EDP Sciences logo
Subscriber Authentication Point
Rechercher
Menu
Accueil Tous les numéros Volume 21 / Numéro 3 (2020) Pédagogie Médicale, 21 3 (2020) 143-157 References
Free Access
Issue
Pédagogie Médicale
Volume 21, Number 3, 2020
Page(s) 143 - 157
Section Recherche et perspectives
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/pmed/2020041
Published online 3 décembre 2020
  1. Psiuk T. L’apprentissage du raisonnement clinique. Concepts fondamentaux – Contexte et processus d’apprentissage (2e éd.) Bruxelles : De Boeck Superieur, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  2. Richard L, Gendron S, Cara C. Modélisation de la pratique infirmière comme système complexe : une analyse des conceptions de théoriciennes en sciences infirmières. Aporia 2012;4:25‐39. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. Pepin J, Ducharme F, Kérouac S. La pensée infirmière (4e éd.). Montréal : Chenelière Éducation, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  4. Simmons B. Clinical reasoning: concept analysis. J Adv Nurs 2010;66:1151‐58. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Goudreau J, Boyer L, Létourneau D. Clinical Nursing Reasoning in Nursing Practice: A Cognitive Learning Model based on a Think Aloud Methodology. Quality Advancement in Nursing Education – Avancées en formation infirmière 2014;1:1‐18. [Google Scholar]
  6. Levett-Jones T, Hoffman K, Dempsey J, Jeong S, Noble D, Norton CA, Roche J, Hickey N. The “five rights” of clinical reasoning: an educational model to enhance nursing strudent’s ability to identify and manage clinical ’at risk’ patients. Nurse Educ Today 2010;30:515‐20. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Thompson C, Aitken L, Doran D, Dowding D. An agenda for clinical decision making and judgement in nursing research and education. Int J Nurs Stud 2013;50:1720‐6. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Alfaro-LeFevre R. Critical thinking, Clinical Reasoning and Clinical Judgment: A practical approach (6e éd.). St-Louis: Elsevier, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  9. Charette M, Goudreau J, Bourbonnais A. Factors influencing the practice of new graduate nurses: A focused ethnography of acute care settings. J Clin Nurs 2019;28:3618‐31. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Benner P, Sutphen M, Leonard V, Day L. Educating Nurses: A Call for Radical Transformation. San Francisco (CA): Jossey-Bass, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  11. Lecours J, Bernier F, Friedmann D, Jobin V, Charlin B, Fernandez N. Learning-by-Concordance for Family Physicians: Revealing its Value for Continuing Professional Development in Dermatology. MedEdPublish 2018;7:1‐15. DOI: 10.15694/mep.2018.0000236.1. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Fernandez N, Foucault A, Dubé S, Robert D, Lafond C, Vincent A-M, Kassis J, Kazitani D, Charlin B. Learning-by-Concordance (LbC): introducing undergraduate students to the complexity and uncertainty of clinical practice. Can Med Educ J 2016;7:e104‐e113. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Foucault A, Dubé S, Fernandez N, Gagnon R, Charlin B. Learning medical professionalism with the online concordance-of-judgment learning tool (CJLT): A pilot study. Med Teach 2015;37:955‐60. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Charlin B, Tardif J, Boshuizen HPA. Scripts and medical diagnostic knowledge: Theory and applications for clinical reasoning instruction and research. Acad Med 2000;75:182‐90. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Schmidt HG, Norman GR, Boshuizen HPA. A cognitive perspective on medical expertise. Theory and implications. Acad Med 1990;65:611‐21. [Google Scholar]
  16. Charlin B, Deschênes M-F, Dumas J-P, Lecours J, Vincent A-M, Kassis J, Guertin L, Gagnon R, Robert D, Foucault A, Lubarsky S, Fernandez N. Concevoir une formation par concordance pour développer le raisonnement professionnel : quelles étapes faut-il parcourir ? Pédagogie Médicale 2018;19:143‐9. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  17. Van der Maren J-M. La recherche appliquée pour les professionnels : éducation, (para)médical, travail social. Bruxelles : De Boeck, 2014. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Girard F, Cara C. 2014. Modèle humaniste de soins infirmiers – UdeM. Montréal (QC) : Université de Montréal/Faculté des sciences infirmières. 2014 [On-line] Disponible sur : https://fsi.umontreal.ca/faculte/portrait-de-la-faculte/modele-humaniste-des-soins-infirmiers-udem/. [Google Scholar]
  19. Charlin B, Fernandez N. Préparer et animer une formation par concordance. In: T. Pelaccia (Dir.). Comment (mieux) former et évaluer les étudiants en médecine et en sciences de la santé ? Louvain-la-Neuve : De Boeck Supérieur, 2016:325‐40. [Google Scholar]
  20. Fortin M-F, Gagnon J. Fondements et étapes du processus de recherche. Méthodes quantitatives et qualitatives (3e éd.). Montréal : Chenelière Éducation, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  21. Morse JM. Strategies for sampling, in Qualitative nursing research: A comptemporary dialogue. In: Morse JM (ed). Newbury Park (CA): Sage Publications, 1990:127‐45. [Google Scholar]
  22. Deschênes M-F, 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]
  23. Dawson TE, Comer L, Kossick MA, Neubrander J. Can script concordance testing used in nursing education to accurately assess clinical reasoning skills? J Nurs Educ 2014;53:281‐6. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Caboor E. Praktijkonderzoek naar het effect van ervaringsgericht leren aan de hand van een simulatie met hoge betrouwbaarheid op het klinisch redeneermogen van bachelor studenten verpleegkunde [Recherche pratique sur l’effet de l’apprentissage expérientiel au moyen d’une simulation à haute fidélité sur le raisonnement clinique des étudiants en baccalauréat en sciences infirmières]. Gent: Universiteit Gent, 2018 [On-line] Disponible sur : https://lib.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/002/480/211/RUG01-002480211_2018_0001_AC.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  25. Menezes SS. Avaliação do Raciocínio Clínico: Adaptação e Validação do Test de Concordance de Scripts Human Caring [Évaluation du raisonnement clinique: adaptation et validation du test de concordance des scripts Human caring]. São Paulo: Universidade São Paulo, 2017 [On-line] Disponible sur : https://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/7/7139/tde-14082017-122620/publico/SASKIA_Corrigida.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  26. Sadhuwong K, Koraneekij P, Natakuatoong O. Effects of a blended learning model integrating situated multimedia lessons and cognitive apprenticeship method on the clinical reasoning skills of nursing students. J Health Res 2016;30:421‐41. [Google Scholar]
  27. Tapaneeyakorn W, Kosolchuenvijit J, Anonrath K, Wannasuntad S, Smith P. Factors affecting clinical reasoning of nursing students at Boromarajonani College of Nursing Bangkok. J Health Sci Res 2016;10:70‐7. [Google Scholar]
  28. Keeney S, Hasson F, McKenna H. The Delphi technique in nursing and health research. Chichester : Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  29. Norcini J, Anderson B, Bollela V, Burch V, Costa MJ, Duvivier R, Galbraith R, Hays R, Kent A, Perrott V. Criteria for good assessment: consensus statement and recommendations from the Ottawa 2010 Conference. Med Teach 2011;33:206‐14. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  30. Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res 1986;35:382‐5 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health 2007;30:459‐67. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Fleiss JL, Nee JC, Landis JR. Large sample variance of kappa in the case of different sets of raters. Psychol Bull 1979;86:974‐7. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  33. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159‐74. [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Krippendorff K. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  35. Krippendorff K. Agreement and information in the reliability of coding. Commun Methods Measures 2011;5:93‐112. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  36. Fournier JP, Demeester A, Charlin B. Script concordance tests: guidelines for construction. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2008;8:8‐18. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. 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]
  38. Lubarsky S, Dory V, Duggan P, Gagnon R, Charlin B. Script concordance testing: from theory to practice: AMEE guide no. 75. Med Teach 2013;35:184‐93. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  39. Sibert L, Fournier J-P. ECNI - Épreuve TCS Test de concordance de script. Guide méthodologique. Paris : Les Éditions Maloine, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  40. Boud D, Molloy E. Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design. Assess Eval High Educ 2013;38:698‐712. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  41. Lubarsky S, Charlin B, Cook D, Chalk C, Van der Vleuten C. Script concordance testing: a review of published validity evidence. Med Educ 2011;45:328‐38. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Cronbach LJ. Essentials of Psychology Testing. New York: Harper & Row, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  43. Laveault D. Soixante ans de bons et mauvais usages du alpha de Cronbach. Mesure et évaluation en éducation 2012;35:1‐7. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  44. Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use (5th ed.) Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  45. Cortina JM. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psychol 1993;78:98‐104. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  46. Lineberry M, Hornos E, Pleguezuelos E, Mella J, Brailovsky C, Bordage G. Experts’ responses in script concordance tests: a response process validity investigation. Med Educ 2019;53:710‐22. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Belhomme N, Jego P, Pottier P. Gestion de l’incertitude et compétence médicale : une réflexion clinique et pédagogique. Rev Med Interne 2019;40:361‐7. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Tedesco-Schneck M. Use of Script Concordance Activity With the Think-Aloud Approach to Foster Clinical Reasoning in Nursing Students. Nurse Educ 2019;44:275‐7. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Diamond IR, Grant RC, Feldman BM, Pencharz PB, Ling SC, Moore AM, Wales PW. Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:401‐9. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Deschênes M-F, Goudreau J, Fernandez N. Learning strategies used by undergraduate nursing students in the context of a digital educational strategy based on script concordance: A descriptive study. Nurse Educ Today 2020;95:1‐9. DOI: 10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104607. [Google Scholar]
  51. Deschênes M-F, Goudreau J. Study of the formulation of clinical hypotheses by nursing students through the combined use of script concordance testing (SCT) and think-aloud. Multiple case study. 2020, submitted. [Google Scholar]
  52. Caire F, Sol J-C, Moreau J-J, Isidori P, Charlin B. Auto-évaluation des internes en neurochirurgie par tests de concordance de script (TCS) : processus d’élaboration des tests. Neurochirurgie 2004;50:66‐72. [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.