Research Utilization and Critical Thinking of Undergraduate Nursing Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the nursing profession, the concept of critical thinking (CT) has been increasingly the focus of investigation for the past several years. CT is a valuable skill in nursing practice. Nurses need complex thinking skills to manage effectively the fast-paced and constantly changing health care environments in which they work. Critical thinking skills are also vital in developing evidence-based nursing practice. Nurses who are disposed to think critically are more likely to interpret the available evidence critically, and more able to make high quality judgments and draw valid inferences. Currently, I did not find any published studies that specifically examined the relationship between Critical Thinking Dispositions CTDs) and research utilization (RU) of undergraduate nursing students. The overall aim of the research was to investigate the critical thinking dispositions (CTDs) and Research Utilization (RU) of undergraduate nursing students enrolled in a baccalaureate nursing program at a university in Western Canada. It was also the purpose of this research study to identify undergraduate nursing students’ perceptions about critical thinking and its relationship to research utilization. A mixed method sequential explanatory design was used to answer the research questions. In the first paper (Chapter 3), quantitative data and findings related to CTDs and RU are reported. The results of this study indicate that the majority of baccalaureate nursing students who participated in the study had adequate levels of CTDs and RU. These results reinforce the need for students’ continued development in the areas of CT and RU. In the second paper (chapter 4), qualitative findings related to research utilization are reported. The study findings are categorized into the components of PARIHS framework evidence, context and facilitation. Findings disclose some key themes of factors perceived by nursing students that facilitate or restrict them to use research in practice setting. In the third paper (chapter 5), I discuss some of the challenges that one researcher faced when undertaking a mixed methods research project. The combined findings of this dissertation discussed in chapter 6, demonstrate that dispositions are crucial to critical thinking; without them CT and RU do not happen or may be substandard. Through my research, I was able to identify several ways by which educational and clinical organizational culture and context exert an influence on undergraduate nursing students CTDs and RU behaviors. Recommendations, limitations and avenues for future research are also presented in this chapter.
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 | 0.008 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".