Critical Thinking Dispositions of Nursing Students in Asian and Non-Asian Countries: A Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critical thinking disposition represents an inclination of a person to use possessed skills in relation to critical thinking. The trend of critical thinking has been described as inner motivation to solve problems and make decisions by thinking. In nursing as a practical profession, the concept of critical thinking dispositions is important component in helping to manage complex health situations and to deal with patient issues effectively. Willingness to think critically is a prerequisite for safe and subtly performance. The results of studies show critical thinking dispositions of nursing students in Asian countries are different from non-Asian countries. Aim of this literature review was to compare critical thinking dispositions of nursing students in Asian and non-Asian countries. Literature review was done in English and Persian databases. The results showed of the 795 articles published in English and Persian language that studied critical thinking, 73 ones studied critical thinking skills and dispositions in nursing education, and relationship between teaching methods and critical thinking skills and dispositions in nursing education of different countries. Fifteen of seventy three articles assessed critical thinking dispositions in nursing students. Limited studies showed that the Asian nursing students had mostly undermining score of the critical thinking dispositions, while non-Asian countries tend to positive scores. The reasons for these differences could be due to issues such as environmental, educational methods and cultural differences. However, future studies should measure critical thinking disposition by discipline-based tools.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".