38

CHAPTER 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter is focused on the presentation, analysis and interpretation of

data gathered by the researchers in the survey/questionnaire based on the study

entitled “Critical Thinking Skills and its Application on the Clinical Area of

Selected Level III Students of Siena College Taytay: An Evaluation”. Data were

presented according to the order of the problem. The 50 respondents selected in the

study were third year nursing students who are exposed and applied what they have

learned in the clinical area. The collected data were tallied and analyzed clearly

using statistical tools best suited to the study. Results on calculated data were

evaluated and interpreted deeply as perceived by the researchers and based on the

related literature that serve us back up in this study.

Table 1
Total Number of Questionnaires
Item (Section of
Distributed Retrieved Percentage
3rd Yr Nursing)
A 25 25 50
B 25 25 50
Total 50 50 100

Table 1 shows the number of questionnaires distributed to the two (2)

sections of Level III nursing students of Siena College Taytay. Twenty five (25) in

each section were given which totals to 50 students. All of them complied and

were interviewed for the study. They were the chosen respondents who are
 39

responsible enough to give necessary information for the study to be accomplished.

Only 50 students were selected for easy data gathering, time management,

calculation and interpretation of data. The researchers completely retrieved all

questionnaires which may imply reliability of the conducted survey.

Problem 1: What is the profile of the respondents in terms of age, sex and type of

school last attended (e.g. Private or Government)?

Table 2
Distribution of the Respondents According to Age
Age Frequency Percentage Rank

19-20 41 82 1

21-22 8 16 2
23 and above 1 4 3
Total 50 100

Age can greatly influence a respondent’s perception on critical thinking and

it can be seen from Table 2 that 41 respondents or 82 percent aged 19-20 years old

while 8 or 16 percent of them belonged under 21-22 age bracket. Only 1 or 4

percent aged 23 years old and above. This implies that most of the respondents

whose age is in the range of 19 – 20 years old are in the regular age to be in the

third year level. According to Piaget’s theory, the respondents are in the stage of

formal operational stage which means that the respondents are logical thinkers and

this study is suitable for their age. As observed in the conducted study, 19 – 20

years old who belong to regular groups who should be in 3rd year college continue
 40

to develop their critical thinking skills as they are exposed in clinical area which

improved their experience level and skills.

Table 3
Distribution of the Respondents According to Sex
Sex Frequency Percentage Rank
Male 15 30 2
Female 35 70 1
Total 50 100

It can be noted from Table 3 that 15 out of 50 or 30 percent of the

respondents were male while 35 or 70 percent were female. This implies that most

of the perceptions gathered on critical thinking and its application in the clinical

area were mostly from a female student’s view. Therefore, the results were found

that females mostly use critical thinking. But the results were limited to selected

students and were not enough to be notable. From Fulford et.al. (cited in Schamel

& Ayres, 2002) study, they found that females were more likely to apply critical

thinking constructs in response to scenarios, while males were more likely to apply

the constructs in response to general questions asked. This is a finding which may

provide evidence to suggest why there may be gender differences with respect to

overall critical thinking skills. On the other hand, the study done by Giancarlo and

Facione (2001) found that females were more open-minded and mature in their

thinking while males were more analytical. This may imply that the respondents

were more flexible in assessing the needs and problem of the patients which a great
 41

factor in creating an effective nursing care plan. But to further test the difference of

perception of female’s critical thinking levels to male, it needs more respondents

which must have equal frequency of data.

Table 4
Distribution of the Respondents According to the Type of School Last Attended
Type of School
Frequency Percentage Rank
Last Attended
Private 45 90 1
Government 5 10 2
Total 50 100

The type of school attended during high school can be a great factor on how

student develop her/his critical thinking skills. Based on Table 4, the findings

revealed that 45 or 90 % were graduates of private high schools while only 5 or 10

percent attended high schools in government institutions. Most of the third year

students in Siena were able to experienced being educated in private educational

institutions that may have honed and developed their critical thinking skills.

Fortunately, based on the findings, one can tell that education at private institutions

can help improve critical thinking skills and experienced of the students. One

reason might be because they have smaller class size which enables the teacher to

give more individual attention and disciplinary actions to students. Thus, one can

conclude that the respondents enhance their decision-making skills and problem

solving which enables them to think critically when providing care to their patients.
 42

Problem 2: How do the respondents perceived the application of their critical

thinking skills in the clinical area in terms of thinking ahead, thinking in action and

thinking back?

Table 5
Weighted Mean, Verbal Interpretation and Rank Distribution of the Respondents’
Perception on Critical Thinking Skills and its Application in the Clinical Area in
Terms of Thinking Ahead
Weighted Verbal Rank
Clinical Criteria
Mean Interpretation Distribution
1. I identify nursing
needs/problems of patients. 3.55 Always 3

2. I formulate objectives of
care in consideration of the
physical, psychological and
spiritual aspects of patients in 3.13 Sometimes 6
time appropriate for the
emergency situation.
3. I prioritize nursing needs of
patients according to the 3.65 Always 2
severity of problems.

4. I prepare
materials/equipment needed 3.71 Always 1
for a certain procedure.
5. I am resourceful in
providing alternative materials
as replacements for those 3.3 Always 5
which are not available.

6. I observe time elements in

3.33 Always 4
doing procedures.
General Weighted Mean 3.45 Always
Anticipating what might happen or thinking ahead is very important while

assessing the patient’s problem in order to give the best quality health care to the

patients. In Table 5, lists of clinical criteria were used during assessments that
 43

commonly apply in clinical area. As observed, from the table above that “I prepare

materials/equipment needed for a certain procedure” ranked first with a weighted

mean of 3.71 and a verbal interpretation of “Always”, which may mean that they

have mastered what are the equipments used in every procedures and its functions.

“I prioritize nursing needs of patients according to the severity of problems” ranked

second with a weighted mean of 3.65 and is verbally interpreted also as “Always”.

Third in the rank was “I identify nursing needs/problems of patients” with a

weighted mean of 3.55 and a verbal interpretation of “Always”. “I observe time

elements in doing procedures” ranked fourth with a weighted mean of 3.33 and is

verbally interpreted as “Always”. Ranked fifth was “I am resourceful in providing

alternative materials as replacements for those which are not available” with a

weighted mean of 3.3 and a verbal interpretation of “Always” while last in the rank

was “I formulate objectives of care in consideration of the physical, psychological

and spiritual aspects of patients in time appropriate for the emergency situation”

with a weighted mean of 3.13 and a verbal interpretation of “Sometimes” which is

the weakest point of the respondents. It may mean that they are having a little

difficulty in immediate situation to make a plan of care to the patients. Generally,

it implies that the respondents always apply their critical thinking skills when

assessing, diagnosing and planning care to the patients. It also indicates that they do

study well and retained in their minds what have been discussed by the professors

or clinical instructors that provide them enough knowledge to asses deeply the
 44

health problems of patients. Lastly, one big factor is that they have enough

exposure and time to their patients to do nurse–patient interactions which enables

them to get necessary data on how to deal with their patients.

Table 6
Weighted Mean, Verbal Interpretation and Rank Distribution of the Respondents’
Perception on Critical Thinking Skills and its Application in the Clinical Area in
Terms of Thinking in Action

Clinical Criteria Weighte Verbal Rank

d Mean Interpretation Distribution
1. I am carrying nursing
procedure according to priority. 3.59 Always 2

2. I anticipate patient’s needs in

case of emergency. 3.5 Always 3

3. I anticipate physician’s needs

when assisting in emergency
procedures. 3.37 Always 4.5

4. I identify potential untoward

effect of the
procedure/medication to the
patient. 3.19 Sometimes 6

5. I communicate patient’s needs

among members of health team. 3.6 Always 1

6. I have initiative in performing

nursing procedure. 3.37 Always 4.5

General Weighted Mean 3.44 Always

It can be observed from Table 6 that “I communicate patient’s needs among

members of health team” ranked first with a weighted mean of 3.6 and a verbal

interpretation of “Always”. This means that the respondents develop good

 45

collaborative skills towards their health team in dealing care with their patients. “I

am carrying nursing procedure according to priority” ranked second with a

weighted mean of 3.59 and is verbally interpreted as “Always”. Third in rank was

“I anticipate patient’s needs in case of emergency” with a weighted mean of 3.5

and a verbal interpretation of “Always” followed by “I anticipate physician’s needs

when assisting in emergency procedures” and “I have initiative in performing

nursing procedure” with an equal rank of 4.5, a weighted mean of 3.37 and were

verbally interpreted as “Always”. Last in the rank was “I identify potential

untoward effect of the procedure/medication to the patient” with a weighted mean

of 3.19 and a verbal interpretation of “Sometimes”. This last in rank is also the

common fault or cause of nursing negligence happening in the clinical area while

rendering nursing care to the patients. It may indicate that when doing nursing

actions, they apply less critical thinking skills to determine or anticipate what may

occur when giving medications or procedures to their patients. The respondents are

not putting much time in studying about the side effects of the drugs or procedures.

Understanding the effects of the medication or drugs given is a nursing

responsibility and it is very vital because complications may occur to the patients

after administration of a drug, or worse, death of a patient. The general weighted

mean of thinking in actions was interpreted as “Always” which means that they

always apply their critical thinking skills during nursing intervention to their

patients. It may indicate that the respondents do have enough time to perform or
 46

practice implementing their nursing care plan which then gives them confidence

and improved their critical thinking skills in clinical area. The reason possibly is

that they are encouraged by the clinical instructors to take the opportunity to

observe procedures, nursing action and/or do it themselves with the help of the

clinical instructors to their assigned patients in the clinical area. This will then give

them idea, and practice their skills. Students can soon do it by themselves because

they have thought critically the needs of a patient. They are more likely prepared

before going to their duties.

Table 7
Weighted Mean, Verbal Interpretation and Rank Distribution of the Respondents’
Perception on Critical Thinking Skills and its Application in the Clinical Area in
Terms of Thinking Back

Weighted Verbal Rank

Clinical Criteria
Mean Interpretation Distribution
1. I identify patient’s
response to
procedure/medication. 3.43 Always 2

2. I provide health-teaching
appropriately and
effectively. 3.49 Always 1

3. I evaluate patient’s
condition prior to
3.25 Always 5.5
discharge.

Table 7 (continued)

4. I make accurate
recording of patient’s 3.35 Always 3
progress and accomplish
unit records
comprehensively.
 47

5. I have accurate and

factual endorsement. 3.31 Always 4

6. I recognize superiority
and recognize needs of
members of the health
5.5
team. 3.25 Always

General Weighted Mean 3.35 Always

It can be noted from Table 7 that “I provide health-teaching appropriately

and effectively” ranked first with a weighted mean of 3.49 and a verbal

interpretation of “Always”. This is a good indication that the respondents have

enough knowledge on how to interact with their patients regarding giving

information on continuing self–care when at home and make necessary

recommendations to improve health and prevent recurrence of illness. Giving

health teachings to the patients are greatly encouraged by clinical instructors as

core essence of nursing practice because this is the best way to help patients in

taking care for themselves especially in dealing with their health. “I identify

patient’s response to procedure/medication” ranked second with a weighted mean

of 3.43 and was verbally interpreted as “Always”. Third in rank was “I make

accurate recording of patient’s progress and accomplish unit records

comprehensively” with a weighted mean of 3.35 and a verbal interpretation of

“Always” followed by “I have accurate and factual endorsement” with a weighted

 48

mean of 3.31 and a verbal interpretation of “Always”. “I evaluate patient’s

condition prior to discharge” and “I recognize superiority and recognize needs of

members of the health team” shared an equal rank of 5.5 with a weighted mean of

3.25 and were verbally interpreted as “Always”. Although all of them were

interpreted as “always”, it seems the weakest point in the last stage of nursing care

is the collaboration and cooperation of the respondents to other health teams.

Maybe they are shy because they will be communicating with health professional

nurses and doctors, and also they did not know them totally. Overall, the general

weighted mean was interpreted as “always”, which indicates that the respondents

always apply their critical thinking when evaluating the result of their given care to

their patients. This shows that they made an effective nursing care plan toward their

patients. This is the result of the clinical instructor’s will of encouraging every

nursing student in Siena to practice making a realistic nursing care plan (NCP) to

patients they encounter and it will then be checked by clinical instructors to make

corrections and teach more about doing an NCP, as well as applying it.

Table 8
Composite Table Showing the Weighted Mean, Verbal Interpretation and Rank
Distribution of the Respondents’ Perception on Critical Thinking Skills and Its
Application in the Clinical Area
 49

Weighted Verbal Rank

Clinical Criteria
Mean Interpretation Distribution

A. Thinking Ahead 3.445 Always 1

B. Thinking in Action 3.437 Always 2

C. Thinking Back 3.347 Always 3

Grand Weighted Mean 3.41 Always

It can be observed from Table 8 that among the areas evaluated by the

researchers on the application of the critical thinking skills of the respondents,

Thinking Ahead ranked first with a general weighted mean of 3.445 and was

verbally interpreted as “Always” while Thinking in action was second in rank with

a general weighted mean of 3.437 and a verbal interpretation of “Always”; last in

the rank was Thinking Back whose general weighted mean is 3.347 and a verbal

interpretation of “Always”. This means that they always use their critical thinking

in doing nursing care plan to their patient.

One can see that thinking ahead ranked first among the three clinical

nursing processes that have been applied in this study. This shows that the

respondents have the capability to assess well and anticipate what may still occur

on the problem of the patients. This also means that there is an effective teaching

from the professors and clinical instructors. Add this with time management of the

respondents in studying, this will then give them enough knowledge to determine
 50

the problems of the patients. Last in the rank was thinking back and was still

interpreted as “always” with high weighted mean value which means that until the

time the patients be discharge, the respondents are still thinking well to ensure the

improvement and healing of the patients. Generally, it means that the respondents

were having effective critical thinking skills which provide a quality nursing care to

the patients and prevent in committing negligence or error.

Problem 3: Is there a significant relationship between the respondents’ perception

on their critical thinking skills applied in the clinical area with respect to their

profile?

Table 9
Pearson Correlation Coefficient Result Between the Respondents’ Age and Means
on their Perception on Critical Thinking Skills and Its Application in the Clinical
Area

x y Computed Computed Critical Degrees Decision

r value t-value t-value of
Freedom
Age means -0.01 -0.07 2.010 48 Accepted

It can be gleaned from Table 9 that the computed Pearson correlation

coefficient value is -0.01. However, when t-statistic for testing the significance of

an r value was applied, it resulted to -0.07 which is less than the critical t-value of

2.010 whose degrees of freedom is 48.This leads to the conclusion that the null

hypothesis is accepted at .05 level of significance. This implies further that age and

the mean perception of the respondents on their critical thinking skills as applied in
 51

the clinical area are not significantly related. The result was also similar to the

study of Alpan-Altug et al. (2000) which shows that age has no significant

relationship to critical thinking. Giancarlo and Facione (2001) discovered that

undergraduate critical thinking disposition changed significantly after two years.

Specifically, significant changes in student tendency to seek truth and confidence in

thinking critically occurred during the junior and senior years. Therefore, students

in the junior years, which are the scope of the study, might have developed their

critical thinking skills.

As with Piaget’s cognitive development suggested, movement from one

stage to the next occurred when the child reached an appropriate level of

maturation and was exposed to relevant types of experiences. Without experience,

students were assumed incapable of reaching their highest cognitive ability. Martin

et.al, (cited in Schamel, 2002) found that as age increased, critical thinking also

increased. From their study, this relationship may be related to the fact that students

and graduates with no to moderate experience and knowledge were in the younger

age group, while the more experienced and knowledgeable expert nurses were in

the older age group. Therefore, it is not with age that one can determine the level of

critical thinking skills, but through experience that an individual encounters in daily

lives.

Table 10
Point-Biserial Correlation Coefficient Result Between the Respondents’ Sex and
Means on their Perception on Critical Thinking Skills and Its Application in the
Clinical Area
 52

x y Computed Computed Critical Degrees Decision

r value t-value t-value of
Freedom
Sex means 0.22 1.56 2.010 48 Accepted

It can be observed from Table 10 that the computed point-biserial

correlation coefficient value is 0.22. However, when t-statistic for testing the

significance of an r value was applied, it resulted to 1.56 which is less than the

critical t-value of 2.010 whose degrees of freedom is 48. This leads to the

conclusion that the null hypothesis is accepted at.05 level of significance. It implies

further that sex and the mean perception of the respondents on their critical

thinking skills as applied in the clinical area were not significantly related. Claytor

(2007), in his study, stated that sex is not significantly related to the person’s

critical thinking skill which is also the same with the result in the study. On the

other hand, some study found that there has a relationship (Wilson, 1999; Facione,

Giancarlo et al., 2001). Therefore, it can concluded that the role of sex has not been

as definite. Based on this study, critical thinking skills are develop based on the

level of learning, willingness to gain knowledge and being an active person who

wants to seek facts through questioning and listening.

Table 11
Point-Biserial Coefficient Result Between the Respondents’ Type of School Last
Attended and Means on their Perception on Critical Thinking Skills and Its
Application in the Clinical Area
 53

x y Computed Computed Critical Degrees Decision

r value t-value t-value of
Freedom
Type
of
School
means 0.01 0.07 2.010 48 Accepted
Last
Attend
ed

Table 11 shows that the computed point-biserial correlation coefficient

value was 0.01; but when t-statistic for testing the significance of an r value was

applied, it resulted to 0.07 which was less than the critical t-value of 2.010 whose

degrees of freedom is 48. It can be concluded that the null hypothesis is accepted

at.05 level of significance. This implies that type of school last attended and the

mean perception of the respondents on their critical thinking skills as applied in the

clinical area was not significantly related. This means it does not affect the critical

thinking perception of the students to what school does student graduated from

high school. Instead, it all depends on each respondent on how one perceives their

critical thinking based on their willingness to learn and practice it.