Teaching of Critical Thinking for Nursing Students: a Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction: In nursing, the critical thinking is a set of desirable skills and dispositions that can be learned to achieve clinical reasoning and appropriate decision-making(1-3). Objective: to create, to implement and to evaluate an educational intervention for students in nursing with focus on first aid for the development of critical thinking skills and dispositions. Methodology: It is a mixed methodology. The quantitative approach, carried out a study of educational intervention, randomized, uni-blind, parallel, with two arms. In the qualitative approach, there was an exploratory and descriptive study. The study participants were 102 nursing undergraduate students. The allocation of the groups, control (n = 50) and intervention (n = 52) occurred by randomization. The control group was taught the Basic Life Support, through Problem Based Learning, for the intervention group, the same content and method, plus the Active Teaching Model for the Development of Critical Thinking. Data collection was performed before and after the educational intervention, applying the California Critical Thinking Skills Test and California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory to evaluate and 25 objective questions to assess knowledge regarding First Aid and Basic Life Support. Qualitative data collection occurred through four guiding questions. For the quantitative analysis, the following tests were used: Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Levene, ANCOVA, Paired t-test and independent samples. For the analysis of the qualitative data, we used the content analysis technique proposed by Bardin. Results: for California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory, there was a significant difference in subscale analyticity and the gender variable F(1.97) = 6.44 (p = 0.013) in the intervention group. There was a significant difference to maturity subscale with gender variable F(1.97) = 4.18 (p = 0.043) in the intervention group. Regarding the California Critical Thinking Skills Test, no significant differences. In applying the t paired test, there was a significant difference in the intervention group analyticity score (p = 0.043) of the California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory test and analysis (p = 0.025) of the California Critical Thinking Skills Test. In the pre-test, significant differences were observed between the intervention and control groups for any of the Basic Life Support scores, First Aid and Total (Basic Life Support+ First Aid) (p > 0.05). In the pretest, significant differences were observed between the intervention and control groups for any of the Basic Life Support scores, First Aid and Total (Basic Life Support+ First Aid). In the post-test, statistically significant differences were observed in the scores of the control group and intervention in SBV (6.54 ± 1.37 vs. 8.11 ± 1.25; t = -6.070, p < 0.0001, respectively) and Total - Basic Life Support+ First Aid (19.06 ± 1.93 vs. 20.98 ± 1.81, t = -5.185, p < 0.0001, respectively). The speech analysis allowed us to establish that, in relation to the course, the methodologies developed for the development of the critical thinking. Conclusions: New studies are strongly recommended. Ones on critical thinking that replicate successful results, which are longer than one day, allowing time for assimilation, reflective and metacognitive .