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 inmeasurement 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.
RCT Entities:
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.
Authors: Neal E Seymour; Anthony G Gallagher; Sanziana A Roman; Michael K O'Brien; Vipin K Bansal; Dana K Andersen; Richard M Satava Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Peter I Buerhaus; Karen Donelan; Beth T Ulrich; Linda Norman; Mamie Williams; Robert Dittus Journal: Nurs Econ Date: 2005 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 1.085
Authors: John Tai Chun Fung; Wen Zhang; Man Nga Yeung; Michelle Tsz Ha Pang; Veronica Suk Fun Lam; Bobo Kai Yin Chan; Janet Yuen-Ha Wong Journal: Nurs Open Date: 2021-07-31