Abstract
Abstract
Background
Critical thinking disposition helps medical students and professionals overcome the effects of personal values and beliefs when exercising clinical judgment. The lack of effective instruments to measure critical thinking disposition in medical students has become an obstacle for training and evaluating students in undergraduate programs in China. The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the CTDA test.
Methods
A total of 278 students participated in this study and responded to the CTDA test. Cronbach’s α coefficient, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, floor effects and ceiling effects were measured to assess the reliability of the questionnaire. Construct validity of the pre-specified three-domain structure of the CTDA was evaluated by explanatory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The convergent validity and discriminant validity were also analyzed.
Results
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the entire questionnaire was calculated to be 0.92, all of the domains showed acceptable internal consistency (0.81–0.86), and the test-retest reliability indicated acceptable intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) (0.93, p < 0.01). The EFA and the CFA demonstrated that the three-domain model fitted the data adequately. The test showed satisfactory convergent and discriminant validity.
Conclusions
The CTDA is a reliable and valid questionnaire to evaluate the disposition of medical students towards critical thinking in China and can reasonably be applied in critical thinking programs and medical education research.
Funder
the 2017 Liaoning Distinguished Professor
2017 Liaoning Bai Qian Wan Talents Program
the 2018 Medical Education Project of China Medical University
the Social Science Promotion Program of China Medical University
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Education,General Medicine
Reference49 articles.
1. Monteiro S, Sherbino J, Sibbald M, Norman G. Critical thinking, biases and dual processing: The enduring myth of generalisable skills. Med Educ. 2020;54(1):66–73.
2. Schwarz MRWA. Global minimum essential requirements: a road towards competence-oriented medical education. Med Teach. 2002;24(2):125–9.
3. Ali-Abadi T, Babamohamadi H, Nobahar M. Critical thinking skills in intensive care and medical-surgical nurses and their explaining factors. Nurse Educ Pract. 2020;45(102783):1–6.
4. Sharples J, Oxman AD, Mahtani KR, Chalmers I, Oliver S, Collins K, Austvolldahlgren A, Hoffmann T. Critical thinking in healthcare and education. BMJ. 2017;357(j2234):1–3.
5. Paul R, Elder L. Critical Thinking: Intellectual standards essential to reasoning well within every domain of human thought,part two. JDE. 2013;37(1):32–3.
Cited by
34 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献