An international comparison of student nurse practitioner diagnostic reasoning skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nurse practitioners (NPs) play a pivotal role in health care provision. Diagnostic reasoning is an important core skill of advanced practice. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare diagnostic reasoning skills of NP students. It also identified the variability in clinical teaching components of a sample of international NP curricula. METHODS: An international group of NP students completed an online survey using a validated diagnostic reasoning scale during the first year of their NP program. Program faculty surveyed provided data on core curricula. RESULTS: The NP students' ( n = 152) mean diagnostic thinking inventory (DTI) score was 142, flexibility in thinking subscale score mean of 73 with a knowledge structure in memory of 69. The programs surveyed required bioscience courses. Most programs provided opportunities for students to practice diagnostic thinking using individual precepted clinical hours (range 500-950) and objective structured clinical examinations. CONCLUSION: The lower scores of this group of NP students were similar to other NP students and first-year medical residents. Higher mean scores in the DTI reflect expertise and are developed over time. Courses providing a foundation of biomedical knowledge were identified in each program, with opportunities for the NP students to practice diagnostic thinking using objective structured clinical examinations and clinical practice hours. IMPLICATIONS: The use of the diagnostic reasoning inventory is a useful tool for evaluating student NP's diagnostic reasoning during their NP program. Nurse practitioner programs should consider the provision of dedicated clinical hours, including supervised clinical practice experiences and objective structured clinical examinations to improve diagnostic reasoning.
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 | 0.001 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".