MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The relationship of critical thinking skills and critical thinking dispositions of baccalaureate nursing students

2003· article· en· W1990070749 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCritical thinkingCronbach's alphaPsychologyTest (biology)Medical educationNursingMedicinePedagogyClinical psychologyPsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.388 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it