The context and sequence of events are essential for making qualitative distinctions; therefore, the clinician must pay attention to transitions in the situation and judgment. Many qualitative distinctions can be made only by observing differences through touch, sound, or sight, such as the qualities of a wound, skin turgor, color, capillary refill, or the engagement and energy level of the patient. Another example is assessing whether the patient was more fatigued after ambulating to the bathroom or from lack of sleep. Likewise the quality of the clinician’s touch is distinct as in offering reassurance, putting pressure on a bleeding wound, and so on. 110

Engaging in Detective Work, Modus Operandi Thinking, and Clinical Puzzle Solving

Clinical situations are open ended and underdetermined. Modus operandi thinking keeps track of the particular patient, the way the illness unfolds, the meanings of the patient’s responses as they have occurred in the particular time sequence. Modus operandi thinking requires keeping track of what has been tried and what has or has not worked with the patient. In this kind of reasoning-in-transition, gains and losses of understanding are noticed and adjustments in the problem approach are made.

We found that teachers in a medical surgical unit at the University of Washington deliberately teach their students to engage in “detective work.” Students are given the daily clinical assignment of “sleuthing” for undetected drug incompatibilities, questionable drug dosages, and unnoticed signs and symptoms. For example, one student noted that an unusual dosage of a heart medication was being given to a patient who did not have heart disease. The student first asked her teacher about the unusually high dosage. The teacher, in turn, asked the student whether she had asked the nurse or the patient about the dosage. Upon the student’s questioning, the nurse did not know why the patient was receiving the high dosage and assumed the drug was for heart disease. The patient’s staff nurse had not questioned the order. When the student asked the patient, the student found that the medication was being given for tremors and that the patient and the doctor had titrated the dosage for control of the tremors. This deliberate approach to teaching detective work, or modus operandi thinking, has characteristics of “critical reflection,” but stays situated and engaged, ferreting out the immediate history and unfolding of events.

Recognizing Changing Clinical Relevance

The meanings of signs and symptoms are changed by sequencing and history. The patient’s mental status, color, or pain level may continue to deteriorate or get better. The direction, implication, and consequences for the changes alter the relevance of the particular facts in the situation. The changing relevance entailed in a patient transitioning from primarily curative care to primarily palliative care is a dramatic example, where symptoms literally take on new meanings and require new treatments.

Developing Clinical Knowledge in Specific Patient Populations

Extensive experience with a specific patient population or patients with particular injuries or diseases allows the clinician to develop comparisons, distinctions, and nuanced differences within the population. The comparisons between many specific patients create a matrix of comparisons for clinicians, as well as a tacit, background set of expectations that create population- and patient-specific detective work if a patient does not meet the usual, predictable transitions in recovery. What is in the background and foreground of the clinician’s attention shifts as predictable changes in the patient’s condition occurs, such as is seen in recovering from heart surgery or progressing through the predictable stages of labor and delivery. Over time, the clinician develops a deep background understanding that allows for expert diagnostic and interventions skills.

Clinical Forethought

Clinical forethought is intertwined with clinical grasp, but it is much more deliberate and even routinized than clinical grasp. Clinical forethought is a pervasive habit of thought and action in nursing practice, and also in medicine, as clinicians think about disease and recovery trajectories and the implications of these changes for treatment. Clinical forethought plays a role in clinical grasp because it structures the practical logic of clinicians. At least four habits of thought and action are evident in what we are calling clinical forethought: (1) future think, (2) clinical forethought about specific patient populations, (3) anticipation of risks for particular patients, and (4) seeing the unexpected.

Future think

Future think is the broadest category of this logic of practice. Anticipating likely immediate futures helps the clinician make good plans and decisions about preparing the environment so that responding rapidly to changes in the patient is possible. Without a sense of salience about anticipated signs and symptoms and preparing the environment, essential clinical judgments and timely interventions would be impossible in the typically fast pace of acute and intensive patient care. Future think governs the style and content of the nurse’s attentiveness to the patient. Whether in a fast-paced care environment or a slower-paced rehabilitation setting, thinking and acting with anticipated futures guide clinical thinking and judgment. Future think captures the way judgment is suspended in a predictive net of anticipation and preparing oneself and the environment for a range of potential events.

Clinical forethought about specific diagnoses and injuries

This habit of thought and action is so second nature to the experienced nurse that the new or inexperienced nurse may have difficulty finding out about what seems to other colleagues as “obvious” preparation for particular patients and situations. Clinical forethought involves much local specific knowledge about who is a good resource and how to marshal support services and equipment for particular patients.

Examples of preparing for specific patient populations are pervasive, such as anticipating the need for a pacemaker during surgery and having the equipment assembled ready for use to save essential time. Another example includes forecasting an accident victim’s potential injuries, and recognizing that intubation might be needed.

Anticipation of crises, risks, and vulnerabilities for particular patients

This aspect of clinical forethought is central to knowing the particular patient, family, or community. Nurses situate the patient’s problems almost like a topography of possibilities. This vital clinical knowledge needs to be communicated to other caregivers and across care borders. Clinical teaching could be improved by enriching curricula with narrative examples from actual practice, and by helping students recognize commonly occurring clinical situations in the simulation and clinical setting. For example, if a patient is hemodynamically unstable, then managing life-sustaining physiologic functions will be a main orienting goal. If the patient is agitated and uncomfortable, then attending to comfort needs in relation to hemodynamics will be a priority. Providing comfort measures turns out to be a central background practice for making clinical judgments and contains within it much judgment and experiential learning.

When clinical teaching is too removed from typical contingencies and strong clinical situations in practice, students will lack practice in active thinking-in-action in ambiguous clinical situations. In the following example, an anonymous student recounted her experiences of meeting a patient:

I was used to different equipment and didn’t know how things went, didn’t know their routine, really. You can explain all you want in class, this is how it’s going to be, but when you get there … . Kim was my first instructor and my patient that she assigned me to—I walked into the room and he had every tube imaginable. And so I was a little overwhelmed. It’s not necessarily even that he was that critical … . She asked what tubes here have you seen? Well, I know peripheral lines. You taught me PICC [peripherally inserted central catheter] lines, and we just had that, but I don’t really feel comfortable doing it by myself, without you watching to make sure that I’m flushing it right and how to assess it. He had a chest tube and I had seen chest tubes, but never really knew the depth of what you had to assess and how you make sure that it’s all kosher and whatever. So she went through the chest tube and explained, it’s just bubbling a little bit and that’s okay. The site, check the site. The site looked okay and that she’d say if it wasn’t okay, this is what it might look like … . He had a feeding tube. I had done feeding tubes but that was like a long time ago in my LPN experiences schooling. So I hadn’t really done too much with the feeding stuff either … . He had a [nasogastric] tube, and knew pretty much about that and I think at the time it was clamped. So there were no issues with the suction or whatever. He had a Foley catheter. He had a feeding tube, a chest tube. I can’t even remember but there were a lot.

As noted earlier, a central characteristic of a practice discipline is that a self-improving practice requires ongoing experiential learning. One way nurse educators can enhance clinical inquiry is by increasing pedagogies of experiential learning. Current pedagogies for experiential learning in nursing include extensive preclinical study, care planning, and shared postclinical debriefings where students share their experiential learning with their classmates. Experiential learning requires open learning climates where students can discuss and examine transitions in understanding, including their false starts, or their misconceptions in actual clinical situations. Nursing educators typically develop open and interactive clinical learning communities, so that students seem committed to helping their classmates learn from their experiences that may have been difficult or even unsafe. One anonymous nurse educator described how students extend their experiential learning to their classmates during a postclinical conference:

So for example, the patient had difficulty breathing and the student wanted to give the meds instead of addressing the difficulty of breathing. Well, while we were sharing information about their patients, what they did that day, I didn’t tell the student to say this, but she said, ‘I just want to tell you what I did today in clinical so you don’t do the same thing, and here’s what happened.’ Everybody’s listening very attentively and they were asking her some questions. But she shared that. She didn’t have to. I didn’t tell her, you must share that in postconference or anything like that, but she just went ahead and shared that, I guess, to reinforce what she had learned that day but also to benefit her fellow students in case that thing comes up with them.

The teacher’s response to this student’s honesty and generosity exemplifies her own approach to developing an open community of learning. Focusing only on performance and on “being correct” prevents learning from breakdown or error and can dampen students’ curiosity and courage to learn experientially.

Seeing the unexpected

One of the keys to becoming an expert practitioner lies in how the person holds past experiential learning and background habitual skills and practices. This is a skill of foregrounding attention accurately and effectively in response to the nature of situational demands. Bourdieu 29 calls the recognition of the situation central to practical reasoning. If nothing is routinized as a habitual response pattern, then practitioners will not function effectively in emergencies. Unexpected occurrences may be overlooked. However, if expectations are held rigidly, then subtle changes from the usual will be missed, and habitual, rote responses will inappropriately rule. The clinician must be flexible in shifting between what is in background and foreground. This is accomplished by staying curious and open. The clinical “certainty” associated with perceptual grasp is distinct from the kind of “certainty” achievable in scientific experiments and through measurements. Recognition of similar or paradigmatic clinical situations is similar to “face recognition” or recognition of “family resemblances.” This concept is subject to faulty memory, false associative memories, and mistaken identities; therefore, such perceptual grasp is the beginning of curiosity and inquiry and not the end. Assessment and validation are required. In rapidly moving clinical situations, perceptual grasp is the starting point for clarification, confirmation, and action. Having the clinician say out loud how he or she is understanding the situation gives an opportunity for confirmation and disconfirmation from other clinicians present. 111 The relationship between foreground and background of attention needs to be fluid, so that missed expectations allow the nurse to see the unexpected. For example, when the background rhythm of a cardiac monitor changes, the nurse notices, and what had been background tacit awareness becomes the foreground of attention. A hallmark of expertise is the ability to notice the unexpected. 20 Background expectations of usual patient trajectories form with experience. Tacit expectations for patient trajectories form that enable the nurse to notice subtle failed expectations and pay attention to early signs of unexpected changes in the patient's condition. Clinical expectations gained from caring for similar patient populations form a tacit clinical forethought that enable the experienced clinician to notice missed expectations. Alterations from implicit or explicit expectations set the stage for experiential learning, depending on the openness of the learner.

Learning to provide safe and quality health care requires technical expertise, the ability to think critically, experience, and clinical judgment. The high-performance expectation of nurses is dependent upon the nurses’ continual learning, professional accountability, independent and interdependent decisionmaking, and creative problem-solving abilities.

This section of the paper was condensed and paraphrased from Benner, Hooper-Kyriakidis, and Stannard. 23 Patricia Hooper-Kyriakidis wrote the section on clinical grasp, and Patricia Benner wrote the section on clinical forethought.

• Cite this Page Benner P, Hughes RG, Sutphen M. Clinical Reasoning, Decisionmaking, and Action: Thinking Critically and Clinically. In: Hughes RG, editor. Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008 Apr. Chapter 6.
• PDF version of this page (147K)

In this Page

• Clinical Grasp

Other titles in this collection

• Advances in Patient Safety

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Similar articles in PubMed

• Nurses' reasoning process during care planning taking pressure ulcer prevention as an example. A think-aloud study. [Int J Nurs Stud. 2007] Nurses' reasoning process during care planning taking pressure ulcer prevention as an example. A think-aloud study. Funkesson KH, Anbäcken EM, Ek AC. Int J Nurs Stud. 2007 Sep; 44(7):1109-19. Epub 2006 Jun 27.
• Registered nurses' clinical reasoning skills and reasoning process: A think-aloud study. [Nurse Educ Today. 2016] Registered nurses' clinical reasoning skills and reasoning process: A think-aloud study. Lee J, Lee YJ, Bae J, Seo M. Nurse Educ Today. 2016 Nov; 46:75-80. Epub 2016 Aug 15.
• Combining the arts: an applied critical thinking approach in the skills laboratory. [Nursingconnections. 2000] Combining the arts: an applied critical thinking approach in the skills laboratory. Peterson MJ, Bechtel GA. Nursingconnections. 2000 Summer; 13(2):43-9.
• Review About critical thinking. [Dynamics. 2004] Review About critical thinking. Hynes P, Bennett J. Dynamics. 2004 Fall; 15(3):26-9.
• Review The 'five rights' of clinical reasoning: an educational model to enhance nursing students' ability to identify and manage clinically 'at risk' patients. [Nurse Educ Today. 2010] Review The 'five rights' of clinical reasoning: an educational model to enhance nursing students' ability to identify and manage clinically 'at risk' patients. Levett-Jones T, Hoffman K, Dempsey J, Jeong SY, Noble D, Norton CA, Roche J, Hickey N. Nurse Educ Today. 2010 Aug; 30(6):515-20. Epub 2009 Nov 30.

Recent Activity

• Clinical Reasoning, Decisionmaking, and Action: Thinking Critically and Clinical... Clinical Reasoning, Decisionmaking, and Action: Thinking Critically and Clinically - Patient Safety and Quality

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

The Value of Critical Thinking in Nursing

• How Nurses Use Critical Thinking
• How to Improve Critical Thinking
• Common Mistakes

Some experts describe a person’s ability to question belief systems, test previously held assumptions, and recognize ambiguity as evidence of critical thinking. Others identify specific skills that demonstrate critical thinking, such as the ability to identify problems and biases, infer and draw conclusions, and determine the relevance of information to a situation.

Nicholas McGowan, BSN, RN, CCRN, has been a critical care nurse for 10 years in neurological trauma nursing and cardiovascular and surgical intensive care. He defines critical thinking as “necessary for problem-solving and decision-making by healthcare providers. It is a process where people use a logical process to gather information and take purposeful action based on their evaluation.”

“This cognitive process is vital for excellent patient outcomes because it requires that nurses make clinical decisions utilizing a variety of different lenses, such as fairness, ethics, and evidence-based practice,” he says.

How Do Nurses Use Critical Thinking?

Successful nurses think beyond their assigned tasks to deliver excellent care for their patients. For example, a nurse might be tasked with changing a wound dressing, delivering medications, and monitoring vital signs during a shift. However, it requires critical thinking skills to understand how a difference in the wound may affect blood pressure and temperature and when those changes may require immediate medical intervention.

Nurses care for many patients during their shifts. Strong critical thinking skills are crucial when juggling various tasks so patient safety and care are not compromised.

Jenna Liphart Rhoads, Ph.D., RN, is a nurse educator with a clinical background in surgical-trauma adult critical care, where critical thinking and action were essential to the safety of her patients. She talks about examples of critical thinking in a healthcare environment, saying:

“Nurses must also critically think to determine which patient to see first, which medications to pass first, and the order in which to organize their day caring for patients. Patient conditions and environments are continually in flux, therefore nurses must constantly be evaluating and re-evaluating information they gather (assess) to keep their patients safe.”

The COVID-19 pandemic created hospital care situations where critical thinking was essential. It was expected of the nurses on the general floor and in intensive care units. Crystal Slaughter is an advanced practice nurse in the intensive care unit (ICU) and a nurse educator. She observed critical thinking throughout the pandemic as she watched intensive care nurses test the boundaries of previously held beliefs and master providing excellent care while preserving resources.

“Nurses are at the patient’s bedside and are often the first ones to detect issues. Then, the nurse needs to gather the appropriate subjective and objective data from the patient in order to frame a concise problem statement or question for the physician or advanced practice provider,” she explains.

Top 5 Ways Nurses Can Improve Critical Thinking Skills

We asked our experts for the top five strategies nurses can use to purposefully improve their critical thinking skills.

Case-Based Approach

Slaughter is a fan of the case-based approach to learning critical thinking skills.

In much the same way a detective would approach a mystery, she mentors her students to ask questions about the situation that help determine the information they have and the information they need. “What is going on? What information am I missing? Can I get that information? What does that information mean for the patient? How quickly do I need to act?”

Consider forming a group and working with a mentor who can guide you through case studies. This provides you with a learner-centered environment in which you can analyze data to reach conclusions and develop communication, analytical, and collaborative skills with your colleagues.

Practice Self-Reflection

Rhoads is an advocate for self-reflection. “Nurses should reflect upon what went well or did not go well in their workday and identify areas of improvement or situations in which they should have reached out for help.” Self-reflection is a form of personal analysis to observe and evaluate situations and how you responded.

This gives you the opportunity to discover mistakes you may have made and to establish new behavior patterns that may help you make better decisions. You likely already do this. For example, after a disagreement or contentious meeting, you may go over the conversation in your head and think about ways you could have responded.

It’s important to go through the decisions you made during your day and determine if you should have gotten more information before acting or if you could have asked better questions.

During self-reflection, you may try thinking about the problem in reverse. This may not give you an immediate answer, but can help you see the situation with fresh eyes and a new perspective. How would the outcome of the day be different if you planned the dressing change in reverse with the assumption you would find a wound infection? How does this information change your plan for the next dressing change?

Develop a Questioning Mind

McGowan has learned that “critical thinking is a self-driven process. It isn’t something that can simply be taught. Rather, it is something that you practice and cultivate with experience. To develop critical thinking skills, you have to be curious and inquisitive.”

To gain critical thinking skills, you must undergo a purposeful process of learning strategies and using them consistently so they become a habit. One of those strategies is developing a questioning mind. Meaningful questions lead to useful answers and are at the core of critical thinking .

However, learning to ask insightful questions is a skill you must develop. Faced with staff and nursing shortages , declining patient conditions, and a rising number of tasks to be completed, it may be difficult to do more than finish the task in front of you. Yet, questions drive active learning and train your brain to see the world differently and take nothing for granted.

It is easier to practice questioning in a non-stressful, quiet environment until it becomes a habit. Then, in the moment when your patient’s care depends on your ability to ask the right questions, you can be ready to rise to the occasion.

Practice Self-Awareness in the Moment

Critical thinking in nursing requires self-awareness and being present in the moment. During a hectic shift, it is easy to lose focus as you struggle to finish every task needed for your patients. Passing medication, changing dressings, and hanging intravenous lines all while trying to assess your patient’s mental and emotional status can affect your focus and how you manage stress as a nurse .

Staying present helps you to be proactive in your thinking and anticipate what might happen, such as bringing extra lubricant for a catheterization or extra gloves for a dressing change.

By staying present, you are also better able to practice active listening. This raises your assessment skills and gives you more information as a basis for your interventions and decisions.

Use a Process

As you are developing critical thinking skills, it can be helpful to use a process. For example:

• Ask questions.
• Gather information.
• Implement a strategy.
• Evaluate the results.
• Consider another point of view.

These are the fundamental steps of the nursing process (assess, diagnose, plan, implement, evaluate). The last step will help you overcome one of the common problems of critical thinking in nursing — personal bias.

Common Critical Thinking Pitfalls in Nursing

Your brain uses a set of processes to make inferences about what’s happening around you. In some cases, your unreliable biases can lead you down the wrong path. McGowan places personal biases at the top of his list of common pitfalls to critical thinking in nursing.

“We all form biases based on our own experiences. However, nurses have to learn to separate their own biases from each patient encounter to avoid making false assumptions that may interfere with their care,” he says. Successful critical thinkers accept they have personal biases and learn to look out for them. Awareness of your biases is the first step to understanding if your personal bias is contributing to the wrong decision.

New nurses may be overwhelmed by the transition from academics to clinical practice, leading to a task-oriented mindset and a common new nurse mistake ; this conflicts with critical thinking skills.

“Consider a patient whose blood pressure is low but who also needs to take a blood pressure medication at a scheduled time. A task-oriented nurse may provide the medication without regard for the patient’s blood pressure because medication administration is a task that must be completed,” Slaughter says. “A nurse employing critical thinking skills would address the low blood pressure, review the patient’s blood pressure history and trends, and potentially call the physician to discuss whether medication should be withheld.”

Fear and pride may also stand in the way of developing critical thinking skills. Your belief system and worldview provide comfort and guidance, but this can impede your judgment when you are faced with an individual whose belief system or cultural practices are not the same as yours. Fear or pride may prevent you from pursuing a line of questioning that would benefit the patient. Nurses with strong critical thinking skills exhibit:

• Learn from their mistakes and the mistakes of other nurses
• Look forward to integrating changes that improve patient care
• Treat each patient interaction as a part of a whole
• Evaluate new events based on past knowledge and adjust decision-making as needed
• Solve problems with their colleagues
• Are self-confident
• Acknowledge biases and seek to ensure these do not impact patient care

An Essential Skill for All Nurses

Critical thinking in nursing protects patient health and contributes to professional development and career advancement. Administrative and clinical nursing leaders are required to have strong critical thinking skills to be successful in their positions.

By using the strategies in this guide during your daily life and in your nursing role, you can intentionally improve your critical thinking abilities and be rewarded with better patient outcomes and potential career advancement.

Frequently Asked Questions About Critical Thinking in Nursing

How are critical thinking skills utilized in nursing practice.

Nursing practice utilizes critical thinking skills to provide the best care for patients. Often, the patient’s cause of pain or health issue is not immediately clear. Nursing professionals need to use their knowledge to determine what might be causing distress, collect vital information, and make quick decisions on how best to handle the situation.

How does nursing school develop critical thinking skills?

Nursing school gives students the knowledge professional nurses use to make important healthcare decisions for their patients. Students learn about diseases, anatomy, and physiology, and how to improve the patient’s overall well-being. Learners also participate in supervised clinical experiences, where they practice using their critical thinking skills to make decisions in professional settings.

Do only nurse managers use critical thinking?

Nurse managers certainly use critical thinking skills in their daily duties. But when working in a health setting, anyone giving care to patients uses their critical thinking skills. Everyone — including licensed practical nurses, registered nurses, and advanced nurse practitioners —needs to flex their critical thinking skills to make potentially life-saving decisions.

Meet Our Contributors

Crystal Slaughter is a core faculty member in Walden University’s RN-to-BSN program. She has worked as an advanced practice registered nurse with an intensivist/pulmonary service to provide care to hospitalized ICU patients and in inpatient palliative care. Slaughter’s clinical interests lie in nursing education and evidence-based practice initiatives to promote improving patient care.

Jenna Liphart Rhoads is a nurse educator and freelance author and editor. She earned a BSN from Saint Francis Medical Center College of Nursing and an MS in nursing education from Northern Illinois University. Rhoads earned a Ph.D. in education with a concentration in nursing education from Capella University where she researched the moderation effects of emotional intelligence on the relationship of stress and GPA in military veteran nursing students. Her clinical background includes surgical-trauma adult critical care, interventional radiology procedures, and conscious sedation in adult and pediatric populations.

Nicholas McGowan is a critical care nurse with 10 years of experience in cardiovascular, surgical intensive care, and neurological trauma nursing. McGowan also has a background in education, leadership, and public speaking. He is an online learner who builds on his foundation of critical care nursing, which he uses directly at the bedside where he still practices. In addition, McGowan hosts an online course at Critical Care Academy where he helps nurses achieve critical care (CCRN) certification.

• Open access
• Published: 25 April 2023

Development of the clinical reasoning competency scale for nurses

• Juyeon Bae   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2748-1441 1 ,
• JuHee Lee 2 ,
• Mona Choi 2 ,
• Yeonsoo Jang 2 ,
• Chang Gi Park 3 &
• Young Joo Lee 4  

BMC Nursing volume  22 , Article number:  138 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

5363 Accesses

Metrics details

Clinical reasoning is emphasized as an important component of nursing education, since nurses’ lack of clinical reasoning leads to incorrect clinical decision-making. Therefore, a tool for measuring clinical reasoning competency needs to be developed.

This methodological study was conducted to develop the Clinical Reasoning Competency Scale (CRCS) and examine its psychometric properties. The attributes and preliminary items of the CRCS were developed based on a systematic literature review and in-depth interviews. The validity and reliability of the scale were evaluated among nurses.

The exploratory factor analysis was conducted for the construct validation. The total explained variance of the CRCS was 52.62%. The CRCS consists of 8 items for plan setting, 11 items for intervention strategy regulation, and 3 items for self-instruction. The Cronbach’s α of the CRCS was 0.92. Criterion validity was verified with the Nurse Clinical Reasoning Competence (NCRC). The correlation between the total NCRC and CRCS scores was 0.78, all of which were significant correlations.

The CRCS is expected to provide raw scientific and empirical data for various intervention programs to develop and improve nurses’ clinical reasoning competency.

Peer Review reports

Clinical reasoning is a cognitive process used to make clinical judgments; in this process, a patient’s history is investigated, a physical assessment is performed, and the results are interpreted to design a health care plan [ 1 , 2 ]. Nurses acquire information to solve the patient’s problem and combine this information with their knowledge to guide decision-making in patient care [ 3 , 4 ]. Clinical reasoning involves incorporating the patient’s context and the clinical situation into critical thinking [ 5 , 6 ]. Metacognition, which enables students to use a multidimensional strategy to search and consider an expanded range of possibilities to solve the problem considering the context [ 7 ], is a core attribute of clinical reasoning [ 8 , 9 ].

A lack of clinical reasoning competency in nurses leads to incorrect clinical decision-making, which affects patient safety [ 10 ]. In contrast, the clinical reasoning competency of nurses enhances patient recovery and improves the quality of care. For this reason, a tool for measuring clinical reasoning competency needs to be developed and used. There exist two widely used tools for assessing nurses’ clinical reasoning: the Health Science Reasoning Test (HSRT) and the Nurse Clinical Reasoning Competence (NCRC) tool. The HSRT, which was developed by Insight Assessment in the United States, contains 33 questions that are completed in 50 minutes. The NCRC was developed in Taiwan [ 11 ], and it includes 15 items derived based on the clinical reasoning model [ 4 ]. However, these tools do not have metacognition attributes that check and evaluate the cognitive process in problem-solving, which is a key element of clinical reasoning competency. Thus, these tools have limitations in evaluating the multidimensional aspects of nurses’ clinical reasoning.

Previous studies have been conducted to improve clinical reasoning competency using educational methods such as simulation education and problem-based learning [ 12 , 13 ]. Those studies indirectly measured clinical reasoning competency based on critical thinking [ 14 ] and problem-solving [ 15 ], which is insufficient. In research on pedagogy, metacognition refers to the control of actions related to obtaining and using information to improve inferential problem-solving. Metacognition helps learners to monitor their reasoning processes and regularly reflect on the process of cognition. It has been reported that activating metacognition improves problem-solving [ 16 ]. Therefore, this study was conducted to develop and verify the validity and reliability of the Clinical Reasoning Competency Scale (CRCS) for nurses.

Research design

This methodological research was conducted to develop the CRCS and examine its psychometric properties. The research was performed according to the methodology suggested by DeVellis [ 17 ].

Research procedure

Permission for this study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB No. 2019-1741-001). The CRCS attributes and preliminary items were developed based on a systematic literature review and in-depth interviews. Built on these attributes, items to measure nurses’ clinical reasoning competence based on self-regulated learning theory were derived. The content validity of the CRCS was verified using the Delphi technique, and the validity and reliability of the scale were evaluated among nurses. Through this process, we aimed to build a scale with high reliability and validity that could measure nurses’ clinical reasoning competency.

Theoretical framework

Self-regulation theory has been used to explain the cultivation of clinical reasoning competency. The theoretical basis of self-regulated learning theory is formed by constructivist teaching methods, according to which learners use systematic learning and metacognitive strategies to develop a clear goal or motivation for learning [ 13 , 14 ]. This theory suggests that clinical reasoning competency can be fostered by controlling one’s actions until a goal is reached [ 18 ]. The development of a measurement scale should be based on a theoretical model to help researchers understand what to measure. Otherwise, the scale’s validity may be decreased, and data may be misinterpreted [ 19 , 20 ]. A structured tool applying a theory can have an affirmative effect on intervention-based studies [ 21 ]. Thus, self-regulation theory was adopted for the development of the CRCS.

Phase 1: analysis of the attributes of clinical reasoning competency

A systematic literature review was performed to identify the attributes and items of the CRCS. First, a literature search was performed for research articles on clinical reasoning measurements. The PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE Complete, Cumulative Index for Nursing Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) with full text, and RISS databases were searched. The keywords in the literature search were nur* AND clinical reasoning AND measur* and non-MeSH terms. The inclusion criteria were studies with clinical reasoning measurements and studies conducted among nurses and nursing students. The literature search was limited to the English and Korean languages. We excluded the gray literature. After searching the corresponding reference lists and abstracts, the full articles were collected and reviewed and manual searches in core journals were performed. The initial database search retrieved 442 studies, of which 326 remained after removing duplicates. After title and abstract review, 294 results were excluded, and the remaining 32 studies were assessed for eligibility. Seven studies were excluded because they were not conducted among nurses and nursing students or were not written in English or Korean. Twenty-five studies that satisfied the selection standards were identified, from which 14 studies were excluded because they did not measure clinical reasoning. Therefore, a total of 11 studies were included in the systematic review. In addition, the literature on self-regulation theory was analyzed to derive to attributes of clinical reasoning competency.

To supplement the concepts identified from the literature review and to develop items for an evaluation tool that would be suitable for the real-world circumstances faced by nurses, online in-depth interviews were conducted with 10 nurses. The CRCS is targeted at the estimate nurses’ clinical reasoning competency. Therefore, the in-depth interview was performed only by nurses. The nursing experts’ opinions were reflected in content validity. The inclusion criteria for the interviews were (1) nurses who understood the study purpose and (2) nurses who worked in hospitals with 500 beds or more. In-depth interviews were conducted with nurses with a range of experience, from less than 1 year of clinical experience to proficiency in the clinical career stage, as suggested by Benner [ 3 ]. The nurses worked in medical and surgical wards, the emergency room, and the intensive care unit. The in-depth interviews were guided using questions, such as “What is the difference in your nursing care, i.e., similarity or differences from nurses with high clinical reasoning competency?” and “Do you check the problem-solving process for a given patient and compensate for any deficiencies?” The interviews were conducted in a non-face-to-face format using Webex to protect the participants from the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 transmission. The interview data were analyzed using thematic analysis. The literature review and in-depth interview results are complementary. After each interview, the researchers recorded the critical points in writing. If there were no information to confirm, the decision was made not to perform more interviews considered as saturation.

Phase 2: development of the item pool

Based on the results of the literature review and in-depth interviews, the attributes of clinical reasoning and preliminary items were derived. The CRCS was developed in the Korean language, and an expert on Korean language and literature revised it for readability and ambiguity. A 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) was used as the response measure for the preliminary items.

Phase 3: expert review with the delphi technique

To reach consensus on the derived items, the Delphi technique was used to collect expert opinions and reach an agreement. A group of 12 experts was formed that consisted of nursing professors, clinical professionals, and pedagogical experts. The pedagogical experts were involved in the psychometric evaluation of the instrument. Snowball sampling was done for the recruitment of Delphi experts. A second-round questionnaire was performed to examine the 72 preliminary items. The content validity ratio (CVR) was calculated based on the appropriateness reported by the expert panelists. The CVR is a measure of panelist agreement based on the proportion of panelists who rate an item as essential [ 22 ]. The CVR is calculated as follows:

In this equation, n e is the number of the panelists who rate an item as essential, and N is the number of total panelists. Since there were 12 Delphi survey panelists, the minimum value was 0.56 [ 22 ]. Questions with a CVR of 0.56 or less were deleted.

Phase 4: pilot study

After the completion of the preliminary CRCS, a pilot questionnaire was administered to 21 nurses to determine whether the instructions or any items were difficult to understand. The scale consisted of a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). The higher score indicates higher clinical reasoning competency.

Phase 5: construct validity

Construct validity was examined using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The participants of this study were nurses working in hospitals with more than 500 beds. The sample size is recommended to be 5–10 times the minimum number of items for factor analysis or an analysis of the correlations between items [ 23 ]. Considering the dropout, 500 nurses were recruited to participate in this study. Seventeen nurses did not complete the survey. Therefore, 483 nurses were included in the final EFA.

Phase 6: criterion validity

Criterion validity was examined in terms of concurrent validity by comparing the CRCS with a “gold-standard” i.e., NCRC [ 11 ] clinical reasoning competency measurement [ 17 ]. The Cronbach’s α of the NCRC was 0.94, and the Korean version of the NCRC had a Cronbach’s α of 0.93 [ 24 ].

Phase 6: reliability

Internal consistency was examined using Cronbach’s α. A test-retest assessment was conducted to verify its reliability. The test-retest was performed at 2-week intervals with the same subjects participating as in the construct validity survey. And the subjects who agreed with the participation, completed the in the retest study (n = 51).

Data collection

Data collection was conducted through an online Google Survey of nurses working in hospitals with more than 500 beds. The researchers explained the study purpose, the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the expected effects via communications distributed in the S University Hospital and nurse communities. In this study, convenience sampling was done to recruit nurses.

Statistical analysis

The collected data were analyzed using SPSS for Windows version 25.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the participants’ demographic characteristics. We performed validity and reliability tests, and item analysis was conducted. Construct validity was determined using EFA. Principal component analysis and the varimax rotation method were used. Criterion validity was examined using Pearson correlation coefficients. Cronbach’s α was used to test the reliability. Test-retest reliability was assessed using Pearson correlation coefficients. Two researchers performed the data analysis.

Identification of clinical reasoning competency attributes

According to the literature review, the components of self-regulated learning are metacognition, behavior, and environmental regulation. Metacognition, an essential element of clinical reasoning competency, consists of the properties of planning, monitoring, regulation, and evaluation [ 25 , 26 ].

Behavioral regulation means that students choose meaningful behaviors by controlling their behaviors to reach goals. They achieve their goals through time management and self-examination activities, such as seeking help from others [ 27 , 28 ]. Therefore, behavior regulation involves three factors: self-instruction to check the cognitive processes for problem-solving, self-reinforcement to enhance behavior, and help-seeking to obtain advice from colleagues. Three detailed factors were derived.

Environmental regulation refers to learners’ ability to sufficiently use materials such as books and the internet for effective learning in the problem-solving process. Kuiper [ 18 ] reported that relationships with other healthcare professionals include emphasizing the relationship with patients to facilitate multidisciplinary collaboration. Therefore, in the CRCS, empathy with the patient and multidisciplinary collaboration were derived as factors of environmental regulation to measure clinical reasoning competency.

These themes were derived by analyzing and organizing the results of in-depth interviews conducted to develop items to measure clinical reasoning competency (Table  1 ).

Through the literature review and in-depth interviews, three domains and nine clinical reasoning attributes were derived. The three domains were metacognition, behavioral regulation, and environmental regulation. The nine attributes were as follows: planning, monitoring, control, evaluation, self-reinforcement, self-instruction, help-seeking, empathy with the patient, and an interdisciplinary approach.

Development of the preliminary item

In total, 72 preliminary items were developed based on the literature review and in-depth interviews. After two rounds of verification with the Delphi technique, 31 items were deleted because they had a CVR lower than 0.56 or were duplicates. The terminology was revised according to the experts’ opinions. For example, the item “analyze the reason for an error that occurred during nursing care” was changed to “analyze the cause of an error that occurred during nursing care.” The experts suggested phrasing this in terms of “cause” rather than “reason” in the questionnaire to estimate clinical reasoning competency, focusing on the process of metacognition. In total, 41 preliminary items were derived for the CRCS.

Pilot study

The preliminary CRCS was administered as a questionnaire to 21 nurses. The participants suggested including the subject pronoun “I” to clarify the meaning of item #40. This item was modified. Finally, 41 preliminary CRCS items were confirmed.

General characteristics of the participants

The validity and reliability of the CRCS were examined with 483 nurses A total of 91.5% of the participants were female, and the average age was 31.43 years old. The most common highest education level was a bachelor’s degree, the most common work department was the intensive care unit, and the most common range of clinical experience was between 5 and 10 years (Table  2 ).

Item analysis was performed using the mean, standard deviation, and item-total correlation coefficient. The appropriate range for the item-total correlation is 0.30–0.70 [ 29 ]. The item-total correlations of the CRCS questions ranged from 0.440 to 0.624.

To determine the number of factors of the 41 items, principal component analysis with varimax rotation was performed. The number of factors was determined based on the eigenvalues, scree plots, and parallel analysis results. In the parallel analysis, the three eigenvalues analyzed from the data were greater than those from randomly generated data, and three factors were extracted with this method. Accordingly, EFA was performed by selecting three factors, which explained 52.62% of the total variance. When the commonality was less than 0.40 or the factor loading value of two or more factors was 0.40 or more, the items were deleted for having common loadings; ultimately, 3 factors and 22 items were extracted (Table  3 ). The items included in the final three factors were reviewed, and the factors were named “plan setting,” “intervention strategy regulation,” and “self-instruction.”

Criterion validity was verified with the NCRC, which was developed by Liou et al. as a clinical reasoning scale [ 11 ]. The correlation between the total NCRC and CRCS scores was 0.78, and the correlations for the three CRCS factors were 0.76 for plan setting, 0.67 for intervention strategy regulation, and 0.50 for self-instruction, all of which were significant correlations.

• Reliability

The Cronbach’s α of the CRCS was 0.92, with the coefficients of the subdomains ranging from 0.73 to 0.89 (Table  4 ). The test-retest correlation coefficient was r = .76 (p < .001), indicating high reliability. After the completion of the above steps, the final CRCS consisted of 22 items of 3 factors. The factors of CRCS were plan setting, intervention strategy regulation, and self-instruction.

This study was conducted to develop a scale to measure nurses’ clinical reasoning competency. The validity of the scale was verified. The final CRCS was confirmed through reliability testing.

This scale was developed based on self-regulation learning theory, which suggests that nurses can cultivate clinical reasoning competency by controlling their actions until they reach their goals or foster a motivation for problem-solving. Self-regulation learning consists of metacognition, behavior regulation, and environmental regulation [ 18 ]. These three attributes proposed by self-regulation learning theory do not work independently; instead, their interaction allows problem-solving to be reliably achieved [ 30 ]. The previous tools to measure the clinical reasoning competency of nurses or health care practitioners mostly focused on knowledge to solve problems or cognitively oriented questions about making an accurate diagnosis. Thus, these tools do not include the metacognitive aspects of clinical reasoning such as reflecting upon and regulating the problem-solving process. In nurses’ clinical decision-making through reasoning, metacognition refers to the ability to set cognitive strategies, knowing which outcomes are produced. Thus, metacognition is a key element for problem-solving [ 31 , 32 ]. Metacognition, which can enable nurses to make immediate judgments about their problem-solving through reflection and evaluation, is an essential predictor of clinical reasoning competency. Therefore, the CRCS is valuable because it includes the attribute of nurses’ metacognitive competency based on self-regulated learning theory. In addition, clinical reasoning competency should be measured based on decision-making or observable behavior. The CRCS, which was developed as a structured scale by applying the theory of self-regulated learning, is expected to have a positive impact on conceptual models and intervention strategies to enhance researchers’ understanding of clinical reasoning competency. In this study, based on a literature review and in-depth interviews, 72 preliminary questions were derived: 44 metacognitive questions, 22 behavioral regulation questions, and 6 environmental regulation questions. Item analysis was conducted to verify the means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients between the questions and the entire CRCS [ 29 ].

As a parallel analysis, EFA was performed using varimax analysis, resulting in 22 items with a three-factor structure 52.62% of the total explained variance of the three factors, i.e., plan setting, intervention strategy regulation, and self-instruction. Plan setting was suggested as the first factor. This factor consists of 8 items. It was named plan setting. Most of the items are related to plans to provide nursing care for the patient. Lee et al. [ 12 ] analyzed the techniques and processes of clinical reasoning among nurse practitioners. Nurses identified patients’ health problems quickly in complex clinical practice situations and established solutions and plans for cognitive strategies. This is a fundamental step in clinical reasoning. The clinical reasoning competency of nurses is imperative for the step of setting a plan as part of the overall cognitive strategy for problem-solving. The CRCS can estimate this attribute.

The second factor, intervention strategy regulation, had the highest explained variance. The intervention strategy regulation factor was extracted by integrating evaluation and control attribution from the preliminary CRCS. Among the 11 items, six are related to control attribution. During problem-solving in a difficult situation, seeking advice from the nurse’s colleagues or modifying one’s cognitive strategies are emphasized as essential [ 33 ]. It was named factor as intervention strategy control. Therefore, the items included in intervention strategy regulation are considered to be meaningful for measuring nurses’ clinical reasoning competency.

The third factor was self-instruction. This factor includes 3 items. It was named self-instruction. This factor consists of items measuring the self-development of nurses for developing clinical reasoning competency. In self-regulated learning, Paul and Pintrich [ 34 ] reported that learners need to observe themselves to achieve their own goals. Using self-regulated learning strategies, nurses discovered problems, corrected them, and developed behavioral control [ 8 ]. The CRCS makes it possible to measure nurses’ strategies for problem-solving.

In order to identify clinical reasoning competency factors, attributes were derived through a literature review, and the CRCS of nurses was composed of three factors as a result of the Delphi technique and the tool verification process. The deleted factor as help-seeking attribution as a component of behavioral regulation was integrated with the multidisciplinary collaboration component of environmental regulation. It is considered that the concept of seeking advice from and collaborating with other colleagues overlaps with seeking help in the process of problem-solving. The monitoring attribute was incorporated into plan-setting, and assessments were integrated into interventional strategy regulation. Participants may have reviewed the appropriateness of cognitive strategies as part of the process of establishing methods for problem-solving. Furthermore, nurses reflected on errors and modified their cognitive strategies when solving patients’ health problems, which could have contributed to the integration of the factors of the evaluation item with the factors of intervention strategy regulation.

To verify criterion validity, we used the NCRC developed by Liou et al. [ 11 ] based on a clinical reasoning model [ 4 ]. The correlation coefficients between the two scales were r = 0.52–0.78, indicating that the criterion validity was satisfactory.

The reliability test of the CRCS demonstrated a Cronbach’s α = 0.92. For each factor, the Cronbach’s α was > 0.70, indicating satisfactory reliability following the criterion proposed by Nunnally and Bernstein [ 35 ]. According to this criterion, the Cronbach’s α of the CRCS was satisfactory.

The CRCS was developed to measure the clinical reasoning competency of nurses. A higher score indicates higher clinical reasoning competency. The CRCS is a standardized tool that was verified through the Delphi method and showed satisfactory construct validity, criterion validity, and reliability. Therefore, the CRCS can be used in various studies to develop and cultivate nurses’ clinical reasoning competency.

Limitations

The scale developed in this study was used to collect primary data that can improve clinical reasoning competency. Based on the research results, the limitations and suggestions of this study are as follows.

First, there may have been restrictions in the selection or comparison of nurses with clinical reasoning competency above a certain level. A cutoff value of the CRCS was not presented. We suggest supplementing the subjective judgments of respondents and determining the sensitivity and specificity of the scale to increase its usefulness in follow-up studies.

Second, the difficulty of the items was not analyzed. Therefore, further research is needed to supplement the tool through an elaboration process.

Third, since this study used convenience sampling of nurses working in general hospitals with more than 500 beds, there may have been limitations related to bias or a lack of generalizability of the data. To use the CRCS among nurses working in other environments, the validity and reliability of the scale will need to be further verified.

This methodological study was conducted to develop a scale to measure nurses’ clinical reasoning competency. Preliminary questions were derived by analyzing the attributes of nurse’s clinical reasoning competency with a literature review and in-depth interviews. The validity of the scale was verified using the Delphi technique. The preliminary CRCS was completed through a pilot study. The final CRCS was completed by verifying the construct validity, criterion validity, reliability, and test-retest reliability of the scale with various methods based on data from 483 nurses working in hospitals with 500 beds or more. The CRCS is a self-reported measurement tool consisting of 11 items for intervention strategy regulation, 8 items for plan setting, and 3 items for self-instruction. All items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating higher clinical reasoning competency. The average CRCS score was 83.62 in this study. The average score for each factor was 40.69 for intervention strategy regulation, 31.67 for plan setting and 11.26 for self-instruction. The CRCS was shown to have validity and reliability in measuring nurses’ clinical reasoning competency. Therefore, it is expected that using the CRCS will provide raw scientific and empirical data for various intervention programs to develop and improve nurses’ clinical reasoning competency. In addition, the attributes of clinical reasoning competency identified in the development of this scale can be applied to develop educational programs for nurses’ clinical reasoning competency and improve their problem-solving. Ultimately, this research is expected to contribute to patient safety.

Data Availability

The authors can confirm that all relevant data are included in the article.

Abbreviations

Cumulative Index for Nursing Allied Health Literature

Clinical Reasoning Competency Scale

content validity ratio

exploratory factor analysis

goodness-of-fit index

Health Science Reasoning Test

Nurse Clinical Reasoning Competence

Juma S, Goldszmidt M. What physicians reason about during admission case review. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2017;22:691–711. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-016-9701-x .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Soh M, Konopasky A, Durning SJ, Ramani D, McBee E, Ratcliffe T, et al. Sequence matters: patterns in task-based clinical reasoning. Diagnosis (Berl). 2020;7:281–9. https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2019-0095 .

Benner P. From novice to expert. Am J Nurs. 1982;82:402–7.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Levett-Jones T, Hoffman K, Dempsey J, Jeong SY, Noble D, Norton CA, et al. The ‘five rights’ of clinical reasoning: an educational model to enhance nursing students’ ability to identify and manage clinically ‘at risk’ patients. Nurse Educ Today. 2010;30:515–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2009.10.020 .

American Nurses Association. Nursing: scope and standards of practice. 3rd ed. Silver Spring: American Nurses Association; 2015.

Google Scholar  

Victor-Chmil J. Critical thinking versus clinical reasoning versus clinical judgment: differential diagnosis. Nurse Educ. 2013;38:34–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0b013e318276dfbe .

Schraw G, Dennison RS. Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemp Educ Psychol. 1994;19:460–75. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Kuiper RA, Pesut DJ. Promoting cognitive and metacognitive reflective reasoning skills in nursing practice: self-regulated learning theory. J Adv Nurs. 2004;45:381–91. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02921.x .

Simmons B. Clinical reasoning: concept analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2010;66:1151–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05262.x .

Holder AG. Clinical reasoning: a state of the science report. Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh. 2018;15:20160024. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijnes-2016-0024 .

Liou SR, Liu HC, Tsai HM, Tsai YH, Lin YC, Chang CH, et al. The development and psychometric testing of a theory-based instrument to evaluate nurses’ perception of clinical reasoning competence. J Adv Nurs. 2016;72:707–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12831 .

Lee J, Lee YJ, Bae J, Seo M. Registered nurses’ clinical reasoning skills and reasoning process: a think-aloud study. Nurse Educ Today. 2016;46:75–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.08.017 .

Hur HK, Song HY. Effects of simulation-based clinical reasoning education and evaluation of perceived education practices and simulation design characteristics by students nurses. J Korea Contents Assoc. 2015;15:206–18. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2015.15.03.206 .

Hur HK, Roh YS. Effects of a simulation based clinical reasoning practice program on clinical competence in nursing students. Korean J Adult Nurs. 2013;25:574–84. https://doi.org/10.7475/kjan.2013.25.5.574 .

Lee J, Lee Y, Lee S, Bae J. Effects of high-fidelity patient simulation led clinical reasoning course: focused on nursing core competencies, problem solving, and academic self-efficacy. Jpn J Nurs Sci. 2016;13:20–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jjns.12080 .

Kang M, Song YH, Park SH. Relationships among metacognition, flow, interactions and problem solving ability in web-based problem based learning. J Res Curric Instr. 2008;12:293–315. https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2008.12.2.293 .

DeVellis RF. Scale development: theory and applications. 4th ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2016.

Kuiper R. The effect of prompted self-regulated learning strategies in a clinical nursing preceptorship [master’s thesis]. Columbia (SC): University of South Carolina; 1999. 179 p.

Jacobson SF. Evaluating instruments for use in clinical nursing research. In: Frank-Stromborg M, Olsen SJ, editors. Instruments for clinical health-care research. Boston: Jones & Bartlett; 2004. pp. 3–19.

Tian J, Atkinson NL, Portnoy B, Lowitt NR. The development of a theory-based instrument to evaluate the effectiveness of continuing medical education. Acad Med. 2010;85:1518–25. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181eac3fb .

Finch TL, Mair FS, O’Donnell C, Murray E, May CR. From theory to ‘measurement’ in complex interventions: methodological lessons from the development of an e-health normalisation instrument. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-69 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity.Pers Psychol.197528:563–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x .

Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Principal components and factor analysis. In: Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS, editors. Using multivariate statistics. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; 2001. pp. 607–75.

Joung J, Han JW. Validity and reliability of a korean version of nurse clinical reasoning competence scale. J Korea Acad Ind Coop Soc. 2017;18:304–10. https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2017.18.4.304 .

Schraw G, Graham T. Helping gifted students develop metacognitive awareness. Roeper Rev. 1997;20:4–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199709553842 .

Zimmerman BJ. Becoming a self-regulated learner: which are the key subprocesses? Contemp Educ Psychol. 1986;11:307–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(86)90027-5 .

Loomis KD. Learning styles and asynchronous learning: comparing the LASSI model to class performance. J Asynchronous Learn Netw. 2000;4:23–32.

Pintrich PR. A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educ Psychol Rev. 2004;16:385–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-004-0006-x .

Ferketich S. Focus on psychometrics. Aspects of item analysis. Res Nurs Health. 1991;14:165–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770140211 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Zimmerman BJ. Becoming a self-regulated learner: an overview. Theory Pract. 2002;41:64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2 .

Choi EJ. Relationships between metacognition, problem solving process, and debriefing experience in simulation as problem-based learning (S-PBL). J Korea Contents Assoc. 2016;16:459–69. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2016.16.01.459 .

Suh YJ, Bae JY, Lee JH. Factors related to the undergraduate nursing students’ metacognition. J Korea Converg Soc. 2019;10:523–32. https://doi.org/10.15207/JKCS.2019.10.11.523 .

Son LK, Schwartz BL. The relation between metacognitive monitoring and control. In: Perfect TJ, Schwartz BL, editors. Applied metacognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002. pp. 15–38. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489976.003 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Paul R, Pintrich PR. Chapter 14 - the role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In: Boekaerts M, Pintrich PR, Zeidner M, editors. Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego: Academic Press; 2000. pp. 451–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50043-3 .

Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

This work was supported by Mo-Im Kim Nursing Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Nursing and Seoul Nurses Association.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Research Institute for Biomedical & Health Science, Department of Nursing, Konkuk University Glocal Campus, Chungwon-daero 268, Chungju-si, Chungcheongbuk-do, 27478, Korea

Mo-Im Kim Nursing Research Institute, College of Nursing, Yonsei University, Yonsei-ro 50, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, Korea

JuHee Lee, Mona Choi & Yeonsoo Jang

College of Nursing, University of Illinois Chicago, 845 S. Damen Ave., MC 802, #612, Chicago, IL, 60612-7350, USA

Chang Gi Park

College of Nursing, Daegu Catholic University, 33, Duryugongwon-ro, 17-gil, Nam-gu, Daegu, 42472, Korea

Young Joo Lee

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

JB designed this study, collected data, analysis and manuscript writing. JL designed this study, supervision and manuscript writing. MC, YJ and YL supervision and manuscript writing. CP supervised study and analyzed the data analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to JuHee Lee .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The study has been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Yonsei University Health System (approval number at 2019-1741-001). All nurses gave written informed consent to participate in the study. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulation.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Bae, J., Lee, J., Choi, M. et al. Development of the clinical reasoning competency scale for nurses. BMC Nurs 22 , 138 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-023-01244-6

Download citation

Received : 04 October 2022

Accepted : 11 March 2023

Published : 25 April 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-023-01244-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Clinical reasoning
• Nursing education
• Psychometric evaluation

BMC Nursing

ISSN: 1472-6955

• General enquiries: [email protected]