Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2025 Apr 29;27(2):e70127. doi: 10.1111/nhs.70127

Innovation, Curiosity, Exploration, and Critical Thinking Dispositions of Nursing Students Who Have and Have Not Taken an Innovative Thinking Course

Ayla Hendekci 1,✉
PMCID: PMC12040766  PMID: 40301123

ABSTRACT

Innovative thinking is important for professional development in nursing students. This study aimed to compare the innovation, curiosity, exploration, and critical thinking dispositions of nursing students who have and have not taken an innovative thinking course. The research was a descriptive type. The sample group consisting of 58 nursing students who met the established research criteria. Study data were collected with “The Introductory Information Form, the Individual Innovativeness Scale, the Curiosity and Exploration Inventory‐II, and the Critical Thinking Disposition Scale.” The rate of having innovative ideas, receiving training to create innovative ideas, and thinking that an innovative perspective is necessary for the nursing profession was higher in the group that took innovative thinking courses. A statistically significant difference was observed in the total score on the Curiosity and Exploration Scale II between students who had enrolled in the course and those who had not (p < 0.05). The study indicated that students who had completed courses on innovative thinking exhibited higher levels of curiosity and exploration.

Keywords: critical thinking, curiosity, innovation, nursing

Summary.

  • All students in the study are in the ‘questioning’ category according to the classification of individual innovativeness.

  • The study indicated that students who had completed courses on innovative thinking exhibited higher levels of curiosity and exploration.

  • The innovative thinking process needs to be introduced into the nursing curriculum.

1. Introduction

In the current era of information and technological advancements, innovation has become imperative. Healthcare services comprise professional groups characterized by rapid advancements that use technology and innovations extensively. Nurses, in particular, stand as a primary professional group within healthcare services (Liu et al. 2020). Effective nursing education is of paramount importance in cultivating competent nurses. The advent of innovations in the health sector has precipitated a paradigm shift in nursing education. Innovation and critical thinking, recognized as 21st century skills, are integral components of nursing education, necessitating their integration into the curriculum (Scott et al. 2014). The 21st century skills paradigm underscores the necessity for educational activities in higher education institutions to be more effective, for students to be innovative, and for them to graduate competently (Agaoglu and Demir 2020).

Nursing has long been recognized as a creative and innovative profession. Innovativeness is usually a personal characteristic defined as a behavior that depends on the perceived qualities of innovation. It is among the professional nursing roles (Leary et al. 2024). To adopt innovative roles and to gain the ability to protect and improve public health, certain gains are needed during the education years. Through these outcomes, nurses can find better ways to prevent diseases and provide quality care and treatment. These gains can only be achieved through courses or training in curricula (Yeung et al. 2023; Weiss 2024). The American Nurses Association emphasized that curricula in nursing education should be prepared with a focus on ‘innovation’ (Machon et al. 2019). The courses such as ‘Innovation, Entrepreneurship, Leadership’ in the curriculum improve many skills of students (Giuliano et al. 2022; Monteagudo et al. 2025).

Innovation is strongly associated with curiosity, exploration, and critical thinking. Professional curiosity and the desire to expand nursing knowledge play an important role in nursing practice. Effective decision‐making in nursing requires curiosity, exploration, critical thinking, flexibility, open‐mindedness, creativity, and innovation (Taheri and Nasiri 2024). Curiosity not only facilitates learning new information but also helps to develop a critical perspective. When nurses have strong curiosity and discovery skills, their performance improves, leading to better evidence‐based practice and lifelong learning. Therefore, it is essential to encourage curiosity and discovery in nursing (Cheung 2024). Critical thinking, recognized as a critical 21st‐century skill, is a cognitive process for interpreting, analyzing, and evaluating issues related to judgment, concepts, and methodology (Liu et al. 2021). As a fundamental skill in nursing practice, critical thinking has become an increasingly important educational outcome in recent years (Güven et al. 2020). This study aims to compare innovativeness, curiosity, exploration, and critical thinking dispositions between nursing students who have taken an innovative thinking course and those who have not. It is thought that the results of the study will contribute to nursing education in Türkiye. The study, answers to the following question were sought;

  • Is there a difference in innovation, curiosity, exploration, and critical thinking dispositions between students who have taken an innovative thinking course and those who have not?

2. Method

2.1. Study Design

This descriptive study was conducted between November 15 and December 30, 2024.

2.2. Study Population and Sample

The study population consisted of nursing students, with the sample specifically consisting of second class nursing students from a university in the Black Sea Region of Türkiye. Second class students were selected because the innovative thinking course is offered during this academic year. The researchers attempted to include the entire eligible study population. The final sample consisted of 58 students (N = 58), with 30 students taking the course and 28 students not taking the course. Three data collection tools were excluded from the analysis due to incorrect or incomplete responses.

Inclusion criteria: (1) Being a nursing student, (2) Voluntary agreement to participate in the study.

Students who did not meet the criteria and did not participate in the post‐test were excluded from the study.

2.3. Data Collection

After obtaining the permission of the faculty administration, the data were collected using a face‐to‐face method. Students completed the data tools in an average of 20 min.

2.4. Data Collection Tools

2.4.1. Introductory Information Form

This form includes items that assess participants' demographic characteristics and innovativeness traits (Sarıoğlu Kemer and Altuntaş 2017; Baltacı and Baydın 2023).

2.4.2. Individual Innovativeness Scale

This scale measures the level of individual innovativeness and was originally developed by Hurt et al. (1977). Its Turkish version was validated for use in nursing by Sarıoğlu Kemer and Altuntaş (2017). It consists of 18 items rated on a 5‐point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) and includes three sub‐scales: Opinion Leadership, Resistance to Change, and Risk‐Taking. Total scores range from 18 to 90 points, with the following categories based on the score: innovative (> 82 points), pioneering (75–82 points), questioning (66–74 points), skeptical (58–65 points), and traditionalist (< 57 points). The Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient of the scale is 0.84, and in this study, it was calculated to be 0.75.

2.4.3. Curiosity and Exploration Inventory II

This scale measures an individual's level of curiosity and exploration. It was originally developed by Kashdan et al. (2009) and adapted into Turkish by Acun et al. (2013). It consists of 10 items rated on a 5‐point Likert scale (1 = Not at all, 5 = Very much). The scale has two sub‐dimensions (Stretching and Embracing of Uncertainty) with total scores ranging from 10 to 50 points. The Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient of the scale is 0.81, and in this study, it was calculated to be 0.76.

2.4.4. Critical Thinking Disposition Scale

This scale measures individuals' critical thinking dispositions and was originally developed by Sosu (2013). The Turkish validity and reliability study of the scale was conducted by Akın et al. (2015). It consists of 11 items rated on a 5‐point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) and includes two factors: Critical Openness and Reflective Skepticism. The total score is calculated by summing the scores of both sub‐scales. Possible scores range from 7 to 35 for Critical Openness and 4–28 for Reflective Skepticism. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the scale is 0.78, which was also the value obtained in this study.

2.5. Innovative Thinking Course

This elective course is part of the curriculum of the Faculty of Nursing and students voluntarily enroll in this course. The course ran for 14 weeks, with weekly two‐hour sessions led by a faculty member. Teaching methods included PowerPoint presentations, scenario discussions, question‐and‐answer sessions, and brainstorming techniques. Students were assigned both in‐class and take‐home work, with feedback provided on all submissions of homework. In addition, students participated in two innovative thinking workshops that involved active group participation.

2.6. Ethical Considerations

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee for Social Sciences, Natural Sciences, and Engineering Research of Giresun University (approval no:10/04). Both institutional approval and participant consent were obtained before the study was conducted. Students were informed about the aim of the study, and their written consent was obtained.

2.7. Data Analysis

Data analysis was performed with IBM SPSS (v.22). Descriptive statistics, including frequencies, percentages, minimum and maximum values, means, and standard deviations, were used in the analysis of the data. Independent groups t‐test and analysis of variance were used for comparative analyses, using LSD for homogeneous variances and Dunnett's C for non‐homogeneous variances. The normality of data was assessed using kurtosis and skewness coefficients (±2). Scale reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha coefficients. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 (Büyüköztürk 2014).

3. Results

According to Table 1, 60% of the students who took the innovative thinking course were female, 53.3% lived primarily in small towns, 66.7% had developed innovative ideas, and 53.3% had no family members or friends with innovative ideas. In addition, 90% reported following innovation trends, 60% reported moderate academic achievement, 80% had received innovation training, and 90% believed an innovative perspective was essential to nursing practice. Among students who did not take the innovative thinking course, 64.3% were female, 50% lived primarily in small towns, 67.9% had developed innovative ideas, and 71.4% had no family members or friends with innovative ideas. In this group, 81.2% reported following innovation trends, 46.4% reported moderate academic achievement, 82.1% had not received innovation training, and 64.3% believed an innovative perspective was essential for nursing. The mean age was 21.27 ± 1.62 years for students who took the course, and 22.43 ± 1.40 years for those who did not.

TABLE 1.

Descriptive characteristics of the participants (n = 58).

Variables Enrolled in innovative thinking course Not enrolled in innovative thinking course Test and p
n % n %
Gender Female 18 60.0 18 64.3

x 2 = 0.113

p = 0.737
Male 12 40.0 10 35.7
Primary place of residence Metropolitan area/large city 14 46.7 14 50.0

x 2 = 0.064

p = 0.0800
Small city/town 16 53.3 14 50.0
Having developed an innovative idea Yes 20 66.7 9 32.1

x 2 = 6.905

p = 0.009
No 10 33.3 19 67.9
Exposure to innovative ideas through family/friends Yes 14 46.7 8 28.6

x 2 = 2.014

p = 0.156
No 16 53.3 20 71.4
Following innovation trends Yes, follows trends 27 90.0 23 82.1 p = 0.464
No, does not follow trends 3 10.0 5 17.9
Academic performance self‐assessment Very good 2 6.7 6 21.4

x 2 = 5.329

p = 0.070
Good 10 33.3 13 46.4
Medium 18 60.0 9 32.1
Prior training in innovation development Received 24 80.0 5 17.9

x 2 = 22.371

p = 0.000 
Did not receive 6 20.0 23 82.1
Belief in the importance of innovative thinking for nursing practice Required 27 90.0 18 64.3

x 2 = 5.507

p = 0.019 
Partially required 3 10.0 10 35.7
Enrolled in innovative thinking course Not enrolled in innovative thinking course
n Mean SD n Mean SD
Age 30 21.27 1.62 28 22.43 1.40 t = −2.916, p = 0.005 
Open in a new tab

Note: There is no chi‐square value since Fisher's exact chi‐square test was performed.

Abbreviations: t: independent samples t‐test; x 2: chi‐square analysis.

Students who attended the innovative thinking course had higher rates of having innovative ideas, receiving innovation training, and believing in the need for an innovative perspective in nursing compared to the group who had not taken the course (p > 0.05). The rate of having innovative ideas, receiving training for developing innovative ideas, and thinking that an innovative perspective is necessary for the nursing profession was higher in the group that took innovative thinking courses (p < 0.05).

According to Table 2, the mean score on the Individual Innovativeness Scale was 66.73 ± 7.52 for students who took the innovative thinking course and 66.11 ± 5.55 for those who did not. The differences in the total mean scores for the Individual Innovativeness Scale and its sub‐dimensions, opinion leadership, resistance to change, and risk‐taking, between the two groups were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). According to the scale's scoring criteria, both groups fell into the “questioning” category. For the Curiosity and Exploration Inventory‐II, the mean score was 32.57 ± 5.23 for students who completed the course and 27.61 ± 5.63 for those who did not. This difference in total mean scores in Curiosity and Exploration Inventory‐II between the two groups was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Students who participated in the innovative thinking course had higher scores on this scale.

TABLE 2.

Comparison of scale scores of participants.

Scale Enrolled in innovative thinking course Not enrolled in innovative thinking course Significance
n Mean SD n Mean SD t p
Opinion leadership 30 25.57 3.63 28 25.18 3.40 0.420 0.676
Resistance to change 30 24.27 4.04 28 24.82 4.14 −0.516 0.608
Risk‐taking 30 16.90 2.06 28 16.11 2.15 1.436 0.157
Individual innovativeness scale 30 66.73 7.52 28 66.11 5.55 0.358 0.721
Curiosity and exploration inventory II 30 32.57 5.23 28 27.61 5.63 3.477 0.001
Critical openness 30 25.80 3.52 28 24.25 4.39 1.488 0.142
Reflective skepticism 30 15.37 2.34 28 14.43 2.78 1.393 0.169
Critical Thinking Disposition Scale 30 41.17 4.97 28 38.68 6.64 1.623 0.110
Open in a new tab

Abbreviation: t = test in independent groups.

The mean score for the Critical Thinking Disposition Scale was 41.17 ± 4.97 for students who took the course and 38.68 ± 6.64 for those who did not. However, the differences in the Critical Openness sub‐scale, Reflective Skepticism sub‐scale, and Critical Thinking Disposition Scale total scores were not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

4. Discussion

This study found that students who participated in the innovative thinking course were more likely to generate innovative ideas, to be trained to develop such ideas, and to believe that an innovative perspective is essential to the nursing profession. These findings are consistent with the content of the course. Indeed, preparing students, fostering their ability to generate ideas, and providing course or training are critical steps in developing innovative skills and cultivating a critical perspective in nursing education (Yeung et al. 2023).

A comparison between students who took the innovative thinking course and those who did not showed that the former group had significantly higher levels of curiosity and exploration. This result suggests that the course was effective in improving curiosity and exploration skills. In addition, students who took the course had a mean curiosity and exploration score of 32.57 ± 5.23. Similarly, a study conducted with nursing students reported a mean curiosity and exploration score of 33.46 ± 5.71 (Baltacı and Baydın 2023). Curiosity is widely regarded as a driving force for learning because it motivates students to identify knowledge gaps, engage in exploratory behaviors, and actively participate in the learning process (Weiss 2024). Thus, fostering curiosity and exploration in nursing students may serve as a strategy for acquiring the knowledge and skills necessary for innovation, as seen in the findings of this study.

Students who took the innovative thinking course showed higher levels of individual innovativeness and critical thinking dispositions than those who did not. However, the difference between individual innovativeness and critical thinking dispositions was not statistically significant. The Individual Innovativeness Scale score for students who took the course was 66.73 ± 7.52. Similarly, Konukbay et al. (2023) reported a score of 64.29 ± 8.35 when assessing the individual innovativeness levels of nursing students. In another study by Ceylantekin and Öcalan (2022), students who received an innovation course had a mean score of 62.58 ± 9.73. Similarly, Ergin and Yücel found a mean score of 65.40 ± 7.17 in their study on students' innovativeness. Therefore, there is a consistency between the results of this study and the existing literature.

In this study, all students were categorized as “questioning” based on their scores on the Individual Innovativeness Scale. Similarly, other studies involving nursing students have placed participants in the “questioning” category (Ceylantekin and Öcalan 2022; Ergin and Yücel 2022). However, studies involving healthcare professionals have found that the majority fall into the “traditionalist” category (Aktas et al. 2019; Sertkaya and Bodur 2024). Although these categories can be interpreted differently, “questioning” individuals are characterized by their reluctance to take risks with time and resources when considering innovative approaches (Bayraktar and Akça 2024). Therefore, it can be suggested that the students in this study are cautious, hesitant to embrace innovation, and require additional encouragement and effort to adopt innovative practices.

The Critical Thinking Disposition Scale score for students who completed the course was 41.17 ± 4.97, indicating a moderate level. Similarly, Taşçı et al. (2022) reported in their study that nursing students had moderate levels of critical thinking disposition. Mousazadeh et al. (2021) also observed a moderate level of critical thinking disposition in nursing students. While these findings are consistent, generalizing them may not be appropriate because critical thinking skills among nursing students can be assessed using different scales and different factors can influence critical thinking (Hunter et al. 2014).

5. Limitations

This study was conducted with nursing students from a single faculty, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Different sample groups may lead to different results. In addition, data collection relied on self‐report.

6. Conclusions and Implications for Practice

This study demonstrated that the innovative thinking course increased nursing students' curiosity and exploration and influenced their individual innovativeness and critical thinking dispositions, albeit not significantly. These results suggest that the course was beneficial for both personal and professional development. However, further research is needed to evaluate the integration of such courses into nursing curricula and their long‐term benefits. It is recommended that nursing educators incorporate more courses with similar content that focus on innovation, creativity, and entrepreneurship to better prepare students for future challenges in the nursing profession.

Author Contributions

Ayla Hendekci: conceptualization, investigation, funding acquisition, writing – original draft, methodology, writing – review and editing, software, supervision, data curation, resources.

Ethics Statement

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee for Social Sciences, Natural Sciences, and Engineering Research of Giresun University (approval no:10/04, date:11.6.2024).

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the nursing students who participated in the study.

Funding: The author received no specific funding for this work.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

References

  1. Acun, N. , Kapıkıran Ş., and Kabasakal Z.. 2013. “Curiosity and Exploration Scale II: Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses and Reliability Study.” Turkish Journal of Psychology 16, no. 31: 74–85. 10.26466/opusjsr.1107365. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Agaoglu, O. , and Demir M.. 2020. “The Integration of 21st Century Skills Into Education: An Evaluation Based on an Activity Example.” Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity 7, no. 3: 105–114. [Google Scholar]
  3. Akın, A. , Hamedoğlu M. A., Arslan S., et al. 2015. “The Adaptation and Validation of the Turkish Version of the Critical Thinking Disposition Scale (CTDS).” International Journal of Educational Research 6, no. 1: 31–35. [Google Scholar]
  4. Aktas, B. , Bakan A. B., and Baysal H. Y.. 2019. “Individual Innovativeness Features of Family Health Personnels and Their Attitudes Towards Technology.” Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association 69, no. 8: 1079–1083. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Baltacı, N. , and Baydın N.. 2023. “Investigation of Individual Innovativeness, Entrepreneurship, Curiosity and Exploration Characteristics of Students.” Journal of Inonu University Occupational School of Health Services 11, no. 2: 1440–1454. 10.33715/inonusaglik.1164998. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bayraktar, D. , and Akça D.. 2024. “Investigation of Individual Innovativeness Levels of Nurses.” Bingöl University Health Journal 5, no. 1: 114–124. 10.58605/bingolsaglik.1456806. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Büyüköztürk, Ş. 2014. Data Analysis Handbook for Social Sciences. 20th ed. Pegem Akademi Publication. [Google Scholar]
  8. Ceylantekin, Y. , and Öcalan D.. 2022. “The Effect of Innovation Education Given to Nursing Students on Their Innovation Levels.” Journal of Higher Education and Science 12, no. 2: 324–333. 10.5961/higheredusci.1064209. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Cheung, K. 2024. “Using Curiosity to Render the Invisible, Visible.” Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 45: 251–259. 10.1007/s11017-024-09665-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Ergin, E. , and Yücel Ş.. 2022. “Innovative Awareness and Innovation Levels of Nursing Students.” Izmir Democracy University Health Sciences Journal 5, no. 1: 62–71. 10.52538/iduhes.1019805. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Giuliano, K. K. , Sup F. C. IV, Benjamin E., and Krishnamurty S.. 2022. “Innovate: Preparing Nurses to Be Health Care Innovation Leaders.” Nursing Administration Quarterly 46, no. 3: 255–265. 10.1097/NAQ.0000000000000529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Güven, Ş. D. , Calpbinici P., Kuzgun H., and Çelik G. K.. 2020. “Does Writing Patient Care Daily Effects on Critical Thinking? A Pilot Study With 1st Year Nursing Students.” Thinking Skills and Creativity 35: 100638. 10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100638. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hunter, S. , Pitt V., Croce N., and Roche J.. 2014. “Critical Thinking Skills of Undergraduate Nursing Students: Description and Demographic Predictors.” Nurse Education Today 34, no. 5: 809–814. 10.1016/j.nedt.2013.08.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hurt, H. T. , Joseph K., and Cook C. D.. 1977. “Scales for the Measurement of Innovativeness.” Human Communication Research 4: 58–65. 10.5222/HEAD.2017.052. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Kashdan, T. B. , Gallagher M. W., Silvia P., et al. 2009. “The Curiosity and Exploration Inventory‐II: Development, Factor Structure, and Psychometrics.” Journal of Research in Personality 43: 987–998. 10.1016/j.jrp.2009.04.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Konukbay, D. , Pazar B., Aydın H., and Yıldız D.. 2023. “Investigation of Nursing Students' Individual Innovativeness Levels and Problem Solving Skills: A Descriptive Study.” Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Nursing Sciences 15, no. 4: 951–960. 10.5336/nurses.2022-93054. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Leary, M. , Demiris G., Brooks Carthon J. M., Cacchione P. Z., Aryal S., and Bauermeister J. A.. 2024. “Determining the Innovativeness of Nurses Who Engage in Activities That Encourage Innovative Behaviors.” Nursing Reports 14, no. 2: 849–870. 10.3390/nursrep14020066. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Liu, H. Y. , Chang C. C., Wang I. T., and Chao S. Y.. 2020. “The Association Between Creativity, Creative Components of Personality, and Innovation Among Taiwanese Nursing Students.” Thinking Skills and Creativity 35: 100629. 10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100629. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Liu, T. , Yu X., Liu M., Wang M., Zhu X., and Yang X.. 2021. “A Mixed Method Evaluation of an Integrated Course in Improving Critical Thinking and Creative Self‐Efficacy Among Nursing Students.” Nurse Education Today 106: 105067. 10.1016/j.nedt.2021.105067. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Machon, M. , Cundy D., and Case H.. 2019. “Innovation in Nursing Leadership: A Skill That Can Be Learned.” Nursing Administration Quarterly 43, no. 3: 267–273. 10.1097/NAQ.0000000000000361. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Monteagudo, N. C. , Rodríguez D. E. C., Carhuajulca D. B. G., et al. 2025. “Defining Nursing Entrepreneurship From the Point of View of Future Professionals: A Qualitative Study.” Nurse Education Today 144: 106421. 10.1016/j.nedt.2024.106421. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Mousazadeh, N. , Momennasab M., Sharif Nia H., Nazari R., and Hajihosseini F.. 2021. “Effective Factors in Critical Thinking Disposition in Nursing Students.” Education Research International 2021, no. 1: 5580010. 10.1155/2021/5580010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Sarıoğlu Kemer, A. , and Altuntaş S.. 2017. “Adaptation of the Individual Innovativeness Scale in Nursing Profesion: Turkish Validity‐Reliability Study.” Journal of Education & Research in Nursing 14, no. 1: 52. 10.5222/HEAD.2017.052. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Scott, P. A. , Matthews A., and Kirwan M.. 2014. “What Is Nursing in the 21st Century and What Does the 21st Century Health System Require of Nursing?” Nursing Philosophy 15, no. 1: 23–34. 10.1111/nup.12032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Sertkaya, Ö. B. , and Bodur G.. 2024. “The Relationship Between Individual Innovativeness Levels and Lifelong Learning Tendencies of Nurses in Different Generations.” Journal of Health and Nursing Management 11, no. 1: 108–118. 10.54304/SHYD.2024.34634. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Sosu, E. M. 2013. “The Development and Psychometric Validation of a Critical Thinking Disposition Scale.” Thinking Skills and Creativity 9: 107–119. 10.1016/j.tsc.2012.09.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Taheri, F. , and Nasiri A.. 2024. “Clarifying the Concept of Professional Curiosity in Nursing: A Concept Analysis With Walker and Avant Approach.” Nursing Forum 1: 1084372. 10.1155/2024/1084372. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Taşçı, Ö. , Durmuş M., Gerçek A., and Kaya A.. 2022. “Factors Affecting Critical Thinking Tendencies of Nursing Students.” Journal of Nursology 25, no. 1: 45–49. 10.54614/JANHS.2022.687987. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Weiss, J. 2024. “Learning to Learn: Fostering Intellectual Curiosity in Health Care Education.” 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4101860/v1. [DOI]
  30. Yeung, M. M. Y. , Yuen J. W. M., Chen J. M. T., and Lam K. K. L.. 2023. “The Efficacy of Team‐Based Learning in Developing the Generic Capability of Problem‐Solving Ability and Critical Thinking Skills in Nursing Education: A Systematic Review.” Nurse Education Today 122: 105704. 10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105704. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Articles from Nursing & Health Sciences are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES