Translation and adaptation of a clinical judgment model for nursing education and research in a francophone context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To pursue the development of the science and practice of nursing education, the dissemination of knowledge in French about learning to think like a nurse and how to facilitate this learning remains an important issue. This article presents the French translation, adaptation, and validation of Tanner's (2006) Model of Clinical Judgment in nursing. A four-step process of translation, back-translation, and validation was conducted according to the recommendations of Sousa and Rojjanasrirat (2011). The French version of the model was validated by 10 nursing education experts and by its original author. The model defines clinical judgment as an understanding, interpretation, or conclusion about a person's health needs, concerns, or problems. It describes four interrelated aspects of clinical judgment that can apply to rapidly changing care situations with ambiguous or ill-defined parameters: noticing, interpreting, responding, and reflecting. In addition to describing the clinical judgment of nurses with different levels of expertise, this model is an important tool to guide nursing education research and design educational experiences for nurses and nursing students. It is also a relevant tool for assessment and mentoring.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".