Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Script concordance test item response process: The argument for probability versus typicality

  • Response
  • Published:
Advances in Health Sciences Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Charlin, B., Brailovsky, C. A., Leduc, C., & Blouin, D. (1998). The diagnostic script questionnaire: A new tool to assess a specific dimension of clinical competence. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 3, 51–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eddy, D. (1982). Probabilistic reasoning in clinical medicine: Problems, opportunities. In D. Kahnemann, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fournier, J. P., Demeester, A., & Charlin, B. (2008). Script concordance tests: Guidelines for construction. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 8, 18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagnon, R., Charlin, B., Roy, L., St-Martin, M., Sauve, E., Boshuizen, H. P. A., et al. (2006). The cognitive validity of the script concordance test: A time processing study. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 18(1), 22–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreiter, C. (2011). Commentary: The response process validity of a script concordance item. Advances in health sciences education: Theory and practice. 2011 Oct 1 [Epub ahead of print].

  • Lubarsky, S., Charlin, B., Cook, D. A., Chalk, C., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2011). Script concordance testing: A review of published validity evidence. Medical Education, 45, 329–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahnemann, D. (1982). Judgments of and by representativeness. In D. Kahnemann, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Stuart Lubarsky

  2. Centre de pédagogie appliquée aux sciences de la santé (CPASS), Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Robert Gagnon & Bernard Charlin

Authors
  1. Stuart Lubarsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Gagnon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bernard Charlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stuart Lubarsky.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lubarsky, S., Gagnon, R. & Charlin, B. Script concordance test item response process: The argument for probability versus typicality. Adv in Health Sci Educ 17, 11–13 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-011-9338-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-011-9338-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation