The association between nursing students’ perceptions of their clinical reasoning ability and their background of clinical experience: A cross-sectional correlation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective: Nursing students tend to show poor clinical reasoning skills and incompetence in clinical performance. This study aimed to explore nursing students’ perceptions of their clinical reasoning ability in relation to their different background of academic program and clinical experience.Methods: A cross-sectional correlation study was conducted in a private tertiary professional training institute. Nursing students (n = 508) were surveyed with demographic details and a self-reported Nurse Clinical Reasoning Scale (NCRS) questionnaire about their perceptions of clinical reasoning in relation with their clinical experience.Results: Descriptive statistic, parametric analyses of variance, and Pearson’s correlation coefficients were used to determine the relationships between variables. The mean NCRS score was lower for paid student nurse externs (49.22 ± 9.2) than for participants who were not paid student nurse externs. The mean NCRS scores differed significantly between the different clinical placements that nursing students last experienced (F = 5.41, p ≤ .001), as well as between students of various academic programs (F = 11.88, p ≤ .001), with students of the sub-baccalaureate level nursing program showing the highest score (53.04 ± 10.48), followed by those of the accelerated baccalaureate level nursing program (52.93 ± 7.67) and those of the baccalaureate level nursing program (48.82 ± 10.11). The mean NCRS score showed a weakly positive, but significant, correlation with the attendance of pre-clinical training, r(506) = .12, p = .009. The free-text surveys provided rich information concerning nursing students’ preferences for future pre-clinical training.Conclusions: Different academic backgrounds and clinical experiences influence nursing students’ clinical reasoning competence. Strategies are needed to motivate earlier clinical preparedness and caring attitudes which are essential attributes of a nursing student before their exposure to real patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".