EDP Sciences logo
Subscriber Authentication Point
Rechercher
Menu
Accueil Tous les numéros Volume 15 / Numéro 1 (février 2014) Pédagogie Médicale, 15 1 (2014) 7-20 References
Free Access
Issue
Pédagogie Médicale
Volume 15, Number 1, février 2014
Page(s) 7 - 20
Section Recherche et perspectives
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/pmed/2014004
Published online 24 mars 2014
  1. Jean S. Direction générale du personnel, réseau ministériel. Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux [MSSS] Projection de la main-d’œuvre infirmière, de 2004-2005 à 2019-2020. 2005 [On-line] Disponible sur : http://www.fiqsante.qc.ca/documents_publications/documents/pmo_inf_rapport2005. Pdf. [Google Scholar]
  2. Liaw S, Scherpbier A, Klainin-Yobas P, Rethans J. A review of educational strategies to improve nurses’ roles in recognizing and responding to deteriorating patients. Int Nurs Rev 2011;58:296-303. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ordre des infirmières et infirmiers du Québec [OIIQ]. Champ d’exercice et activités réservées, 2012 [On line]. Disponible sur : http://www.oiiq.org/pratique-infirmiere/champ-dexercice-et-activites-reservees. [Google Scholar]
  4. Albert B, Huesman L. Development of a modified early warning score using the electronic medical record. Dimens Crit Care Nurs 2011;30:283-92. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Kyriacos U, Jelsma J, Jordan S. Monitoring vital signs using early warning scoring systems: a review of the literature. J Nurs Manag 2011;19:311-30. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Côté S, St-Cyr Tribble D. Le raisonnement clinique des infirmières, analyse de concept. Recherche en soins infirmiers 2012;111:13-21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hoffman K, Aitken L, Duffield C. A comparison of novice and expert nurses’ cue collection during clinical decision-making: verbal protocol analysis. Int J Nurs Stud 2009;46(10):1335-44. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Schmidt HG, Norman GR, Boshuizen HP. A Cognitive Perspective on Medical Expertise: Theory and Implications. Acad Med 1990;65:611-21. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Whittington J, White R, Haig K, Slock M. Using an automated risk assessment report to identify patients at risk for clinical deterioration. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2007;33:569-74. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Charlin B, Gagnon R, Sibert L, Van der Vleuten C. Le test de concordance de script, un instrument d’évaluation du raisonnement clinique. Pédagogie Médicale 2002;3:135-44. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  11. Lubarsky S, Charlin B, Cook D, Chalk C, van der Vleuten C. Script concordance testing: a review of published validity evidence. Med Educ 2011;45: 329-38. [Google Scholar]
  12. Dory V, Gagnon R, Vanpee D, Charlin B. How to construct and implement script concordance tests: insights from a systematic review. Med Educ 2012;46:552-63. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Fournier J, Demeester A, Charlin B. Script concordance tests: guidelines for construction. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2008;8:818. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Lineberry M, Kreiter C, Bordage G. Threats to validity in the use and interpretation of script concordance test scores. Med Educ 2013;47:1175-83. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Deschênes M, Charlin B, Gagnon R, Goudreau J. Use of a script concordance test to assess development of clinical reasoning in nursing students. J Nurs Educ 2011;50:381-7. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Latreille, M-E. Évaluation du raisonnement clinique d’étudiantes et d’infirmières dans le domaine de la pédiatrie, à l’aide d’un test de concordance de script. Ottawa : Université d’Ottawa, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  17. Petrucci A, Nouh T, Boutros M, Gagnon R, Meterissian S. Assessing clinical judgment using the Script Concordance test: the importance of using specialty-specific experts to develop the scoring key. Am J Surg 2013;205:137-40. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Centre de pédagogie appliquée aux sciences de la santé (CPASS). Test de concordance de script. 2012 [On-line] Disponible sur : http://www.cpass.umontreal.ca/tcs.html. [Google Scholar]
  19. Gagnon R, Charlin B, Lambert C, Carrière B, Van der Vleuten C. Script concordance testing: more cases or more questions? Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2009;14:367-75. [Google Scholar]
  20. Gagnon R, Lubarsky S, Lambert C, Charlin B. Optimization of answer keys for script concordance testing: should we exclude deviant panelists, deviant responses, or neither? Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2011;16:601-8. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Polit D, Beck C. Nursing research: generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. (8th ed.) Philadelphie (PA ): Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  22. Zegers M, de Bruijne MC, Wagner C, Groenewegen PP, van der Wal G, de Vet HC. The inter-rater agreement of retrospective assessments of adverse events does not improve with two reviewers per patient record. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:94-102. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.