Reliability of the Critical Thinking in Communication Science and Disorders: A Content-Specific Critical Thinking Assessment.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
Richard J Morris, Mary M Gorham-Rowan, Matthew D Carter, Dana Battaglia, Lauren M Olmsted
{"title":"Reliability of the Critical Thinking in Communication Science and Disorders: A Content-Specific Critical Thinking Assessment.","authors":"Richard J Morris,&nbsp;Mary M Gorham-Rowan,&nbsp;Matthew D Carter,&nbsp;Dana Battaglia,&nbsp;Lauren M Olmsted","doi":"10.1159/000527004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Students and professionals in communication sciences and disorders (CSD) need to exhibit good critical thinking (CT) skills when engaged in clinical tasks. CSD clinicians must make decisions that are free from biases and support their claim with facts. Thus, CSD clinicians need to be trained to question their clinical practices and to skeptically evaluate new practices that develop. A content-specific CT test can help determine if students are developing these skills. However, to date, no such content-specific CT assessment exists for CSD. The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability of the current version of a specific content CT assessment, the Critical Thinking in Communication Sciences and Disorders (CTCSD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A sample of 150 CSD graduate students enrolled in three programs participated. They completed an online Qualtrics survey that consisted of the CTCSD. They completed the Qualtrics survey twice, once at the beginning of a semester and once at the end. The participant responses were independently scored by two research associates. The data were analyzed for reliability in three ways. Intra-subject reliability was assessed by comparing scores across the two testing sessions. Internal consistency of the items to measure a common construct was assessed using Cronbach's alpha and Guttman's Lambda 6. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen's Kappa coefficient. In addition, the time used to complete the survey was analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The students from the three programs scored similarly on the CTCSD. High reliability ratings occurred for the intra-subject, internal consistency, and inter-rater measures.</p><p><strong>Discussion/conclusion: </strong>The results indicate the reliability of the CTCSD. In combination with previous results indicating the face, construct, and criterion validity of the CTCSD, it appears to have psychometric strength. The CTCSD may help academic and clinical faculty select learning activities and focus feedback to their graduate students in order to reinforce skills the students exhibit and to develop other skills.</p>","PeriodicalId":12114,"journal":{"name":"Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica","volume":"75 2","pages":"81-89"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000527004","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Students and professionals in communication sciences and disorders (CSD) need to exhibit good critical thinking (CT) skills when engaged in clinical tasks. CSD clinicians must make decisions that are free from biases and support their claim with facts. Thus, CSD clinicians need to be trained to question their clinical practices and to skeptically evaluate new practices that develop. A content-specific CT test can help determine if students are developing these skills. However, to date, no such content-specific CT assessment exists for CSD. The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability of the current version of a specific content CT assessment, the Critical Thinking in Communication Sciences and Disorders (CTCSD).

Methods: A sample of 150 CSD graduate students enrolled in three programs participated. They completed an online Qualtrics survey that consisted of the CTCSD. They completed the Qualtrics survey twice, once at the beginning of a semester and once at the end. The participant responses were independently scored by two research associates. The data were analyzed for reliability in three ways. Intra-subject reliability was assessed by comparing scores across the two testing sessions. Internal consistency of the items to measure a common construct was assessed using Cronbach's alpha and Guttman's Lambda 6. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen's Kappa coefficient. In addition, the time used to complete the survey was analyzed.

Results: The students from the three programs scored similarly on the CTCSD. High reliability ratings occurred for the intra-subject, internal consistency, and inter-rater measures.

Discussion/conclusion: The results indicate the reliability of the CTCSD. In combination with previous results indicating the face, construct, and criterion validity of the CTCSD, it appears to have psychometric strength. The CTCSD may help academic and clinical faculty select learning activities and focus feedback to their graduate students in order to reinforce skills the students exhibit and to develop other skills.

沟通科学与障碍中批判性思维的可靠性:一种特定内容的批判性思维评估。
在从事临床任务时,沟通科学和障碍(CSD)的学生和专业人员需要表现出良好的批判性思维(CT)技能。CSD临床医生必须做出没有偏见的决定,并以事实支持他们的主张。因此,CSD临床医生需要接受培训,质疑他们的临床实践,并以怀疑的态度评估新实践的发展。特定内容的CT测试可以帮助确定学生是否正在发展这些技能。然而,到目前为止,还没有针对CSD的特定内容的CT评估。本研究的目的是确定当前版本的特定内容CT评估,沟通科学与障碍中的批判性思维(CTCSD)的可靠性。方法:以三个专业的150名CSD研究生为研究对象。他们完成了一项包括CTCSD在内的在线素质调查。他们完成了两次质量调查,一次在学期初,一次在学期末。参与者的回答由两位研究助理独立评分。从三个方面分析了数据的可靠性。通过比较两个测试阶段的得分来评估受试者内部的信度。使用Cronbach's alpha和Guttman's Lambda 6来评估测量共同结构的项目的内部一致性。评估者间信度采用Cohen’s Kappa系数。此外,还分析了完成调查所用的时间。结果:三个项目的学生在CTCSD上的得分相似。受试者内部、内部一致性和评价者之间的测量结果具有较高的可靠性。讨论/结论:结果表明CTCSD的可靠性。结合先前的结果,表明CTCSD的面孔、结构和标准效度,它似乎具有心理测量强度。CTCSD可以帮助学术和临床教师选择学习活动,并集中反馈给他们的研究生,以加强学生展示的技能和发展其他技能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica
Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
10.00%
发文量
28
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Published since 1947, ''Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica'' provides a forum for international research on the anatomy, physiology, and pathology of structures of the speech, language, and hearing mechanisms. Original papers published in this journal report new findings on basic function, assessment, management, and test development in communication sciences and disorders, as well as experiments designed to test specific theories of speech, language, and hearing function. Review papers of high quality are also welcomed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信