The relationship of critical thinking skills and critical thinking dispositions of baccalaureate nursing students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Critical thinking is essential to nursing practice; therefore, knowledge and understanding of nursing students' critical thinking skills (CTS) and related dispositions are important to nurse educators. This paper presents the results of a non-experimental study conducted in spring 1998, identifies implications for nurse educators, and offers recommendations for future research. AIM: The aim of the study was to investigate the CTS and critical thinking dispositions (CTD) of students enrolled in a 4-year baccalaureate programme at a university in Western Canada. METHODS: The study used a cross-sectional design. Data collection occurred during regularly scheduled classes. A volunteer sample of 228 students from all 4 years of the baccalaureate programme completed a background/demographic questionnaire, the California Critical Thinking Skills Test, and the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory. The reliability of the test and inventory were established using the Kuder Richardson 20 and Cronbach Alpha respectively. Both descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were carried out. FINDINGS: Critical thinking mean scores increased from years 1 to 4 with the exception of year 3. However, there was no statistically significant difference among the four student groups. Although differences in critical thinking disposition scores were not statistically significant, students' scores differed significantly on the systematicity subscale. There was a significant relationship between students' overall CTS and CTD scores. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 38% of the students in the current study had adequate levels of CTS and 85.5% of the students had adequate levels of CTD. Results indicate a need for students' continued development in these areas. Dispositions are crucial to critical thinking; without them critical thinking does not happen or may be substandard.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".