Quantitative Nursing Analysis - Research Paper Example

Running Head: Quantitative Nursing Research Quantitative Nursing Research Report Analysis Jeannine Meyers Academia-Research.com Order #116687Introduction This paper contains my analysis of a study done to determine factors related to critical thinking skills and critical thinking dispositions. The sample consisted of nursing students enrolled in a baccalaureate degree program. In the following, I examine the elements of the study and draw conclusions as to its scientific merit. Study Being Used QUANTITATIVE _ WEEK 4 Profetto-McGrath, J. (2003). The relationship of critical thinking skills and critical thinking dispositions of baccalaureate nursing students. Issues and Innovation in Nursing Education 43(6), 569-577. Problem This study was conducted to resolve the problem of the relationship between critical thinking skills (CTS) and critical thinking dispositions (CTD) of baccalaureate nursing students as they relate to nursing educators. The problem is important for nursing educators to study because "critical thinking is essential to nursing practice" (Study, p. 569, Background section). Study Purpose The purpose of the study was to show the relationship between CTS and CTD of nursing students to nursing educators so that they may take this into account when designing course work and evaluating students. While a few studies have been done, the author wanted to add to the body of research. It was also intended to identify areas in which further research is needed. Research Question(s) The main research questions were to discover if there is a relation between CTS and CTD, if that relation remains constant through each academic level, and if there is improvement through each academic level. Hypothesis/hypotheses The hypothesis of the study was that there would be a directly proportional relationship between CTS and CTD, and that both would improve through the process of nursing education. Study Variables The independent study variables were the four cohorts of the student sample: Freshmen, Sophomores, Juniors and Seniors. The expectation was that each group would do progressively better at CTS/CTD testing. The dependent variables are the CTST and CCTDI scores and the means of comparison used. That is, comparison of CTS to CTD and the increase or decrease of both over the course of baccalaureate study. Students as individuals were not assessed over a period of time so that scores could be compared in that manner. Instead scores were compared to different students at different levels in the baccalaureate program. Also, there was no measurement of students' level of concentration on any particular day as influenced by amount of sleep obtained, mood, or other factors that might have influenced the test scores (Heffner 2004, chap.1, section 3). Conceptual ModelTheoretical Framework This study clearly conforms to Dewey's Scientific Method using the following steps in serial order: 1. Identify the problem, 2. Determine the hypothesis, 3. Collect and analyze data, 4. Formulate conclusions, 5. Apply the conclusions to the hypothesis (Heffner, 2004, chap. 1, section 1). Review of Related Literature Related literature, as cited within the article makes the following points. Critical thinking and disposition are integral to nursing education and to the practice of nursing. This is especially important with increased technological advances and the increased complexity of skills needed to care for more acutely ill patients and the ethical issues that surround that care (Study, p. 579, para. 1). In the third paragraph of the Introduction, the author attempts to define critical thinking through various references and so define what is to be quantified in the study. Paragraph four relates the need to teach critical thinking skills to nursing students and fosters questions as to how that might be accomplished and by what means performance might be measured. Next, there is a review of past studies and a declaration of need to add to that body of evidence (Study, p. 569-570, Introduction Section, para 5). Through literary reference, the author identifies that critical thinking is a necessary skill, that some, but not enough, research has been done in the area of measuring critical thinking, and that not all nursing programs include it in their curriculums. Study Design The study uses a developmental research design, more specifically, a cross-sectional study. The developmental research design allows the researcher to get a snap shot in time of the various developmental levels of the nursing students in critical thinking at various points in their academic progression and so is appropriate to a study that intends to make those specific comparisons. Threats to the internal validity of the study are failure to assess factors that affect test scores other than the level of students' current progression through the course program. Specifically, the level of concentration of any particular student would vary from day to day. Also, the study was done by testing each student once, but was done over a seven week period, so students who took the test later in the study were, in fact, seven weeks further along in their course work. Under the theory that students CTS/CTD would improve as they progressed through the course of education, one would think students who took the tests later, rather than sooner in the seven weeks, had an advantage. A threat to the external validity of the study involves the assumption that Freshmen in the same college program will progress in the same way and at the same time as the ones who went before, now Sophomores, Juniors and Seniors. No assessment of possible changes in course content through the different levels of students was made. Another threat to external validity is that the participants were all volunteers. By the nature of volunteerism, it must be assumed that volunteers are more curious than non-volunteers. Since curiosity is one of the components of critical thinking, it may be assumed that sample group was not representative of all students (Study, p. 570, para. 3). Sample and Setting The sample is large enough to be considered representative because the demographics of the sample concur with the demographics of the program enrollees as a whole. The sample is representative of the student population on the basis of age, gender and education prior to entering the course of study. The setting is appropriate because testing was done in the students' regular classrooms and during regular class hours. This minimizes variables such as added fatigue from extended hours and nervousness due to unfamiliar surroundings. Identification and Control of Extraneous Variables Some of the extraneous variables in the study were the time limits set for completion of testing and fear of publicity related to participation in the study. The number of students who did not complete testing in the time allotted was documented. The researcher then consulted the CCTST manual and followed instructions to score missing answers as incorrect. On the CCTDI, the researcher followed protocols used in past studies by assigning a mean score to the unanswered questions based on the scores of answered questions. Fear of publicity was appropriately dealt with in the use of code numbers, rather than names in the testing procedure. Study Instruments/Tools "A reliability coefficient is often the statistic of choice in determining the reliability of a test" (Heffner, Chap. 7, section 3). This study supports the reliability of the CCTST by citing the Kuder Richardson 20 internal consistency reliability measure coefficient of 0.68-0.70, which is highly positive (Study, p.571, Instruments section, para.2). However, The Arizona State University "Guide to Interpreting the Item Analysis Report" states, "The better tests are within the .80-.85 range" (page 2). The study author has chosen a test that is highly positive for reliability, but does not give reference to coefficient interpretation done by others. Still, since the study of CTS/CTD is in its infancy, "no studies investigated the relationship between CTS and CTD in nursing students before the 1990's (Study, p. 570, column 2, para. 1), she has chosen to be consistent with existing studies with use of the same instrument. The reliability of the CCTDI is supported by citation of the Cronbach alpha internal consistency reliability coefficient of 0.91 overall. This is again, highly positive. Further breakdown to the subscales, still using the Cronbach alpha coefficients, are as follows: Truth-seeking 0.70, Systematicity 0.73, Inquisitiveness 0.84, Open-mindedness 0.64, Confidence 0.82, Maturity 0.70, and Analyticity 0.84 (Study, p. 572, para. 1). Again, as with the CCTST, the study author makes no attempt to interpret the coefficient. "...a reliability coefficient of .80 or higher is considered 'acceptable' in most Social Science applications" (Unknown Author, UCLA Academic Technology Services). The study is consistent with use of the same tools as past studies (Study p.570, column 2, para. 1). The CCTST was designed to conform to the guidelines put forth in the American Philosophical Association Delphi Report and the expert consensus statement on critical thinking and educational assessment that used The Delphi Report as its basis. The Study cites these papers as the basis of the CCTST's content and construct validity (p. 571, Instruments section, para. 2). She further states that "Concurrent validity testing is ongoing" but positively correlated with grade point average as well as verbal and mathematical scholastic aptitude testing as follows: GPA r = 0.20, SAT verbal r = 0.55, SAT math r = 0.44, all with a probability (P) of < 0.001. Perhaps more aptly, the study author cites the CCTST's comparability to Watson & Glaser Critical Thinking Assessment at r = 0.405, P < 0.001. While these are positive correlations, they are not highly positive. As with the assessment of reliability, the newness of this area of study must give rise to some leeway in the area of validity. One of the stated objectives of the study was to add to the current body of research (p. 570, column 2, para.1). For the CCTDI, the author cites grounding in the Delphi study as an unquantified measure of validity, then proceeds to review prior validity tests based on the California Q-sort technique to compare the CCTDI to standards for critical thinking set forth in the Delphi report. This is also an unquantified citation. The quantified citations are in regards to the correlation of the CCTDI to ego-resilience, openness to new experience, and grade point average, all positive correlations. Ego-resilience was correlated at r = 0.58, P < 0.001; openness to experience at r = .037, P < 0.001; and GPA at r = 0.36, P < 0.01 (Study, p. 572, para. 1). The author also states a choice to use the newest acceptable tools available with the added benefit that both tests are easy to administer (Study, p. 572, para. 2). Data Collection Methods This study used two data collection methods: the questionnaire for demographics comparison of the sample group and the tests (Bouffard & Little, 2004, Method 1 section and Method 4 section). Questionnaires are the most common means by which demographical information is collected. A forced-choice format allows for rapid data analysis. In this case, it was used to compare the demographics of the sample to those of the entire program enrollees. We have previously covered the validity and reliability of the testing instruments which made them appropriate for use in this study. The rights of the study subjects were protected when the researcher first got permission from the college ethics review board and when the students were guaranteed confidentiality of identity by the used of code numbers instead of names. Data Analysis Procedures Both descriptive statistics and inferential statistics were properly used in data analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the test scores, "to describe and summarize the data" (study, p. 572, Data Analysis section). Based on the descriptive statistics, inferential statistics were used to arrange data so as to draw conclusions as to what the data meant in relation to the hypothesis of the study (Heffner, 2004, chap. 7, section 2). StrengthsLimitations The major limitations of this study are the chosen sample and lack of longitudinal data. The total sample was only 228 students out of a total enrolled population of 649, or 35%. The sample consisted of volunteers. According to Alexander, Ibrahim, Shy and Farr of the Eric Epidemiologic Research & Information Center, selection bias may occur concerning volunteerism. "Individuals who volunteer for a study may possess different characteristics than the average individual in the target population. Individuals who do not respond to requests to be studied generally have different baseline characteristics than responders" (p.1, Selection Bias section). Not only is the study sample small overall, it is small in comparison to the student body it was to represent. The selection bias of using volunteers is present and may represent another reason the sample was not representative of the population it was to study. The cross sectional methodology of the study does not allow for testing of individuals as they progress through the course of study. Longitudinal testing would give a more accurate picture of the development of CTS/CTD as related to education. The author does note the need for longitudinal studies in her suggestions for future research (Study, p. 575, Recommendations for Researchers section). While the choice of study tools, the CCTST and CCTDI, have draw backs in relation to proof of validity and reliability because they are relatively new, the author states that she wanted to use the "most up-to-date instruments available with acceptable levels of reliability and validity" (study p. 572, para. 2). She has shown positive correlations in both areas as noted in the Study Instruments/Tools section of this paper. In choosing the CCTST and CCTDI, she has not only added to the body of research in CTS/CTD, but also added to the body of research as to the validity and reliability of the tests. The researcher's choice of instruments has scientific merit because of this. The main contribution to science made by this study is to publicize the issues of CTS and CTD to educators and researchers. By exposure to the findings and nature of this study, educators can assess for themselves the importance of CTS/CTD as it relates to course development and academic performance measurement. Educators must ask themselves how they can incorporate the fostering of these skills and dispositions into the educational program and how they can measure the success of such change. Researchers can assess the importance of this area of study and continue its exploration, for much is yet to be done. References Alexander, L., Farr, S., Ibrahim, M., & Shy, C. (1999, December). Selection Bias, ERIC Notebook, Issue 8. University of North Carolina School of Public Health. Retrieved March 18, 2006 from http://www.va.gov/durham/eric/notebook/ERICIssue08.pdf Bouffard, S. & Little, P. (2004, August ). Detangling Data Collection: Methods for Gathering Data. Harvard Family Research Project. Retrieved March 14, 2006 from http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/projects/afterschool/resources/snapshot5.html Heffner, C.L. (2004, March 11). Research Methods. AllPsych Online. Retrieved March 14, 2006, from http://allpsych.com/researchmethods/index.html Patock, J. (2004, May 27). A Guide to Interpreting the Item Analysis Report. University Testing Services, Arizona State University. Retrieved March 17, 2006 from http://www.asu.edu/uts/InterpIAS.pdf Unknown Author. Unknown Date. What Does Cronbach's Alpha Mean UCLA Academic Technology Services. Retrieved March 17, 2006 from http://www.ats.ucla.edu/STAT/SPSS/faq/alpha.html Read More