Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 37

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comparison of ‘think aloud’ and observation as data collection methods in the study of decision making regarding sedation in intensive care patients

Aitken, Leanne M., Marshall, Andrea, Elliott, Rosalind, McKinley, Sharon·2011·International Journal of Nursing Studies
DOI 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.07.014
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.07.014

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. Aitken, 2000, Using ‘thinking aloud’ as a means of data collection in the natural setting, Western Journal of Nursing Research, 22, 841, 10.1177/01939450022044791 · DOI
  2. Aitken, 2009, Critical care nurses’ decision making: sedation assessment and management in intensive care, Journal of Clinical Nursing, 18, 36, 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2008.02318.x · DOI
  3. Brush, 2009, Sedation and analgesia for the mechanically ventilated patient, Clinics in Chest Medicine, 30, 131, 10.1016/j.ccm.2008.09.001 · DOI
  4. Bucknall, 2007, Nurses’ reassessment of postoperative pain after analgesic administration, Clinical Journal of Pain, 23, 1, 10.1097/01.ajp.0000210936.50816.49 · DOI
  5. Bucknall, 2000, Critical care nurses’ decision-making activities in the natural clinical setting, Journal of Clinical Nursing, 9, 25, 10.1046/j.1365-2702.2000.00333.x · DOI · Paper page
  6. Fonteyn, 1995, Use of think aloud method to study nurses’ reasoning and decision making in clinical practice settings, Journal of Neuroscience Nursing, 27, 124, 10.1097/01376517-199504000-00012 · doi:10.1097/01376517-199504000-00012
  7. Funkesson, 2007, Nurses’ reasoning process during care planning taking pressure ulcer prevention as an example. A think-aloud study, International Journal of Nursing Studies, 44, 1109, 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.04.016 · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.04.016
  8. Gerdtz, 2007, Influence of task properties and subjectivity on consistency of triage: a simulation study, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 58, 180, 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04192.x · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04192.x
  9. Gerdtz, 2001, Triage nurses’ clinical decision making. An observational study of emergency assessment, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 35, 550, 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01871.x · DOI
  10. Greenwood, 1995, Some surprising similarities in the clinical reasoning of ‘expert’ and ‘novice’ orthopaedic nurses: report of a study using verbal protocols and protocol analyses, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 22, 907, 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1995.tb02642.x · DOI · Paper page
  11. Hammond, 1966, Clincial inference in nursing II: a psychologist's viewpoint, Nursing Research, 15, 27, 10.1097/00006199-196601510-00007 · DOI
  12. Hammond, 1987, Direct comparison of the efficacy of intuitive and analytical cognition in expert judgement, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 17, 753, 10.1109/TSMC.1987.6499282 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Henry, 1989, The effect of verbalization of cognitive processes on clinical decision making, Research in Nursing and Health, 12, 187, 10.1002/nur.4770120309 · DOI
  14. Hoffman, 2009, A comparison of novice and expert nurses’ cue collection during clinical decision-making: verbal protocol analysis, International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46, 1335, 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.04.001 · DOI
  15. Lundgren-Laine, 2010, Think-aloud technique and protocol analysis in clinical decision-making research, Qualitative Health Research, 20, 565, 10.1177/1049732309354278 · DOI
  16. McGarvey, 1999, Collecting data in the operating department: issues in observational methodology, Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, 15, 288, 10.1054/iccn.1999.1442 · DOI
  17. Noll, 2001, Clinical reasoning of an experienced physiotherapist: insight into clinician decision-making regarding low back pain, Physiotherapy Research International, 6, 40, 10.1002/pri.212 · DOI
  18. Payne, 1994, Thinking aloud: insights into information processing, Psychological Science, 5, 241, 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00620.x · DOI
  19. Pretzlik, 1994, Observational methods and strategies, Nurse Researcher, 2, 13, 10.7748/nr.2.2.13.s3 · DOI
  20. Sessler, 2008, Analgesia and sedation in the intensive care unit: an overview of the issues, Critical Care, 12, S1, 10.1186/cc6147 · DOI
  21. Taylor, 2000, Clinical problem-solving in nursing: insights from the literature, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31, 842, 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01342.x · DOI
  22. Thompson, 2004, Nurses, information use, and clinical decision making—the real world potential for evidence-based decisions in nursing, Evidence Based Nursing, 7, 68, 10.1136/ebn.7.3.68 · DOI
  23. Whyte, 2009, The relationship between knowledge and clinical performance in novice and experienced critical care nurses, Heart and Lung, 38, 517, 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2008.12.006 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Aitken, L. M., Marshall, A., Elliott, R., & McKinley, S.
Venue
International Journal of Nursing Studies
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-03
Volume
48
Issue
3
Pages
318-325
ISSN
0020-7489
DOI
10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.07.014
Cited by
37
References
0
Language
en
Licence
  • www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
  • www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.