↓ Skip to main content

A meta-analysis of the effects of non-traditional teaching methods on the critical thinking abilities of nursing students

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
199 Mendeley
Title
A meta-analysis of the effects of non-traditional teaching methods on the critical thinking abilities of nursing students
Published in
BMC Medical Education, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0761-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

JuHee Lee, Yoonju Lee, SaeLom Gong, Juyeon Bae, Moonki Choi

Abstract

Scientific framework is important in designing curricula and evaluating students in the field of education and clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of non-traditional educational methods on critical thinking skills. A systematic review approach was applied. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals from January 2001 to December 2014 were searched using electronic databases and major education journals. A meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.2. Reviewing the included studies, the California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI) and California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) were used to assess the effectiveness of critical thinking in the meta-analysis. The eight CCTDI datasets showed that non- traditional teaching methods (i.e., no lectures) were more effective compared to control groups (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.42, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.26-0.57, p < .00001). And six CCTST datasets showed the teaching and learning methods in these studies were also had significantly more effects when compared to the control groups (SMD: 0.29, 95 % CI: 0.10-0.48, p = 0.003). This research showed that new teaching and learning methods designed to improve critical thinking were generally effective at enhancing critical thinking dispositions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 199 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 199 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer 31 16%
Student > Master 23 12%
Researcher 22 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 7%
Student > Bachelor 11 6%
Other 42 21%
Unknown 57 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 50 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 10%
Social Sciences 14 7%
Psychology 11 6%
Arts and Humanities 8 4%
Other 36 18%
Unknown 61 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 December 2019.
All research outputs
#4,843,569
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#815
of 3,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,672
of 324,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#16
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,576 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,028 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.