validation of a clinical critical thinking skills test in nursing

Clicks: 309
ID: 248687
2015
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #20 of 42 articles by views in inorganic chemistry communications

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to develop a revised version of the clinical critical thinking skills test (CCTS) and to subsequently validate its performance. Methods: This study is a secondary analysis of the CCTS. Data were obtained from a convenience sample of 284 college students in June 2011. Thirty items were analyzed using item response theory and test reliability was assessed. Test-retest reliability was measured using the results of 20 nursing college and graduate school students in July 2013. The content validity of the revised items was analyzed by calculating the degree of agreement between instrument developer intention in item development and the judgments of six experts. To analyze response process validity, qualitative data related to the response processes of nine nursing college students obtained through cognitive interviews were analyzed. Results: Out of initial 30 items, 11 items were excluded after the analysis of difficulty and discrimination parameter. When the 19 items of the revised version of the CCTS were analyzed, levels of item difficulty were found to be relatively low and levels of discrimination were found to be appropriate or high. The degree of agreement between item developer intention and expert judgments equaled or exceeded 50%. Conclusion: From above results, evidence of the response process validity was demonstrated, indicating that subjects respondeds as intended by the test developer. The revised 19-item CCTS was found to have sufficient reliability and validity and will therefore represents a more convenient measurement of critical thinking ability.
Reference Key
shin2015journalvalidation Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Sujin Shin;Dukyoo Jung;Sungeun Kim
Journal inorganic chemistry communications
Year 2015
DOI
10.3352/jeehp.2015.12.1
URL
http://www.jeehp.org/upload/jeehp-12-01.pdf
Keywords
nursing students reproducibility of results intention judgment

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.