Differences in critical thinking skills between nursing students on a fast-track versus traditional 4-year programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The authors were unable to find studies comparing the critical thinking skills of nursing students on advanced standing programmes (ASP) and on traditional 4-year BN programmes in Canada. The ASP is a condensed Bachelor of Nursing (BN) programme, designed for students who already have a university degree or similar qualification. Aim: To measure and compare the critical thinking skills of ASP students and traditional 4-year BN students. Method: A cross-sectional study using a self-administered questionnaire used to collect data from 100 nursing students at a university in Canada. Data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. All research ethics were taken into consideration. Findings: All participants scored highly in their critical thinking skills. However, ASP students scored significantly higher than their counterparts on the 4-year programme (M=21.6 vs M=18.9, F=4.75, P=0.035). Conclusion: Higher critical thinking skills among ASP nursing students is a promising sign to expand and support this type of programme as a fast and effective method to cover the shortage in nurses.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".