Carter Amanda G, Creedy Debra K, Sidebotham Mary
School of Nursing and Midwifery, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.
Perinatal Mental Health, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.
Nurse Educ Today. 2018 Feb;61:169-174. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2017.11.026. Epub 2017 Nov 28.
Test the concurrent validity of three newly developed tools (student self-rating, preceptor rating, and reflective writing) that aim to measure critical thinking in midwifery practice.
A descriptive matched cohort design was used.
Australian research intensive university offering a three year Bachelor of Midwifery programme.
Fifty-five undergraduate midwifery students.
Students assessed their ability to apply critical thinking in midwifery practice using a 25-item tool and a 5-item subscale in Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Clinical preceptors completed a 24-item tool assessing the students' application of critical thinking in practice. Reflective writing by students was assessed by midwifery academics using a 15-item tool. Internal reliability, and concurrent validity were assessed. Correlations, t-tests, multiple regression and confidence levels were calculated for the three scales and associations with student characteristics.
The three scales achieved good internal reliability with a Cronbach's alpha coefficient between 0.93 and 0.97. Matched total scores for the three critical thinking scales were moderately correlated; student/preceptor (r=0.36, p<0.01); student/reflective writing (r=0.38, p<0.01); preceptor/reflective writing (r=0.30, p<0.05). All critical thinking mean scores were higher for students with a previous degree, but only significant for reflective writing (t (53)=-2.35, p=0.023). Preceptor ratings were predictive of GPA (beta=0.50, p<0.001, CI=0.10 to 0.30). Students' self-rating scores were predictive of year level (beta=0.32, p<0.05, CI=0.00 to 0.03).
The student, preceptor, and reflective writing tools were found to be reliable and valid measures of critical thinking. The three tools can be used individually or in combination to provide students with various sources of feedback to improve their practice. The tools allow formative measurement of critical thinking over time. Further testing of the tools with larger, diverse samples is recommended.
测试三种新开发的工具（学生自评、带教老师评分和反思性写作）的同时效度，这些工具旨在衡量助产实践中的批判性思维。
采用描述性匹配队列设计。
一所澳大利亚研究型大学，提供为期三年的助产士学士学位课程。
55名本科助产专业学生。
学生使用一份包含25个条目的工具以及《学习动机策略问卷》中的一个包含5个条目的子量表，评估自己在助产实践中应用批判性思维的能力。临床带教老师完成一份包含24个条目的工具，评估学生在实践中批判性思维的应用情况。学生的反思性写作由助产专业学者使用一份包含15个条目的工具进行评估。评估内部信度和同时效度。计算三个量表的相关性、t检验、多元回归和置信水平以及与学生特征的关联。
三个量表具有良好的内部信度，克朗巴哈α系数在0.93至0.97之间。三个批判性思维量表的匹配总分呈中度相关；学生/带教老师（r = 0.36，p < 0.01）；学生/反思性写作（r = 0.38，p < 0.01）；带教老师/反思性写作（r = 0.30，p < 0.05）。有过先前学位的学生所有批判性思维平均得分更高，但仅反思性写作得分具有显著性（t(53) = -2.35，p = 0.023）。带教老师评分可预测平均绩点（β = 0.50，p < 0.001，CI = 0.10至0.30）。学生的自评得分可预测年级水平（β = 0.32，p < 0.05，CI = 0.00至0.03）。
学生、带教老师和反思性写作工具被发现是衡量批判性思维的可靠且有效的方法。这三种工具可单独使用或结合使用，为学生提供各种反馈来源以改进他们的实践。这些工具允许对批判性思维进行长期的形成性测量。建议使用更大、更多样化的样本对这些工具进行进一步测试。
