View in EDS

Development of critical thinking in health professions education: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Development of critical thinking in health professions education: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies.
Authors: Reale, Matthew C.1 Matthew.Reale@cantonmercy.org, Riche, Daniel M.2 driche@umc.edu, Witt, Benjamin A.1,3 Ben.Witt@hsc.utah.edu, Baker, William L.4 William.Baker@hhchealth.org, Peeters, Michael J.1,5 michael.peeters@utoledo.edu
Source: Currents in Pharmacy Teaching & Learning. Jul2018, Vol. 10 Issue 7, p826-833. 8p.
Subject Terms: *Medical education, *Educational planning, Critical thinking ability testing, Defining Issues Test, Meta-analysis
Abstract: Abstract Introduction While reports of critical thinking exist in the health professions literature, development of critical thinking across a broad range of health-professions students has not been systematically reviewed. Methods In this meta-analysis, multiple databases and journals were searched through February 2016 to identify longitudinal studies using standardized tests of critical thinking [California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST), Health Science Reasoning Test (HSRT), and Defining Issues Test (DIT)] in any language. Two reviewers extracted information and collected information regarding primary author, publishing journal, health profession, critical thinking test, and time1/time2 means and standard deviations. Standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported using a random-effects model. Results Four hundred sixty-two studies were screened, and 79 studies (representing 6884 students) were included. Studies contained 37 CCTST, 22 DIT, and 20 HSRT. Health professions comprised nursing, pharmacy, physical therapy, occupational therapy, dentistry, medicine, veterinary medicine, dental hygiene, clinical laboratory sciences, and allied health. Cohen's kappa was strong (0.82) for inter-reviewer agreement. Both the CCTST (SMD = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.23–0.52) and DIT (SMD = 0.28, 95%CI = 0.18–0.39) demonstrated significant increases in total scores, but the HSRT (SMD = 0.03, 95%CI = −0.05–0.12) did not show improvement. Discussion/Conclusions In this meta-analysis, students from the majority of health professions consistently showed improvement in development of critical thinking. In this diverse population, only the CCTST and DIT appeared responsive to change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Currents in Pharmacy Teaching & Learning is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Education Research Complete
Description
Abstract:Abstract Introduction While reports of critical thinking exist in the health professions literature, development of critical thinking across a broad range of health-professions students has not been systematically reviewed. Methods In this meta-analysis, multiple databases and journals were searched through February 2016 to identify longitudinal studies using standardized tests of critical thinking [California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST), Health Science Reasoning Test (HSRT), and Defining Issues Test (DIT)] in any language. Two reviewers extracted information and collected information regarding primary author, publishing journal, health profession, critical thinking test, and time1/time2 means and standard deviations. Standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported using a random-effects model. Results Four hundred sixty-two studies were screened, and 79 studies (representing 6884 students) were included. Studies contained 37 CCTST, 22 DIT, and 20 HSRT. Health professions comprised nursing, pharmacy, physical therapy, occupational therapy, dentistry, medicine, veterinary medicine, dental hygiene, clinical laboratory sciences, and allied health. Cohen's kappa was strong (0.82) for inter-reviewer agreement. Both the CCTST (SMD = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.23–0.52) and DIT (SMD = 0.28, 95%CI = 0.18–0.39) demonstrated significant increases in total scores, but the HSRT (SMD = 0.03, 95%CI = −0.05–0.12) did not show improvement. Discussion/Conclusions In this meta-analysis, students from the majority of health professions consistently showed improvement in development of critical thinking. In this diverse population, only the CCTST and DIT appeared responsive to change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:18771297
DOI:10.1016/j.cptl.2018.04.019