CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 87Ethics in medical practiceEthics in Business and EducationEthics and bioethics in healthcare

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Principled Thinking: A Comparison of Nursing Students and Experienced Nurses

Ham, Kathy·2004·The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing
DOI 10.3928/0022-0124-20040301-08
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background: A descriptive study was used to compare ethical reasoning abilities in senior baccalaureate nursing students and experienced registered nurses. The effects of environmental factors and previous experience with ethical dilemmas in regard to nursing principled thinking were also examined. Results: Findings on the Nursing Dilemma Test indicated a significant difference in the level of nursing principled thinking in the two groups, with nursing students scoring higher than experienced nurses. There was a significant negative correlation between years of experience and level of nursing principled thinking. The level of nursing education (e.g., associate degree of nursing, diploma, bachelor of science in nursing, masters degree, or doctorate) did not appear to have an effect on nursing principled thinking. In addition, subjects who were most affected by practical considerations demonstrated less use of higher level moral reasoning. The effect of previous experience with ethical dilemmas on nursing principled thinking was found to be nonsignificant. Conclusion: Ethical dilemmas continue to create much confusion and uncertainty for practicing nurses. Suggestions are made regarding individual analysis of personal and professional values in nurses. In addition, recommendations include ongoing educational offerings and nursing administration support to assist nurses during times of moral distress.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3928/0022-0124-20040301-08

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Crisham P. (1979). Moral judgment of nurses in hypothetical and nursing dilemmas (Doctoral dissertation University of Minnesota 1979). Dissertation Abstracts International 40/89 4212B.
  2. Ellis J. R. & Hartley C. L. (2001). Nursing in today's world: Challenges issues and trends (7th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & WUkins.
  3. Ham K. (2002). A comparison of ethical reasoning abilities of senior baccalaureate nursing students and experienced nurses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation The University of Memphis Tennessee.
  4. Rest J. (1974). Recent research on an objective test of moral judgment: How the important issues of a moral dilemma are defined. In D. J. Depalma & J. M. Foley (Eds.) Moral development: Current theory and research (pp. 75-94). Potomac MD: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Ham, K.
Affiliations
Southeast Missouri State University (US)
Corresponding author
Ham, Kathy
Venue
The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing
Publisher
SLACK, Inc.
Published
2004-03
Volume
35
Issue
2
Pages
66-73
ISSN
0022-0124 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3928/0022-0124-20040301-08
OpenAlex
W71661463
Cited by
87
References
17
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 7
FWCI
3.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Ethics in medical practice
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Ethics in Business and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
Keywords
moral reasoning, nursing students, experienced nurses, ethical dilemmas, moral distress, nursing education level, years of nursing experience, professional values
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Clinical Competence, Conflict, Psychological, Education, Nursing, Associate, Education, Nursing, Baccalaureate, Education, Nursing, Diploma Programs, Education, Nursing, Graduate, Humans, Human Development, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Logic, Middle Aged, Morals, Nursing Staff, Surveys and Questionnaires, Students, Nursing, Thinking, Midwestern United States, Nursing Education Research, Nursing Methodology Research, Principle-Based Ethics

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