Validation of a clinical critical thinking skills test in nursing
Sujin Shin,1,*Dukyoo Jung,2 and Sungeun Kim2
1Department of Nursing, College of Medicine, Soonchunhyang University, Cheonan, Korea
2Division of Nursing Science, College of Health Science, Ewha Woman's University, Seoul, Korea
*Corresponding email: rk.ca.hcs@9111jss
For the revised version of the clinical critical thinking skills test, please contact corresponding author.
Author information ►Article notes ►Copyright and License information ►
Received 2014 Aug 25; Accepted 2015 Jan 23.
Copyright © 2015, National Health Personnel Licensing Examination Board of the Republic of Korea
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
The purpose of this study was to develop a revised version of the clinical critical thinking skills test (CCTS) and to subsequently validate its performance.
This study is a secondary analysis of the CCTS. Data were obtained from a convenience sample of 284 college students in June 2011. Thirty items were analyzed using item response theory and test reliability was assessed. Test-retest reliability was measured using the results of 20 nursing college and graduate school students in July 2013. The content validity of the revised items was analyzed by calculating the degree of agreement between instrument developer intention in item development and the judgments of six experts. To analyze response process validity, qualitative data related to the response processes of nine nursing college students obtained through cognitive interviews were analyzed.
Out of initial 30 items, 11 items were excluded after the analysis of difficulty and discrimination parameter. When the 19 items of the revised version of the CCTS were analyzed, levels of item difficulty were found to be relatively low and levels of discrimination were found to be appropriate or high. The degree of agreement between item developer intention and expert judgments equaled or exceeded 50%.
From above results, evidence of the response process validity was demonstrated, indicating that subjects respondeds as intended by the test developer. The revised 19-item CCTS was found to have sufficient reliability and validity and will therefore represents a more convenient measurement of critical thinking ability.
Keywords: Intention, Judgment, Nursing students, Reproducibility of results, Thinking
The need for critical thinking in the field of nursing has recently been emphasized, resulting in the proliferation of pertinent studies [1,2]. The Korea Institute of Curriculum and Evaluation defines the concept of critical thinking as thinking intended to grasp the logical structure and meaning of texts in order to make best judgments concerning concepts, criteria, contexts, and methods so as to decide whether to accept certain opinions or whether to conduct certain acts . However, the current measurements used to evaluate general critical thinking skills or disposition levels do not adequately assess these skills in the context of the problems faced in clinical practice. Furthermore, critical thinking skills are dependent on the specific conditions and context of the field or time period. Existing studies are limited in that they examine general critical thinking skills using instruments that fail to account for the context of clinical conditions. Although critical thinking as a concept is a key objective within nursing education and practice, few standardized instruments have been developed to measure critical thinking levels specifically for the field of nursing. Thus, there is a need to look beyond a purely theoretical understanding of critical thinking and to examine the application of critical thinking processes in a more appropriate context. Simply put, an instrument needs to be developed that can measure critical thinking skills while accounting for specific geographical, cultural, and clinical contexts.
As a result of this need to develop a more refined instrument, Shin et al.  developed a 30-item clinical critical thinking skills (CCTS) test and subsequently assessed the item difficulty, discriminant validity, internal reliability, content validity, and criterion-related validity of the instrument. However, the internal reliability was found to be a little low (Cronbach’s α=0.55), possibly due to respondent fatigue as a result of the time required to respond to all 30 items (approximately 50 minutes). If true, the reliability of this tool might be enhanced through item response alternative analysis. Therefore, this study aimed to reevaluate the CCTS with the aim of creating a revised measure with fewer items and then to assess the reliability and validity of this revised instrument.
Materials and subjects
This study is a secondary analysis of the CCTS . Two hundred and eighty four nursing students participated in data collection for item analysis based on item response theory (IRT) in June 2011. The subjects of data collection related to test-retest reliability were 20 nursing college and graduate school students who sufficiently understood the purpose of the study and agreed to voluntary participation in July 2013. Nine of the subjects participated in cognitive interviews for the purpose of response process validity analysis. Study subjects for revalidation of content validity were two professors of philosophy, two professors of education, and two scholars of nursing with experience in studies related to critical thinking.
The two-parameter normal ogive model of IRT was applied to conduct item analysis and the correlation coefficients between total scores of items were examined. Data met normality assumptions. The IRT two-parameter normal ogive model provides two item parameters (discrimination, difficulty) and tests information functions. The item parameters are used to distinguish items with poor discrimination and such items are flagged for exclusion. In addition, items with low correlations with total score may also be excluded because they likely measure different constructs. For item analysis, 28 out of 30 items were selected through content validation. Original item numbers 20 and 21 showed a low percentage of correct answers in the preliminary item analysis. Such items produce large errors in discrimination and difficulty estimation so that reliable parameters cannot be easily produced.
The content validity of the ability to reflect the areas of interpretation, analysis, inference, and evaluation, defined as the constructs of clinical critical thinking skills, in the developed items were assessed. Respondents were requested to judge and subsequently indicate the areas of clinical critical thinking ability best represented by given items. The degree of agreement between the intentions of the developers and the expert judgments were then calculated in percentages.
Cognitive interviews of students (also known as ‘think-alouds’ ) can examine how students think about, interpret, and respond to questionnaire items. Therefore, cases where the item response processes and outcomes of students coincided with item developer intention were coded as two points, cases where item response processes and outcomes partially coincided with item developer intention were coded as one point, and cases where the item response process and outcomes were not at all related to item developer intention, or the respondents answered “I don’t know,” were coded as zero points. The averages of coded values were calculated for each item.
For item revision, the items were analyzed using IRT and the reliability and validity of the revised test instrument was analyzed. BILOG-MG ver. 3.0 (Scientific Software International Inc., Skokie, IL, USA) and IBM SPSS ver. 19.0 (IBM Co., Armonk, NY, USA) were used for item analysis. Internal reliability using Cronbach’s α coefficient and test-retests were conducted to assess the reliability of the revised CCTS, and the correlations between scores at two time points were measured using Pearson correlation coefficients. The content validity of the revised items was calculated as a percentage of the degree of agreement between the intention of the instrument developers in item development and the judgments of six experts. The validity of the response process was analyzed using the content of qualitative data obtained through cognitive interviews on the respondents’ response processes. Construct validity was tested using confirmatory factor analyses, which were conducted using the robust weighted least squares method known to be suitable for binary data . Mplus ver. 6.11 (Muthen & Muthen, Los Angeles, CA, USA) and IBM SPSS ver. 19.0 (IBM Co.) were used to verify the goodness of the tests.
Items 1, 8, 9, and 28 showed low difficulty parameters not higher than -2.0. Twelve items showed appropriate or high levels of discrimination (discrimination parameter not lower than 0.2) . The 16 items with low levels of discrimination were reviewed for deletion or revision. The discrimination parameters and item content were considered together as a group, and items 2, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 27, and 29 were excluded from the final version. The other two items 1 and 9 (with difficulty parameters not higher than -3.0), which were also reviewed for deletion or revision as both items showed a correct answer percentage that exceeded 90%. As a result, item content and measured constructs were analyzed, and the relationships of these two items with other items were reviewed. Following this assessment, item 9 was excluded from the test. Although item 1 was identified as too easy, its content addressed issues regarding aging and the health of the elderly, which are highly utilizable in clinical situations. Likewise, item 6 was judged to be an important item for measuring the abilities of interpretation and analysis using contextual circumstances in clinical situations, and so these items were retained. Meanwhile, items 20 and 21, both initially included in the test instrument when it was developed in 2012, were judged to be items based on nursing knowledge and thus were excluded from the revised instrument. The results of calculations of the levels of difficulty and discrimination of the 28 items are shown in Table 1.
Levels of discrimination and difficulty according to item response theory (n = 284)
This instrument evaluated subjects ranging from those with low critical thinking ability to those with high critical thinking ability, and showed the maximum test information at points where subjects’ ability parameters equaled -1.0. However, this instrument did not provide sufficient information for subjects with a critical thinking ability of 1.0 or higher. The test information function of the CCTS is shown in Fig. 1.
Resultant test information functions. (A) Test information function of 30 items. (B) Test information function of 19 items. The test information of 30 items was peak at the -1.3 of ability parameter; while, that of 19 items was peak at the -1.1 of ability...
Nine items were excluded through IRT analysis. The correlations between items and total score for the 19 items included in the test instrument are shown in Table 2. Of these 19 items, 18 (item 1 excluded) showed a correlation with total score that exceeded 0.3, and all these correlations were significant at P<0.001. In the case of item 1, the correlation with total score was calculated to be low compared to other items due to its high appropriate level of discrimination and was deemed necessary to include as a result of the content analysis. Cronbach’s α indicated that the reliability of the test instrument was 0.622, and the test reliability when items were removed showed a range of 0.572 to 0.623. The same 22 subjects were requested to respond to the test instrument after an interval of two weeks, and the correlations between the scores at the two time points were measured. The results showed significant correlations: r=0.662 (P=0.001). The degree of agreement between item developer intention and expert judgments were calculated as a percentage for the 19 items (Table 2). Items showed agreement levels of 50% or higher. Item 7 was first developed as an analysis item, but five experts judged it an inference item and so it was eventually classified as such.
Correlations between items and total score and percentage of agreement between researcher intention and expert decisiona)
Data on the processes of thinking through which item judgments were made were collected through interviews. Most items scored at least 1.5 points, and the item scores were generally considered healthy with a total average of 1.75 points. This indicates that subjects successfully described responses as intended by the test developer. In addition, when asked the question “Was there any item you could not answer because you had no knowledge or preceding learning?” all students answered, “There was no such item.” The instrument was thus verified as an instrument that measured thinking processes, not knowledge.
Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted in order to validate a model of the test instrument for measuring four factors: ‘analysis,’ ‘understanding,’ ‘inference,’ and ‘evaluation.’ Individual factors and the items for measuring the relevant factors are shown in Table 3. The goodness of fit of the confirmatory factor analyses for both the 19 items and four factors had excellent fit indices: chi-square, 77.763 (df=69, P=0.219); comparative fit index, 0.949; normed fit index, 0.954; and root mean square error of approximation, 0.021 since values exceeds the followings thresholds: chi-square, P>0.05; comparative fit index and normed fit index equal to or greater than 0.9; and root mean square error of approximation equal to or less than 0.06.
This study revised the existing 30-item CCTS instrument for clinical critical thinking ability into a 19-item measure and reported the process of instrument validation. This instrument is the first to measure critical thinking ability in the area of nursing in Korea. Unlike psychological measurements, grounds for the validity of cognitive response processes for the test instrument were set, and a new approach to expert content validity was attempted. First, the results of validation of the response processes were different from the reported levels described during interviews with the subjects. Therefore, more exploration into both difficulty and discrimination levels is considered necessary.
This study showed maximum test information at points where subjects’ ability parameters were -1.0. However, the results did not provide sufficient information for subjects with critical thinking abilities exceeding 1.0, and so the instrument reported in this study is limited to use with subjects with excellent critical thinking ability scores. However, since the instrument has the advantage of identifying those critical thinking abilities necessary for medical personnel, this may be strength when used with this demographic.
Although items with positive correlation coefficients may be interpreted as measuring the same constructs as the test is intended to measure , this is generally considered only applicable to items with correlation coefficients exceeding 0.30. The correlations between item scores and total test score (with the exception of item 1) satisfy both criteria. This means that clinical critical thinking ability may be measured through individual items. In this study, after the number of items was reduced to 19, primarily through the selection of items with high levels of discrimination and a reorganization of the items, the reliability of the instrument was improved to 0.622. In addition, since respondent fatigue presumably decrease resulting in improved concentration following the reduction in the number of items , test-retest reliability showed high, statistically significant correlations (r=0.662).
Whereas existing methods of verifying content validity provide information on the constructs to which items belong and evaluate the suitability of items for those constructs and content, in this study the rates of agreement between item developer intention and expert judgments were developed by having experts evaluate the content of each item for constructs. However, because of the nature of critical thinking, the subareas of interpretation (analysis, inference, and evaluation) do not act independently, but interact in order to more accurately judge given situations and to generate solutions to problems. Therefore, it is difficult to develop items that independently measure the different subareas of critical thinking skills. In this study, when the degree of agreement between the constructs to which items belonged and the constructs evaluated by experts were evaluated, most items showed agreement rates in excess of 50%. These are within acceptable parameters .
This research is the first among nursing studies to present evidence for response process validity. In particular, since this test is a cognitive evaluation instrument, how items are interpreted or accepted by test subjects is important . Subjects’ critical thinking processes were evaluated through selective items, and response processes were analyzed in order to assess whether such selective type items were well designed. Critical thinking processes are composite processes and are evaluated through multiple-choice measures and open-ended tests. Since constructed response items generally induce complicated thinking processes, while multiple-choice items typically induce low-level cognitive processes, constructed response items are able to measure cognitive processes more directly . However, well-made multiple-choice measures can be useful in evaluating critical thinking ability [7,11], because judgment ability can be measured by presenting situations using item stories through selective type items and having subjects select the best response among the response alternatives presented for the specific situation . Therefore, in this study, response processes were evaluated in order to determine whether the revised instrument was suitable for measuring critical thinking skills. This was determined by assessing whether subjects underwent the processes of finding responses to relevant items using the critical thinking skills intended by the developer. The high average comparison score of 1.75 supported the notion that the items were suitable for measuring critical thinking skills. These results are similar to the degree of responses for students with high levels of achievement reported in a previous study , in which response data regarding response processes were analyzed using a similar method. This is significant in lending further support to the validity of the revised test instrument for evaluating critical thinking ability.
Finally, confirmatory factor analyses were conducted on the validity of constructs, comparative fit index, normed fit index, and root mean square error of approximation exceeded thresholds, indicating that the collected data supported the factor model of the test. The four factors were named ‘finding the evidence and cause and evaluating,’ ‘interpreting and inferring the meanings,’ ‘inferring and evaluating the relationship,’ and ‘finding the best solution through inference and evaluation.’ These are different from the original theoretical concept subareas (interpretation, analysis, inference, and evaluation). When considering that the reliability of individual subscales of the most widely used instruments for measuring critical thinking ability are unstable at 0.21 through to 0.51, and 0.17 through to 0.74, respectively , construct validity may be deemed to be weak. It appears that subcategories such as interpretation, analysis, inference, and evaluation are applied mutually complementarily rather than being applied independently.
In conclusion, using IRT, the revised 19-item version of the CCTS showed relatively low levels of item difficulty and appropriate or high levels of discrimination. This revised CCTS has the advantage of enabling more convenient measurement of critical thinking skills than the 30-item CCTS  due to its improved reliability and validity. The levels of difficulty and discrimination of the revised CCTS-19 should be verified through retest and analysis so that it can be used to assess clinical critical thinking skills.
This work was supported by the research year grant of Soonchunhyang University (2014) [Fundref ID: 10.03039/501100002560].
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article exists.
1. Shin K, Jung DY, Shin S, Kim MS. Critical thinking dispositions and skills of senior nursing students in associate, baccalaureate, and RN-to-BSN programs. J Nurs Educ. 2006 Jun;45:233–237.[PubMed]
2. Shin SJ, Jung D. Critical thinking in nursing science: a literature review. J Korean Acad Adult Nurs. 2009;21:117–128.
3. Kim MS, Park C, Kim KS. A study for developing critical thinking test (I): development of pilot test items. Seoul: Korean Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation; 2001.
4. Shin SJ, Yang E, Kong B, Jung D. Development and validation of a clinical critical thinking skills scale. Korean Med Educ Rev. 2012;14:102–108.
5. Hopfenbeck TN, Maul A. Examining evidence for the validity of PISA learning strategy scales based on student response processes. Int J Test. 2011;11:95–121.
6. Flora DB, Curran PJ. An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychol Methods. 2004;9:466–491.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.9.4.466. [PMC free article][PubMed]
7. Seong T. Modern educational evaluation. Seoul: Hanjisa; 2014.
8. Murphy KR, Davidshofer CO. Psychological testing: principles and applications. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Pearson Education International; 2005.
9. Schmeiser CB, Welch CJ. Test development. In: Brennan RL, editor. Educational measurement. 4th ed. Westport (CT): Praeger Publishers; 2006.
10. Waltz CF, Strickland OL, Lenz ER. Measurement in nursing and health research. 4th ed. New York (NY): Springer Publishing Company; 2010.
11. Ku KY. Assessing students’ critical thinking performance: urging for measurements using multi-response format. Think Skill Creat. 2009;4:70–76.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2009.02.001.
Articles from Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions are provided here courtesy of National Health Personnel Licensing Examination Board of the Republic of Korea
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 Rubenfeld5 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 knowledge6 (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 research7 (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 creativity8 (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 solving8 (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. Halpern19 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 educators21 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 habitus28 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. Dewey32 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.
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 decisions42 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 dispossession11 (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 past30 (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 goals48 (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 Gadamer29 points out, experience involves a turning around of preconceived notions, preunderstandings, and extends or adds nuances to understanding. Dewey49 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 experience32 (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 patterns39 (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 colleagues65 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 Appleton62 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 Barrow68, 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 novice79 (p. 23).
Shaw80 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.
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 knowledge87 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.
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 responses92 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 experience96, 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 evidence101 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 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 Chan20 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 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 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. Bourdieu29 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.
Dressel P, Mayhew L. General education exploration in evaluation. Washington, DC: American Council on Education; 1954.
American Philosophical Association. Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. ERIC document, ED. 1990:315–423.
Scriven M, Paul R. Defining critical thinking. 2006. [Accessed April 20, 2006]. http://www.critical-thinking.org/University/univclass/Defining.html.
Bittner N, Tobin E. Critical thinking: strategies for clinical practice. J Nurses Staff Dev. 1998;14:267–72. [PubMed: 9934063]
Scheffer BK, Rubenfeld MG. A consensus statement on critical thinking in nursing. J Nurs Educ. 2000;39(8):352–60. [PubMed: 11103973]
Facione N, Facione P. Externalizing the critical thinking in knowledge development and clinical judgment. Nurs Outlook. 1996;44:129–36. [PubMed: 8794454]
National League for Nursing Accreditation Commission (NLNAC). Accreditation manual. [Online]. 2002. www.nlnac.org Retrieved March 5, 2007.
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. The essentials of baccalaureate education for professional nursing practice. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges of Nursing; 1998.
Paul R. Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs in a Rapidly Changing World. Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking; 1993.
Benner P, Tanner C, Chesla C. Expertise in nursing practice, caring, clinical judgment and ethics . New York: Springer; 1996.
Dunne J. Back to the rough ground Practical judgment and the lure of technique . Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press; 1993.
Shulman L. The wisdom of practice . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2004.
Wheatley DN. On the vital role of fluid movement in organisms and cells: a brief historical account from Harvey to Coulson, extending the hypothesis of circulation. Med Hypotheses. 1999;52(4):275–84. [PubMed: 10465662]
Fowler LP. Clinical reasoning strategies during care planning. Clin Nurs Res. 1997;6:349–61. [PubMed: 9384055]
Gordon M. Clinical judgment: an integrated model. ANS J Emerg Med. 1994;16(4):55–70. [PubMed: 8092813]
Noll E, Key A, Jensen G. Clinical reasoning of an experienced physiotherapist: insight into clinician decision-making regarding low back pain. Physiother Res Int. 2001;6(1):40–51. [PubMed: 11379255]
Simmons B, Lanuza D, Fonteyn M, et al. Clinical reasoning in experienced nurses. West J Nurs Res. 2003;25(6):702–19. [PubMed: 14528618]
Milner MA, Malcolm NS. Critical thinking in the nursing curriculum. Nurs Health Care. 1990;11:67–73. [PubMed: 2314648]
Halpern J. Humanizing medical care . Oxford; Oxford University Press; 2001. From detached concern to empathy.
Chan G. Understanding end-of-life caring practices in the emergency department: developing Merleau-Ponty’s notions of intentional arc and maximum grip through praxis and phronesis. J Nurs Philos. 2005;6:19–32. [PubMed: 15659087]
Foster CR, Dahill LE, Golemon LA, et al. Educating clergy: teaching practices and pastoral imagination . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2006.
Dreyfus HL, Dreyfus SE. Mind over machine: the power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer . New York: The Free Press; 1986.
Benner P, Hooper-Kyriakidis P, Stannard D. A thinking-in-action approach . Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1999. Clinical wisdom and interventions in critical care.
Sullivan W. Work and integrity: the crisis and promise of professionalism in America . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2005.
Benner P. The role of articulation in understanding practice and experience as sources of knowledge in clinical nursing. In: Tully J, editor. Philosophy in an age of pluralism: The philosophy of Charles Taylor in question. New York: Cambridge University; 1994. pp. 136–155.
Taylor C. Explanation and practical reason. In: Nussbaum M, Sen A, editors. The quality of life. Oxford: Clarendon; 1993.
Aristotle. Metaphysics, Nicomachean ethics, politics, rhetoric and posterior analytics. In: Barnes J, editor. The complete works of Aristotle Revised Oxford translation in two volumes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press (Bollingen Series); 1984.
Bourdieu P. The logic of practice . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 1992.
Gadamer H. Truth and method. Barden G, Cumming J, editors. London: Sheed and Ward; 1960/1975.
MacIntyre A. After virtue: a study in moral theory. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame; 1981.
McMullin E. Under determination. J Med Philos. 1995;20:233–52. [PubMed: 7658171]
Jay M. Songs of experience: modern American and European variations on a universal theme . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 2005.
Mottola CA, Murphy P. Antidote dilemma—an activity to promote critical thinking. J Contin Educ Nurs. 2001;32:161–4. [PubMed: 11868955]
Greeno JG. A perspective on thinking. Am Psychol. 1989;44(2):134–41.
Brown JM, Alverson EM, Pepa CA. The influence of a baccalaureate program on traditional, RN-BSN, and accelerated students’ critical thinking abilities. Holist Nurs Pract. 2001;15:4–8. [PubMed: 12120110]
Schin S, Ha J, Shin K, et al. Critical thinking ability of associate, baccalaureate and RN-BSN senior students in Korea. Nurs Outlook. 2006;54(6):328–33. [PubMed: 17142151]
Yang SA, Jung DY. A study on the critical thinking disposition about student nurse. J Korean Academy Adult Nurs. 2004;16:156–65.
Olson I. The arts and critical thinking in American education . Stamford, CT: Bergin and Garvey; 2000.
Benner P. From novice to expert: power and excellence in nursing practice . Menlo Part, CA: Addison-Wesley; Publishing Company: 1984.
Bucknall T. The clinical landscape of critical care: nurses’ decision-making.