Development of Clinical Judgment in Prelicensure Nursing Students Through Simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of longitudinal studies measuring student progression in clinical judgment. Previous studies measured gains in clinical judgment after 1 intervention or over 1 semester. PURPOSE: This study evaluated the development and progression of clinical judgment in simulation throughout a prelicensure bachelor of science in nursing (BSN) program using the Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric (LCJR). METHODS: This retrospective longitudinal study evaluated clinical judgment using the LCJR over 4 semesters, with a sample of 53 prelicensure nursing students. Each student had 18 simulation scores recorded during the study. A linear mixed model was employed to compare LCJR average scores from the beginning to the end of the program and across each semester. RESULTS: Eighteen simulations were reviewed among 4 nursing courses. LCJR scores increased progressively from the first to the fourth semester. CONCLUSIONS: Students showed progression of clinical judgment throughout a BSN curriculum using the LCJR as an assessment tool.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".