Critical thinking skills in nursing students: comparison of simulation-based performance with metrics
Article first published online: 16 JUL 2010
© 2010 The Authors. Journal of Advanced Nursing © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Volume 66, Issue 10, pages 2182–2193, October 2010
How to Cite
Fero, L. J., O’Donnell, J. M., Zullo, T. G., Dabbs, A. D., Kitutu, J., Samosky, J. T. and Hoffman, L. A. (2010), Critical thinking skills in nursing students: comparison of simulation-based performance with metrics. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66: 2182–2193. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05385.x
- Issue published online: 2 SEP 2010
- Article first published online: 16 JUL 2010
- Accepted for publication 8 May 2010
- critical thinking;
- high fidelity human simulation;
- nursing students;
- simulation-based performance;
- videotaped vignettes
fero l.j., o’donnell j.m., zullo t.g., dabbs a.d., kitutu j., samosky j.t. & hoffman l.a. (2010) Critical thinking skills in nursing students: comparison of simulation-based performance with metrics. Journal of Advanced Nursing 66(10), 2182–2193.
Aim This paper is a report of an examination of the relationship between metrics of critical thinking skills and performance in simulated clinical scenarios.
Background Paper and pencil assessments are commonly used to assess critical thinking but may not reflect simulated performance.
Methods In 2007, a convenience sample of 36 nursing students participated in measurement of critical thinking skills and simulation-based performance using videotaped vignettes, high-fidelity human simulation, the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory and California Critical Thinking Skills Test. Simulation-based performance was rated as ‘meeting’ or ‘not meeting’ overall expectations. Test scores were categorized as strong, average, or weak.
Results Most (75·0%) students did not meet overall performance expectations using videotaped vignettes or high-fidelity human simulation; most difficulty related to problem recognition and reporting findings to the physician. There was no difference between overall performance based on method of assessment (P = 0·277). More students met subcategory expectations for initiating nursing interventions (P ≤ 0·001) using high-fidelity human simulation. The relationship between videotaped vignette performance and critical thinking disposition or skills scores was not statistically significant, except for problem recognition and overall critical thinking skills scores (Cramer’s V = 0·444, P = 0·029). There was a statistically significant relationship between overall high-fidelity human simulation performance and overall critical thinking disposition scores (Cramer’s V = 0·413, P = 0·047).
Conclusion Students’ performance reflected difficulty meeting expectations in simulated clinical scenarios. High-fidelity human simulation performance appeared to approximate scores on metrics of critical thinking best. Further research is needed to determine if simulation-based performance correlates with critical thinking skills in the clinical setting.