• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

拉塞特临床判断量表:对教学有效性评估的启示。

The Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric: Implications for Evaluating Teaching Effectiveness.

出版信息

J Nurs Educ. 2021 Feb 1;60(2):67-73. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20210120-03.

DOI:10.3928/01484834-20210120-03
PMID:33528576
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Concern with patient safety necessitates valid and reliable measures to evaluate clinical judgment. The purpose of this article is to describe how the Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric (LCJR) has been used to evaluate the effectiveness of educational interventions to promote clinical judgment and its psychometric properties.

METHOD

Search terms included nurse, student, clinical judgment, and Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric in Scopus, ERIC, and CINAHL with EBSCOhost databases. The final review included 20 studies.

RESULTS

Researchers reported alphas for total scales as .80 to .97, subscales as .89 to .93, and students' self-scored as .81 to .82. Themes were: Individual Versus Group Evaluations, Clinical Judgment Scenarios, and Adaptation for Nonobservation Activities.

CONCLUSION

Results of this review indicate that the LCJR can be used to evaluate clinical judgment, but educators need to consider inter- and intrarater reliability, individual versus group evaluation, clinical judgment scenarios, and adapting the rubric for nondirect observation activities. [J Nurs Educ. 2021;60(2):67-73.].

摘要

背景

对患者安全的关注需要有效和可靠的措施来评估临床判断。本文的目的是描述如何使用 Lasater 临床判断量表(LCJR)来评估促进临床判断的教育干预措施的有效性及其心理测量特性。

方法

在 Scopus、ERIC 和 CINAHL 与 EBSCOhost 数据库中使用了“护士、学生、临床判断和 Lasater 临床判断量表”等搜索词。最终的综述包括 20 项研究。

结果

研究人员报告了总量表的信度为.80 至.97,分量表的信度为.89 至.93,学生自我评分的信度为.81 至.82。主题包括:个体与小组评估、临床判断情景和非观察活动的适应。

结论

本综述的结果表明,LCJR 可用于评估临床判断,但教育工作者需要考虑评分者间和评分者内的可靠性、个体与小组评估、临床判断情景以及为非直接观察活动改编量表。[J Nurs Educ. 2021;60(2):67-73.]。

相似文献

1
The Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric: Implications for Evaluating Teaching Effectiveness.拉塞特临床判断量表:对教学有效性评估的启示。
J Nurs Educ. 2021 Feb 1;60(2):67-73. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20210120-03.
2
Development and validation of Dutch version of Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric in hospital practice: An instrument design study.《荷兰版拉萨特临床判断评分标准在医院实践中的开发与验证:一项工具设计研究》
Nurse Educ Today. 2018 Mar;62:43-51. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2017.12.013. Epub 2017 Dec 23.
3
Improving clinical judgment by simulation: a randomized trial and validation of the Lasater clinical judgment rubric in Chinese.通过模拟提高临床判断能力:一项随机试验及中文版 Lasater 临床判断量表的验证。
BMC Med Educ. 2019 Jan 14;19(1):20. doi: 10.1186/s12909-019-1454-9.
4
Psychometric properties of the lasater clinical judgment rubric.拉萨特临床判断量表的心理测量学特性。
Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh. 2013 Apr 23;10:/j/ijnes.2013.10.issue-1/ijnes-2012-0030/ijnes-2012-0030.xml. doi: 10.1515/ijnes-2012-0030.
5
A collaborative project to apply and evaluate the clinical judgment model through simulation.一个通过模拟来应用和评估临床判断模型的合作项目。
Nurs Educ Perspect. 2009 Mar-Apr;30(2):99-104.
6
Lasater clinical judgment rubric reliability for scoring clinical judgment after observing asynchronous simulation and feasibility/usability with learners.观察异步模拟后,Lasater临床判断评分表在对临床判断进行评分以及与学习者的可行性/可用性方面的可靠性。
Nurse Educ Today. 2023 Jun;125:105769. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2023.105769. Epub 2023 Mar 6.
7
Assessing the reliability, validity, and use of the Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric: three approaches.评估 Lasater 临床判断量表的可靠性、有效性和使用:三种方法。
J Nurs Educ. 2012 Feb;51(2):66-73. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20111130-03. Epub 2011 Nov 30.
8
Clinical Judgment Development and Assessment in Clinical Nursing Education.临床护理教育中的临床判断发展与评估。
Nurse Educ. 2023;48(4):175-181. doi: 10.1097/NNE.0000000000001357. Epub 2023 Jan 18.
9
The Korean version of the Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric: a validation study.《拉斯泰特临床判断评分量表》韩文版:一项效度研究。
Nurse Educ Today. 2015 Jan;35(1):68-72. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2014.06.009. Epub 2014 Jul 4.
10
Clinical Judgment During Simulation: A Comparison of Student and Faculty Scores.模拟过程中的临床判断:学生与教师评分比较
Nurs Educ Perspect. 2017 Mar/Apr;38(2):85-86. doi: 10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000000109.

引用本文的文献

1
Barriers and Facilitators Experienced by Undergraduate Nursing Faculty Teaching Clinical Judgment: A Qualitative Study.本科护理教师在教授临床判断时所经历的障碍与促进因素:一项定性研究
SAGE Open Nurs. 2024 Aug 18;10:23779608241274728. doi: 10.1177/23779608241274728. eCollection 2024 Jan-Dec.
2
Nursing students' clinical judgment skills in simulation and clinical placement: a comparison of student self-assessment and evaluator assessment.护理专业学生在模拟情境和临床实习中的临床判断技能:学生自我评估与评估者评估的比较
BMC Nurs. 2023 Mar 9;22(1):64. doi: 10.1186/s12912-023-01220-0.