Critical features of physical therapists specializing in stroke rehabilitation
the area of knowledge that an individual PT excels in,
or identify gaps in knowledge that should be improved.
This would allow PTs to give direction to and indivi-
dualize their development. Ideally, the feedback should
create intrinsic motivation to improve and excel. Of
special interest in the future, will be the study of the
relationship between the clinical reasoning of PTs and
clinical and patient-reported outcomes.
Conclusion
We conclude that the SCT is a valid instrument for
physical therapy practice, offering the potential to
support an increase in guideline-consistent clinical
reasoning by PTs in the domain of stroke rehabilitation,
in undergraduate education, as well as postgraduate
professional development.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the development panel for
their contributions to this study: Barbara Harmeling–van der
Wel (Erasmus MC, Rotterdam), Jip Kamphuis MSc (ViaReva,
Apeldoorn), Roland van Peppen (Hogeschool Utrecht) and
Janne Veerbeek (VU Medisch Centrum). For the recruitment
of participants to this study we would like to thank Jacqueline
Outermans (Hogeschool Utrecht), Anne Griet Brader (Hanze
hogeschool Groningen), Corjan Hagendijk (Hogeschool van
Rotterdam), Susy Braun (Hogeschool Zuyd), Tjarco Koppenaal
(Avans Hogeschool), Miriam Wijbenga and Jaap van den Berg
(Hogeschool van Amsterdam) and Marleen Buruma (Neder-
lands Paramedisch Instituut). Finally, we would like to thank
all participating physical therapists and students.
REFERENCES
1. Langhorne P, Bernhardt J, Kwakkel G. Stroke rehabilitation.
Lancet 2011; 377: 1693–1702.
2. Veerbeek JM, van Wegen E, van Peppen R, van der Wees
PJ, Hendriks E, Rietberg M, et al. What is the evidence
for physical therapy poststroke? A systematic review and
meta-analysis PLoS One 2014; 9: e87987.
3. Kollen BJ, Lennon S, Lyons B, Wheatley-Smith L, Scheper
M, Buurke JH, Halfens, J, Geurts AC, Kwakkel G. The ef-
fectiveness of the Bobath concept in stroke rehabilitation:
what is the evidence? Stroke 2009; 40: e89–e97.
4. Buma F, Kwakkel G, Ramsey N. Understanding upper limb
recovery after stroke. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2013; 31:
707–722.
5. Kitago T, Krakauer JW. Motor learning principles for neu-
rorehabilitation. Handb Clin Neurol 2013; 110: 93–103.
6. Van Peppen RP, Maissan FJ, Van Genderen FR, Van Dolder
R, Van Meeteren NL. Outcome measures in physiotherapy
management of patients with stroke: a survey into self-
reported use, and barriers to and facilitators for use.
Physiother Res Int 2008; 13: 255–270.
7. Otterman NM, van der Wees PJ, Bernhardt J, Kwakkel G.
Physical therapists’ guideline adherence on early mobiliza-
tion and intensity of practice at Dutch acute stroke units:
a country-wide survey. Stroke 2012; 43: 2395–2401.
8. Dory V, Gagnon R, Vanpee D, Charlin B. How to construct
and implement script concordance tests: insights from a
systematic review. Med Educ 2012; 46: 552–563.
9. Higgs J, Burn A, Jones M. Integrating clinical reasoning
and evidence-based practice. AACN Clin Issues 2001;
12: 482–490.
10. Edwards I, Jones M, Carr J, Braunack-Mayer A, Jensen GM.
Clinical reasoning strategies in physical therapy. Phys Ther
2004; 84: 312–30; discussion 331–335.
11. Harrison CJ, Konings KD, Schuwirth L, Wass V, van der
Vleuten C. Barriers to the uptake and use of feedback in
the context of summative assessment. Adv Health Sci
Educ Theory Pract 2015; 20: 229–245.
12. Lubarsky S, Dory V, Duggan P, Gagnon R, Charlin B. Script
concordance testing: from theory to practice: AMEE guide
no. 75. Med Teach 2013; 35: 184–193.
13. Fournier JP, Demeester A, Charlin B. Script concordance
tests: guidelines for construction. BMC Med Inform Decis
Mak 2008; 8: 18.
14. Lubarsky S, Chalk C, Kazitani D, Gagnon R, Charlin B. The
script concordance test: a new tool assessing clinical jud-
gement in neurology. Can J Neurol Sci 2009; 36: 326–331.
15. Royal Dutch Society of Physical Therapists, Dutch Clinical
Practice Guideline Stroke from the Royal Dutch Society of
Physical Therapists. 2014 [accessed 2015 Feb]. Available
from: http: //www.fysionet-evidencebased.nl/images/pdfs/
guidelines_in_english/stroke_practice_guidelines_2014.pdf.
16. Université de Montreal, Script Concordance Test Scores
[accessed 2015 May 25]. Available from: http: //www.
cpass.umontreal.ca/recherche-et-developpement/script-
concordance-tests-scts/excel-corrector-program.html.
17. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW,
Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international
consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions
of measurement properties for health-related patient-
reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 737–745.
18. Ducos G, Lejus C, Sztark F, Nathan N, Fourcade O, Tack
I, et al. The script concordance test in anesthesiology:
validation of a new tool for assessing clinical reasoning.
Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med 2015; 34: 11–15.
19. Humbert AJ, Besinger B, Miech EJ. Assessing clinical
reasoning skills in scenarios of uncertainty: convergent
validity for a script concordance test in an emergency
medicine clerkship and residency. Acad Emerg Med 2011;
18: 627–634.
20. Lambert C, Gagnon R, Nguyen D, Charlin B. The script
concordance test in radiation oncology: validation study
of a new tool to assess clinical reasoning. Radiat Oncol
2009; 4: 7–717X-4-7.
21. Nouh T, Boutros M, Gagnon R, Reid S, Leslie K, Pace D,
et al. The script concordance test as a measure of clinical
reasoning: a national validation study. Am J Surg 2012;
203: 530–534.
The authors have no conflicts of interests to declare.
425
J Rehabil Med 51, 2019