Construct validity of the health science reasoning test

Karen Huhn, Lisa Black, Gail Jensen, Judith E. Deutsch

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the construct validity of the Health Science Reasoning Test (HSRT) by determining if the test could discriminate between expert and novice physical therapists' critical-thinking skills. Methods: Experts identified from a random list of certified clinical specialists and students in the first year of their physical therapy education from two physical therapy programs completed the HSRT. Results: Experts (n = 73) had a higher total HSRT score (mean 24.06, SD 3.92) than the novices (n = 79) (mean 22.49, SD 3.2), with the difference being statistically significant t (148) = 2.67, p = 0.008. Conclusion: The HSRT total score discriminated between expert and novice critical-thinking skills, therefore establishing construct validity. To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare expert and novice performance on a standardized test. The opportunity to have a tool that provides evidence of students' critical thinking skills could be helpful for educators and students. The test results could aid in identifying areas of students' strengths and weaknesses, thereby enabling targeted remediation to improve critical thinking skills, which are key factors in clinical reasoning, a necessary skill for effective physical therapy practice.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)181-186
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Allied Health
Volume40
Issue number4
StatePublished - Dec 2011

Fingerprint

Health
Students
Physical Education and Training
Thinking
Physical Therapists
Therapeutics

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Construct validity of the health science reasoning test. / Huhn, Karen; Black, Lisa; Jensen, Gail; Deutsch, Judith E.

In: Journal of Allied Health, Vol. 40, No. 4, 12.2011, p. 181-186.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Huhn, Karen ; Black, Lisa ; Jensen, Gail ; Deutsch, Judith E. / Construct validity of the health science reasoning test. In: Journal of Allied Health. 2011 ; Vol. 40, No. 4. pp. 181-186.
@article{ea8cff3c70b8488db0230e9e698158a6,
title = "Construct validity of the health science reasoning test",
abstract = "The aim of this study was to evaluate the construct validity of the Health Science Reasoning Test (HSRT) by determining if the test could discriminate between expert and novice physical therapists' critical-thinking skills. Methods: Experts identified from a random list of certified clinical specialists and students in the first year of their physical therapy education from two physical therapy programs completed the HSRT. Results: Experts (n = 73) had a higher total HSRT score (mean 24.06, SD 3.92) than the novices (n = 79) (mean 22.49, SD 3.2), with the difference being statistically significant t (148) = 2.67, p = 0.008. Conclusion: The HSRT total score discriminated between expert and novice critical-thinking skills, therefore establishing construct validity. To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare expert and novice performance on a standardized test. The opportunity to have a tool that provides evidence of students' critical thinking skills could be helpful for educators and students. The test results could aid in identifying areas of students' strengths and weaknesses, thereby enabling targeted remediation to improve critical thinking skills, which are key factors in clinical reasoning, a necessary skill for effective physical therapy practice.",
author = "Karen Huhn and Lisa Black and Gail Jensen and Deutsch, {Judith E.}",
year = "2011",
month = "12",
language = "English",
volume = "40",
pages = "181--186",
journal = "Journal of Allied Health",
issn = "0090-7421",
publisher = "Science and Medicine Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Construct validity of the health science reasoning test

AU - Huhn, Karen

AU - Black, Lisa

AU - Jensen, Gail

AU - Deutsch, Judith E.

PY - 2011/12

Y1 - 2011/12

N2 - The aim of this study was to evaluate the construct validity of the Health Science Reasoning Test (HSRT) by determining if the test could discriminate between expert and novice physical therapists' critical-thinking skills. Methods: Experts identified from a random list of certified clinical specialists and students in the first year of their physical therapy education from two physical therapy programs completed the HSRT. Results: Experts (n = 73) had a higher total HSRT score (mean 24.06, SD 3.92) than the novices (n = 79) (mean 22.49, SD 3.2), with the difference being statistically significant t (148) = 2.67, p = 0.008. Conclusion: The HSRT total score discriminated between expert and novice critical-thinking skills, therefore establishing construct validity. To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare expert and novice performance on a standardized test. The opportunity to have a tool that provides evidence of students' critical thinking skills could be helpful for educators and students. The test results could aid in identifying areas of students' strengths and weaknesses, thereby enabling targeted remediation to improve critical thinking skills, which are key factors in clinical reasoning, a necessary skill for effective physical therapy practice.

AB - The aim of this study was to evaluate the construct validity of the Health Science Reasoning Test (HSRT) by determining if the test could discriminate between expert and novice physical therapists' critical-thinking skills. Methods: Experts identified from a random list of certified clinical specialists and students in the first year of their physical therapy education from two physical therapy programs completed the HSRT. Results: Experts (n = 73) had a higher total HSRT score (mean 24.06, SD 3.92) than the novices (n = 79) (mean 22.49, SD 3.2), with the difference being statistically significant t (148) = 2.67, p = 0.008. Conclusion: The HSRT total score discriminated between expert and novice critical-thinking skills, therefore establishing construct validity. To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare expert and novice performance on a standardized test. The opportunity to have a tool that provides evidence of students' critical thinking skills could be helpful for educators and students. The test results could aid in identifying areas of students' strengths and weaknesses, thereby enabling targeted remediation to improve critical thinking skills, which are key factors in clinical reasoning, a necessary skill for effective physical therapy practice.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=83455206637&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=83455206637&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 40

SP - 181

EP - 186

JO - Journal of Allied Health

JF - Journal of Allied Health

SN - 0090-7421

IS - 4

ER -