Psychometric Properties of the Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric

Abstract

Simulation is integrated into nursing curricula as a means of developing and evaluating clinical judgment, but there are few valid and reliable tools available and evaluation is not consistently theory based. When the Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric (LCJR) was introduced in 2007, it provided a common evaluative language for assessment of clinical judgment but had limited support of its validity and reliability. Based on Tanner's Model, the LCJR organized nursing actions into eleven dimensions and four behavioral categories and defined specific actions in each which are typical of developmental phases (Lasater, 2007). The LCJR has been adopted by many nursing programs with limited support of its validity and reliability. This article attempts to organize current knowledge available on the LCJR in an effort to assess its use as a valid and reliable measurement tool, and to identify specific needs for continued testing of the instrument.

The Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric as a Framework to Enhance Clinical Judgment in Novice and Experienced Nurses

“…The LCJR offers NPD specialists a valuable framework to understand, support, and expand upon the clinical judgment of nurses working in the clinical setting. The rubric deconstructs the dimensions of clinical judgment skills (Fenske et al, 2013) and provides organization and definition to the sometimes ambiguous dimensions of the multifaceted thinking that is critical in nursing practice (Victor-Chmil, 2013). The language within the rubric provides a standardized clinical judgment language that facilitates dialogue and research about salient clinical judgment behaviors (Jensen, 2013;Victor-Chmil, 2013).…”

“…Desired or expected outcome scores will vary depending on the clinical practice experience of the nurse/ student being assessed and the objectives of the learning activity. Total scores can identify overall nursing clinical judgment development as developing (12Y22), accomplished (23Y33), and exemplary (34Y44; Lasater, 2007;Victor-Chmil & Larew, 2013).…”

A Rubric to Assess Students' Clinical Reasoning When Encountering Virtual Patients

“…The LCJR is used by educators in nursing education for assessing cognitive, affective and psychomotor aspects of nursing students' clinical reasoning when encountering high-fidelity simulation using human-like manikins (Davis & Kimble, 2011;Jensen, 2013;Lasater, 2011;Nielsen, Lasater, & Stock, 2016). The rubric is validated and has been used for both educational and research purposes (Adamson et al, 2012;Ashcraft et al, 2013;Jensen, 2013;Kardong-Edgren, Adamson, & Fitzgerald, 2010;Victor-Chmil & Larew, 2013). The rubric has also been modified for different educational contexts (Kristiansen, Häggström, Hallin, Andersson, & Bäckström, 2015;Miraglia & Asselin, 2015;Román-Cereto et al, 2018;Hyunsook Shin, Gi Park, & Shim, 2015;Vreugdenhil & Spek, 2018).…”

Validation of a New Assessment Tool for a Pediatric Nursing Simulation Module

“…The LCJR evaluates psychomotor, cognitive, and affective domains (Kardong-Edgren et al, 2010). Although the LCJR has been used by many nursing programs, limited support of its validity and reliability prevents its adoption into more programs (Victor-Chmil & Larew, 2013).…”

“…This is partly due to the abstractness of individual items. As a result, there are differences in the interpreting of items, infl uencing interrater reliability (Ashcraft et al, 2013;Victor-Chmil & Larew, 2013).…”