THE INFLUENCE OF CONFIDENCE, FACTUAL, AND EXPERIENTIAL KNOWLEDGE ON SPEED AND ACCURACY OF CLINICAL JUDGMENT AMONG NOVICE AND EXPERT NURSES.
Contributors: University of Maryland, College Park.
Published: 1996
Number of pages: 180
Subjects: Health Sciences, Nursing.; Education, Adult and Continuing.; Psychology, Cognitive.
Description: This research investigated the differences between novice and expert nurses (n = 50) in construction of a problem space, cue selection, differentiation of relevant from irrelevant cues, elapsed time to initial and final, correct hypothesis generation, reasons for and confidence in clinical judgments.

It was hypothesized that experts would have greater factual knowledge, use fewer clinical cues, distinguish relevant from irrelevant clinical cues with more accuracy, state a correct hypothesis about what was wrong in a simulated patient scenario more quickly, and have higher levels of confidence in nursing judgments than novices. It was also hypothesized that experts would cite references to past experiences and principles as reasons for their judgment, while novices would cite facts and rules. Finally, it was hypothesized that there would be no group difference in elapsed time to state an initial hypothesis about what was wrong with the simulated patient.

Questions related to novice/expert differences in constructing the problem space and level of confidence in general ability to reason were also posed. The influence of self-confidence in general reasoning, confidence in nursing judgment, GPA, recency and frequency of experience on speed and accuracy of hypothesis generation was also explored.

A methodology combining an interactive videodisc computer simulation, talk-aloud, the Confidence in Critical Thinking Subscale of the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI), and the Confidence-Verbal Descriptor Scale was used.

The results supported the experts' more frequent use of strategies to construct the problem space. Experts distinguished relevant from irrelevant cues more accurately than novices. Experts verbalized initial and final, correct hypotheses about what was wrong more quickly than novices. Experts referred to experience as a rationale for their judgments more often than novices.

Experts were more confident in nursing judgments than their novice counterparts, with the largest group differences in confidence interpreting chest auscultation, and in setting priorities.

Novices and experts did not differ on factual knowledge, number of cues selected, or confidence in general ability to reason, as measured by the CCTDI Confidence Subscale (Facione & Facione, 1992).

Implications for nursing education and further research are discussed.
Notes: Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 57-07, Section: B, page: 4303.

Thesis (PH.D.)--UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK, 1996.

School code: 0117.