Validation of a clinical critical thinking skills test in nursing.
- Author:
Sujin SHIN
1
;
Dukyoo JUNG
;
Sungeun KIM
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Intention; Judgment; Nursing students; Reproducibility of results; Thinking
- MeSH: Discrimination (Psychology); Humans; Intention; Judgment; Nursing*; Reproducibility of Results; Students, Nursing; Thinking*
- From:Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions 2015;12(1):1-
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- 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.
