Psychometric properties of the virtual patient version of the Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric

Georg, Carina; Welin, Elisabet; Jirwe, Maria; Karlgren, Klas; Ulfvarson, Johanna

doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2019.05.016

Cited by 10 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This value of Cronbach's alpha is in line with the values obtained in other studies: 0.974 (19) ; in Sweden 0.860 (20) ; in Korea 0.910 (21) ; in the Netherlands 0.930 (20) ; in Spain 0.930 (22) ; in Brazil 0.889 (23) ; and in Sweden 0.931 (24) .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Transcultural Translation and Validation of Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric©

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: to translate and cross-culturally validate the Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric© (LCJR©) instrument for nursing students. Methods: the application of LCJR-PT© was preceded by a linguistic translation into Portuguese, based on the translation-back-translation method. This psychometric study involved 32 nursing students from a program in Portugal. Data were collected through observations of two independent observers during the performance of the practices developed by the students, through the scenarios validated by experts of high and of medium-fidelity simulation. Results: of the 64 observations obtained from the practices of nursing students, the value of intra-class correlations in the 4 aspects of the instrument exceeded 0.792. There was a global Cronbach’s alpha of LCJR-PT© of 0.921 and 0.876 in Observers 1 and 2 respectively, with a statistically significant level of agreement. Conclusions: the LCJR-PT© is a valid and reliable instrument, demonstrating a high potential for its use in clinical education and nursing research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…The present study involved 64 observations, a number slightly higher than that obtained in other studies -26 to 59 observations (15,17,(19)(20) , although less than other studies -152 to 179 (13,(21)(22)(23)(24) .…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 54%

Transcultural Translation and Validation of Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric©

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Each item is scored on a 4‐point Likert scale, and the overall score ranges from 11 to 44. The sum score distinguishes four phases of clinical judgment: beginning (11 points), developing (12–22 points), accomplished (23–33 points), and exemplary (34–44 points) (Georg et al, 2019). The Chinese version of the LCJR reported high factor loadings and reliabilities and no bias from age, gender, or raters (Yang et al, 2019).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three learning modalities' impact on clinical judgment and perceptions in newly graduated registered nurses: A quasi‐experimental study

Luo

Geng

Chen

et al. 2021

Nursing & Health Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Newly graduated registered nurses face numerous challenges stemming from high patient workload, complicated interpersonal relationships, and a lack of nursing competence, which can lead to transitional shocks. Clinical judgment and confidence are well‐known keys to successful role transitions for these nurses. Simulation training is proposed as a new modality for enhancing comprehensive clinical competence of nurses, but current evidence on the impact of different simulations on nurses' clinical judgment and confidence are still limited or inconsistent. This study compared the impact of three types of learning modalities on newly graduated registered nurses' clinical judgment, perceptions of self‐confidence, and evaluations of the design features of the learning modalities. A quasi‐experimental design was used. Fifty‐nine participants were randomly assigned to three groups: (1) high‐fidelity simulation, (2) virtual simulation, and (3) case study. Scales were used after the simulation. The virtual simulation group showed a higher level of clinical judgment. The high‐fidelity simulation group felt more confident than the virtual simulation and case study groups. Both the high‐fidelity simulation group and virtual simulation group reported higher scores in the domain of fidelity.

show abstract

“…Whether simulations are conducted virtually or in person, debriefing and evaluation of learning is essential (INCSL Standards Committee, 2016ab). The Virtual Patient Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric (vpLCJR), adapted from Lasater (2007) , has been successfully utilized in assessing clinical reasoning and judgment skills of nursing students during virtual simulations ( Georg et al, 2019 ). Debriefing of virtual simulations may be facilitated by the virtual simulation computer program ( Goldsworthy et al, 2019 ); however, debriefing methodologies are not always reported ( Redmond et al, 2020 ) and consequently identified as an overall gap in the literature ( Foronda et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%