Abstract
Background
Scientific research underpins advances in healthcare and evidence-based practice. However, attitudes toward scientific research may differ across health professions, and discipline-comparative evidence remains limited within specific institutional contexts.
Design
Quantitative, cross-sectional, descriptive-comparative study.
Methods
The study included 1,163 undergraduate students (275 nursing; 888 medical) at Atatürk University. Data were collected using a demographic form and the Scientific Research Attitude Scale (SRAS). Because SRAS subscales have opposite directionality (two negative, two positive), analyses were conducted at the subscale level and no total score was computed. Between-group differences were examined using independent-samples t-tests/ANOVA with assumption checks and effect-size reporting. Hierarchical multiple linear regression models were specified for each SRAS subscale to control for potential confounding (Block 1: faculty; Block 2: prior research-course exposures; Block 3: research engagement variables). Ethical approval was obtained, and informed consent was secured from all participants.
Results
Medical students scored higher on the positive SRAS subscales (PATSR, PATR) than nursing students (small effect sizes). In adjusted models, research engagement (conducting research, taking a research methods course, and following scientific studies) was consistently associated with higher positive-attitude subscale scores, whereas explained variance was minimal for negative-attitude domains (R² ≤ .017).
Conclusions
Differences in positive research attitudes between medicine and nursing appear to reflect curricular exposure and engagement opportunities more than discipline alone. Strengthening structured, mentored research engagement in undergraduate curricula may improve positive attitudes toward scientific research.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-026-09455-6.
Keywords: Medical students, Nursing students, Scientific research attitudes
Introduction
Today, evidence-based practice (EBP) is adopted as a fundamental approach to improving the quality of healthcare services, ensuring patient safety, and guaranteeing the sustainability of healthcare systems [1, 2] EBP requires not only the integration of the most current and reliable scientific evidence into clinical decision-making processes but also the development of lifelong learning, critical thinking, and research-based thinking among healthcare professionals [3].
In this context, a positive attitude and competence in scientific research are indispensable to the professionalisation of the medical and nursing professions [4]. Scientific research improves the quality of individual patient care and makes resource use in the healthcare system more effective [5]. Therefore, supporting the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of undergraduate medical and nursing students towards research processes is considered a critical educational goal [6, 7].
The International Council of Nurses (ICN) has defined the development of research literacy in nursing education and the acquisition of research competencies by students as a strategic priority [1]. Similarly, medical education programmes also encourage students’ active participation in the research process, emphasising that this process supports professional identity development and evidence-based decision-making skills [8].
Numerous studies report that both medical and nursing students generally demonstrate moderate to positive attitudes toward scientific research, although the reported levels vary across contexts and institutions [2, 5, 9]. However, these attitudes are not uniform across disciplines. Comparative research indicates meaningful differences between medical and nursing students in research engagement, confidence in research skills, and perceived relevance of research to professional practice [2, 9]. These findings highlight disciplinary heterogeneity in research orientation. Several factors have been associated with these attitudes, including academic achievement, prior research training, frequency of reading scientific publications, mentoring support, and postgraduate career aspirations [5, 10, 11]. Furthermore, negative attitudes towards conducting research and encountering barriers are frequently reported. These include lack of knowledge about methodology, time constraints, lack of advisor support, concerns about publishing, and problems accessing resources [12, 13]. Developing interventions to identify and eliminate these barriers will foster a research-based culture among health professionals by increasing students’ effective participation in the research process [14].
Although disciplinary differences in research attitudes have been documented [2, 15, 16], the specific mechanisms underlying these differences remain insufficiently clarified. Medicine and nursing are two core professions that collaborate directly in patient care and share responsibility for implementing evidence-based practice [1, 17]. However, they differ in educational structures, professional socialisation processes, and historical research traditions, which may shape students’ exposure to research culture and methodological training [18, 19]. Understanding whether observed attitudinal differences reflect discipline-specific training models or modifiable curricular elements is crucial for designing coordinated interprofessional research education strategies. Thus, a focused comparison between medical and nursing students is not merely descriptive but directly relevant to strengthening interdisciplinary evidence-based practice in clinical settings.
Despite the growing emphasis on research literacy in health education, important gaps remain. Many previous discipline-comparative studies have relied on total attitude scores or unidimensional measures, limiting the ability to distinguish between positive and negative components of research orientation. The Scientific Research Attitude Scale (SRAS) is a multidimensional instrument that evaluates four distinct domains: unwillingness to assist research (UAR), negative attitudes toward scientific research (NATSR), positive attitudes toward scientific research (PATSR), and positive attitudes toward researchers (PATR). By separately capturing these domains, SRAS allows a more nuanced assessment of attitudinal profiles. To date, no large-scale study has simultaneously compared medical and nursing students using SRAS at the subscale level while examining independent correlates for each domain within multivariable models. Thus, the contribution of the present study lies in identifying discipline-specific patterns across multidimensional attitude domains and determining whether these patterns persist after adjustment for curricular exposure and engagement-related factors. Accordingly, the present study was designed as a comparative cross-sectional study with multivariable adjustment, combining discipline-level comparisons with the examination of independent associated factors within the same analytic framework.
Research questions
The four SRAS subscales (UAR, NATSR, PATSR, PATR) were prespecified as the primary outcomes.
What are the levels of SRAS subscale scores (UAR, NATSR, PATSR, PATR) among nursing and medical students?
Do SRAS subscale scores differ between nursing and medical students in exploratory bivariate comparisons?
Which demographic and academic factors are independently associated with each SRAS subscale score after adjustment for potential confounding?
Method
Type of research
The research was designed as a quantitative, cross-sectional, and comparative study aiming to examine the attitudes of medical and nursing students towards scientific research. The comparative framework was operationalized by first examining unadjusted between-discipline differences and subsequently estimating adjusted multivariable models to determine whether discipline effects persisted after controlling for demographic and curricular exposure variables.
Research population and sample
The study population comprised all undergraduate students enrolled in the Faculty of Medicine and the Faculty of Nursing at Atatürk University during the 2024–2025 academic year. All academic years were eligible. The total eligible population consisted of 2,642 medical students and 1,080 nursing students. All students were invited to participate, and data were collected from those who volunteered and provided informed consent. A total of 1,163 students completed the survey (888 medical and 275 nursing students), yielding an overall response rate of 31.2% (Medicine: 33.6%; Nursing: 25.5%). Although the response rate was moderate, the large sample size enhances statistical power and supports the robustness of the findings.
Inclusion criteria
Being a registered undergraduate student at the Faculty of Medicine or Nursing at Atatürk University,
Being an active student as of the 2024–2025 academic year,
Being 18 years of age or older,
To have signed the informed consent form.
Exclusion criteria
Students enrolled in postgraduate programs.
Students on academic leave or not actively attending courses during the 2024–2025 academic year.
Students not regularly enrolled/attending (irregular status) during the data-collection period.
Incomplete questionnaire submissions.
Students who declined or withdrew informed consent.
Data collection tools to be used in the study
Research data was collected using the “Personal Information Form” and the “Scientific Research Attitude Scale”.
Personal information form
Data for the study were collected using a structured Personal Information Form. This form was designed to determine the socio-demographic and academic characteristics of the students. In addition to basic variables such as the participants’ age, gender, faculty (medicine/nursing) and class level, whether they had previously conducted scientific research, whether they had taken courses in statistics and research methods, their level of participation in scientific meetings (conferences, symposiums, classes, etc.), how often they followed scientific research, and their reading habits regarding periodicals (books, journals, etc.) were also obtained through structured questions. Age was treated as a continuous variable. Gender and faculty (medicine/nursing) were categorical variables. Grade level was considered an ordinal variable. Variables related to prior research experience, taking research methods/statistics courses, and conducting research were coded as dichotomous (yes/no). Frequency of participation in scientific meetings and following periodicals were treated as ordinal variables.
Scientific Research Attitude Scale (SRAS)
The scale was developed by Korkmaz et al. [20]. SRAS is a five-point Likert-type scale comprising 30 items that can be grouped into four factors. Each factor item is rated on a 5-point scale: strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), undecided (3), agree (4), strongly agree (5). Higher scores indicate more negative attitudes in the first (Unwillingness to Assist Researchers—8 items) and second (Negative Attitude Toward Scientific Research—9 items) subscales, whereas higher scores indicate more positive attitudes in the third (Positive Attitude Toward Scientific Research—7 items) and fourth (Positive Attitude Toward Researchers—6 items) subscales. The first two factors are inversely proportional to the last two factors. All items in the first and second factors are negative statements. The statements in the third and fourth factors are positive. Therefore, high scores on the first two factors indicate negativity, while high scores on the third and fourth factors indicate positivity. Due to this inverse relationship, calculating a total score for the scale as a whole is not meaningful and requires separate processing of the factors. For this study, the Cronbach alpha values were determined as 0.892 for the sub-dimensions of Unwillingness to Assist Researchers and Negative Attitude Towards Scientific Research, 0.918 for the sub-dimension of Positive Attitude Towards Scientific Research, and 0.931 for the sub-dimension of Positive Attitude Towards Researchers. The original development study of the SRAS conceptualized the scale as a multidimensional construct composed of four distinct but related domains rather than a unidimensional global attitude index. Given the inverse directional structure of the subscales and the absence of a validated global composite score in the original scale framework, analyses were conducted at the subscale level. Each subscale showed high internal consistency in the present study (Cronbach’s α values reported above), which supports separate domain-level interpretation rather than aggregation into a total score. The SRAS has been used in previous studies among medical and health science students, demonstrating satisfactory psychometric properties, including acceptable internal consistency and construct validity across its subscales. These properties support its use in evaluating multidimensional attitudes toward scientific research.
Data collection
Data collection for this study was conducted at Atatürk University during the 2024–2025 academic year. To ensure the study’s feasibility, ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Nursing at Atatürk University. Subsequently, the necessary institutional permissions were secured through official correspondence from the Faculties of Medicine and Nursing, where the data would be collected. An online data collection method was preferred. For economic and practical reasons, the questionnaire forms were not printed; they were moved to a digital platform via Google Forms. A QR code was created via the link to the prepared questionnaire form and made available to participants. As part of the data collection process, researchers informed students in the classroom at the Faculties of Medicine and Nursing about the purpose, scope, scientific and ethical requirements of the research, and the fact that participation was voluntary. Students who volunteered were provided with the informed consent information and gave written informed consent prior to completing the online questionnaire. Data were collected in classroom settings; students accessed and completed the online questionnaire via QR code using their personal mobile devices. The average duration of the survey application for each participant ranged from 3 to 5 min. The entire data collection process was conducted in full compliance with the principles of confidentiality, voluntariness, and ethics. To protect anonymity, the online survey did not collect any identifying information (e.g., name, student number, e-mail, IP address). Written informed consent forms were obtained on paper and stored separately from survey data, with no linkable identifiers between consent forms and responses. Participation was voluntary; students were informed that non-participation would have no academic consequences. Data collection was conducted in classroom settings by the research team (not course instructors), and students completed the survey individually via their own devices using a QR code. Data were collected between October and December 2024. The online survey responses were automatically recorded and stored securely within the institutional Google Forms account accessible only to the principal investigators. No manual data entry was required, minimizing transcription errors. Data were exported directly to SPSS for analysis, and consistency checks were performed prior to statistical analysis to ensure data accuracy and completeness.
Data evaluation
Data were analysed using SPSS version 23.0. Descriptive statistics were computed for all variables. Between-group bivariate comparisons (independent-samples t-tests, one-way ANOVA, and correlations, as appropriate) were performed to describe unadjusted patterns across SRAS subscales and were interpreted as exploratory due to multiple testing. No formal correction for multiple testing (e.g., Bonferroni or FDR) was applied, as these analyses were considered exploratory; however, given the large number of comparisons, the risk of type I error is increased, and the findings should therefore be interpreted as hypothesis-generating. SRAS subscale scores were computed by summing item responses within each domain; no transformation to a standardized 0–100 scale was applied, as comparisons were conducted within each subscale independently.
To strengthen inferential validity and reduce confounding, hierarchical multiple linear regression models (block-wise entry) were prespecified for each primary SRAS subscale outcome (UAR, NATSR, PATSR, PATR). Predictors were selected a priori based on key demographics and curricular/engagement variables (e.g., faculty, grade, conducting research, research methods/statistics courses, participation in scientific meetings, and following scientific research/periodicals). Model assumptions were evaluated using the Shapiro–Wilk test and inspection of skewness and kurtosis values for normality, Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance in independent group comparisons, residual plots for linearity and homoscedasticity, and variance inflation factors for multicollinearity (all VIFs < 2.5). When assumptions for parametric tests were not met, non-parametric alternatives (Mann–Whitney U or Kruskal–Wallis tests) were applied. Pearson correlation was used for normally distributed continuous variables and Spearman correlation otherwise; categorical variables were compared using χ² tests where appropriate. Standardized β coefficients, 95% confidence intervals, R² values, and effect sizes (Cohen’s d for t-tests, partial η² for ANOVA, and r/r² for correlations) were reported to complement p-values. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Analyses were conducted on the final analytic sample (n = 1,163), which included only fully completed questionnaires; therefore, no item-level missing data were present for study variables, and primary inferences were based on the prespecified regression models.
Ethical principles of the study
Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Atatürk University Faculty of Nursing to conduct the research, and the necessary institutional permissions were obtained from the faculties where the study was to be undertaken. Students who agreed to participate in the study were informed, and their participation was voluntary. Participants were clearly informed at the beginning of the data collection form about the purpose and scope of the research, as well as that their responses would only be used within this research. Care was taken to protect the rights of participants, the conditions of the “Principle of Voluntariness” and “Informed Consent” were fulfilled, and the principles of the Helsinki Declaration were adhered to throughout the research process.
Findings
To improve clarity, Results are structured to emphasize key findings, with exploratory analyses summarized briefly. Table 1 shows participant characteristics by faculty.
Table 1.
Sociodemographic and academic characteristics of the participants by faculty (n = 1,163)
| Characteristics | Nursing (n = 275) n (%) | Medicine (n = 888) n (%) | χ² / t | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 59.46 | < 0.001 | ||
| Female | 220 (80.0) | 479 (53.9) | ||
| Male | 55 (20.0) | 409 (46.1) | ||
| Grade | 195.79 | < 0.001 | ||
| 1st | 72 (26.2) | 334 (37.6) | ||
| 2nd | 42 (15.3) | 368 (41.4) | ||
| 3rd | 109 (39.6) | 129 (14.5) | ||
| 4th | 52 (18.9) | 29 (3.3) | ||
| 5th | 0 (0.0) | 28 (3.2) | ||
| Conducting scientific research | 46.51 | < 0.001 | ||
| Yes | 51 (18.5) | 365 (41.1) | ||
| No | 224 (81.5) | 523 (58.9) | ||
| Taking a statistics course | 266.97 | < 0.001 | ||
| Yes | 19 (6.9) | 562 (63.3) | ||
| No | 256 (93.1) | 326 (36.7) | ||
| Taking a research methods course | 12.31 | < 0.001 | ||
| Yes | 175 (63.6) | 458 (51.6) | ||
| No | 100 (36.4) | 430 (48.4) | ||
| Attending scientific meetings | 7.55 | 0.006 | ||
| Yes | 162 (58.9) | 603 (67.9) | ||
| No | 113 (41.1) | 285 (32.1) | ||
| Following scientific research | 5.79 | 0.016 | ||
| Yes | 111 (40.4) | 432 (48.6) | ||
| No | 164 (59.6) | 456 (51.4) | ||
| Following periodicals | 9.80 | 0.002 | ||
| Yes | 83 (30.2) | 187 (21.1) | ||
| No | 192 (69.8) | 701 (78.9) | ||
| Age (years), mean ± SD | 20.78 ± 2.17 | 19.94 ± 1.75 | t = 6.53 | < 0.001 |
Values are n (%) unless otherwise stated
χ² = Pearson Chi-square test; t = independent samples t-test
The sample included 1,163 students (275 nursing; 888 medical). Significant between-faculty differences were observed in gender, grade level, and research-related exposures (Table 1). Medical students reported higher engagement in scientific research and greater exposure to statistics courses, whereas nursing students reported higher participation in research methods courses. Nursing students were slightly older.
No between-group differences were observed in the negative-attitude subscales (UAR, NATSR). In contrast, medical students scored slightly higher on the positive-attitude subscales (PATSR, PATR), with small effect sizes (Table 2).
Table 2.
SRAS Subscale Scores by Faculty and Between-Group Comparisons
| Subscale | Mean ± SD (min–max) Nursing (n = 275) | Mean ± SD (min–max) Medicine (n = 888) | t, p, Cohen’s d |
|---|---|---|---|
| UAR | 19.59 ± 7.53 (8–40) | 19.82 ± 6.55 (8–40) | t = 0.45, p=0.652, d = 0.03 |
| NATSR | 19.18 ± 7.91 (9–45) | 19.21 ± 6.41 (9–45) | t = 0.06, p=0.955, d = 0.00 |
| PATSR | 23.54 ± 6.65 (7–35) | 25.24 ± 5.45 (7–35) | t = 4.57, p<0.001, d = 0.30 |
| PATR | 23.75 ± 6.11 (6–30) | 24.34 ± 4.65 (6–30) | t = 3.97, p<0.001, d = 0.32 |
d = Cohen’s d (0.20 small, 0.50 moderate, 0.80 large effect)
p < 0.05 significance level
Exploratory analyses suggested that research engagement was associated with more favorable attitudes. Higher engagement was associated with higher positive-attitude scores, whereas lower engagement exhibited less favorable patterns. Findings should be interpreted cautiously given multiple comparisons (Table 3), and the emphasis was placed on multivariable regression results (Table 4).
Table 3.
Exploratory bivariate comparisons of SRAS subscale scores
| Characteristics | UAR mean ± s.d. |
NATSR mean ± s.d. |
PATSR mean ± s.d. |
PATR mean ± s.d. |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Nursing | Female | 19.39 ± 7.36 | 19.17 ± 7.57 | 23.65 ± 6.32 | 23.04 ± 5.89 |
| Male | 20.41 ± 8.21 | 19.25 ± 9.21 | 23.12 ± 7.89 | 21.60 ± 6.85 | ||
| test, p | t = 0.904, p = 0.367, d = 0.14 | t = 0.068, p = 0.945, d = 0.01 | t = 0.456, p = 0.650, d = 0.08 | t = 1.573, p = 0.117, d = 0.25 | ||
| Medical | Female | 19.52 ± 6.20 | 18.89 ± 5.94 | 25.18 ± 5.15 | 24.65 ± 4.46 | |
| Male | 20.17 ± 6.92 | 19.59 ± 6.90 | 25.31 ± 5.79 | 23.97 ± 4.85 | ||
| test, p | t = 1.446, p = 0.148, d = 0.10 | t = 1.606, p = 0.109, d = 0.11 | t = 0.344, p = 0.731, d = 0.02 | t = 1.505, p = 0.133, d = 0.15 | ||
| Class | Nursing | 1 | 17.97 ± 6.69 | 17.06 ± 5.88 | 23.00 ± 7.32 | 23.01 ± 7.01 |
| 2 | 21.71 ± 7.64 | 20.90 ± 8.41 | 23.71 ± 5.86 | 23.23 ± 4.88 | ||
| 3 | 19.72 ± 7.06 | 20.20 ± 9.19 | 23.85 ± 6.85 | 22.44 ± 6.03 | ||
| 4 | 19.86 ± 7.53 | 18.61 ± 6.40 | 23.51 ± 5.96 | 22.65 ± 5.94 | ||
|
test, p Post-hoc |
F = 2.283, p = 0.079 ηp²=0.025 |
F = 3.138, p = 0.026 2.3 > 1 ηp²=0.034 |
F = 0.246,p = 0.864 ηp²=0.003 |
F = 0.224,p = 0.880 ηp²=0.002 | ||
| Medical | 1 | 19.33 ± 6.47 | 19.11 ± 6.44 | 25.57 ± 5.53 | 24.37 ± 4.94 | |
| 2 | 19.92 ± 6.34 | 19.38 ± 6.25 | 24.92 ± 5.35 | 24.31 ± 4.32 | ||
| 3 | 21.51 ± 7.12 | 20.20 ± 7.07 | 24.80 ± 5.22 | 24.26 ± 4.39 | ||
| 4 | 17.86 ± 6.90 | 16.03 ± 4.65 | 27.06 ± 5.36 | 24.96 ± 5.25 | ||
| 5 | 18.64 ± 5.71 | 17.10 ± 5.19 | 25.67 ± 6.61 | 24.17 ± 6.07 | ||
|
test, p Post-hoc |
F = 3.551, p = 0.007 3 > 1, 2, 4, 5 ηp²=0.016 |
F = 3.425, p = 0.009 1,2,3 > 4; 3 > 5 ηp²=0.015 |
F = 1.697, p = 0.148 ηp²=0.008 |
F = 0.154, p = 0.961 ηp²=0.001 |
||
| Conducting scientific research | Nursing | Yes | 19.72 ± 8.56 | 18.96 ± 8.16 | 23.74 ± 7.66 | 22.19 ± 6.89 |
| No | 19.56 ± 7.30 | 19.24 ± 7.87 | 23.50 ± 6.42 | 22.87 ± 5.92 | ||
| test, p | t = 0.135, p = 0.892 d = 0.02 | t = 0.228, p = 0.820 d = 0.04 | t = 2.370, p = 0.013 d = 0.04 | t = 0.725, p = 0.469 d = 0.11 | ||
| Medical | Yes | 19.86 ± 6.70 | 19.12 ± 6.67 | 25.87 ± 5.45 | 24.63 ± 4.56 | |
| No | 19.79 ± 6.44 | 19.28 ± 6.23 | 24.80 ± 5.42 | 24.14 ± 4.71 | ||
| test, p | t = 0.147, p = 0.883 d = 0.01 | t = 0.369, p = 0.712 d = 0.02 | t = 2.899, p = 0.004 d = 0.20 | t = 1.527, p = 0.127 d = 0.11 | ||
| Taking a statistics course | Nursing | Yes | 18.57 ± 8.73 | 17.89 ± 8.53 | 23.57 ± 8.02 | 21.78 ± 6.85 |
| No | 19.67 ± 7.45 | 19.28 ± 7.87 | 23.54 ± 6.56 | 22.82 ± 6.06 | ||
| test, p | t = 0.609, p = 0.543 d = 0.15 | t = 0.738, p = 0.461 d = 0.18 | t = 0.023, p = 0.982 d = 0.00 | t = 0.714, p = 0.476 d = 0.17 | ||
| Medical | Yes | 20.07 ± 6.57 | 19.27 ± 6.47 | 25.25 ± 5.48 | 24.35 ± 4.56 | |
| No | 19.39 ± 6.49 | 19.12 ± 6.31 | 25.22 ± 5.41 | 24.33 ± 4.82 | ||
| test, p | t = 1.486, p = 0.138 d = 0.10 | t = 0.317, p = 0.751 d = 0.02 | t = 0.082, p = 0.935 d = 0.01 | t = 0.050, p = 0.960 d = 0.00 | ||
| Taking the research methods course | Nursing | Yes | 19.89 ± 7.55 | 19.39 ± 7.89 | 23.76 ± 6.28 | 22.70 ± 5.77 |
| No | 19.08 ± 7.51 | 18.83 ± 7.96 | 23.16 ± 7.27 | 22.84 ± 6.68 | ||
| test, p | t = 0.858, p = 0.391 d = 0.11 | t = 0.568, p = 0.570 d = 0.07 | t = 0.725, p = 0.469 d = 0.09 | t = 0.171, p = 0.864 d = 0.02 | ||
| Medical | Yes | 19.65 ± 6.53 | 18.81 ± 6.32 | 25.60 ± 5.49 | 24.58 ± 4.55 | |
| No | 20.00 ± 6.56 | 19.64 ± 6.48 | 24.86 ± 5.39 | 24.08 ± 4.75 | ||
| test, p | t = 0.795, p = 0.427 d = 0.05 | t = 1.930, p = 0.054 d = 0.13 | t = 2.022, p = 0.043 d = 0.14 | t = 1.589, p = 0.112 d = 0.11 | ||
| Attendance at scientific meetings | Nursing | Yes | 19.25 ± 7.59 | 18.39 ± 7.64 | 24.12 ± 6.93 | 23.01 ± 6.13 |
| No | 20.07 ± 7.46 | 20.32 ± 8.18 | 22.70 ± 6.16 | 22.38 ± 6.08 | ||
| test, p | t = 0.888, p = 0.376 d = 0.11 | t = 2.003, p = 0.046 d = 0.25 | t = 1.749, p = 0.081 d = 0.22 | t = 0.831, p = 0.407 d = 0.10 | ||
| Medical | Yes | 19.63 ± 6.47 | 18.99 ± 6.39 | 25.68 ± 5.29 | 24.56 ± 4.49 | |
| No | 20.22 ± 6.69 | 19.70 ± 6.43 | 24.30 ± 5.67 | 23.87 ± 4.97 | ||
| test, p | t = 1.252, p = 0.211 d = 0.09 | t = 1.545, p = 0.123 d = 0.11 | t = 3.544, p < 0.001 d = 0.25 | t = 2.074, p = 0.038 d = 0.15 | ||
| Following scientific research | Nursing | Yes | 19.28 ± 7.88 | 18.37 ± 8.10 | 24.76 ± 7.22 | 23.13 ± 6.32 |
| No | 19.80 ± 7.31 | 19.40 ± 7.80 | 22.71 ± 6.13 | 22.50 ± 5.96 | ||
| test, p | t = 0.557, p = 0.578 d = 0.07 | t = 0.543, p = 0.588 d = 0.13 | t = 2.525, p = 0.012 d = 0.31 | t = 0.845, p = 0.399 d = 0.10 | ||
| Medical | Yes | 18.99 ± 6.37 | 18.63 ± 6.45 | 26.70 ± 4.97 | 24.79 ± 4.37 | |
| No | 20.61 ± 6.61 | 19.76 ± 6.33 | 23.86 ± 5.54 | 23.91 ± 4.88 | ||
| test, p | t = 3.707, p < 0.001 d = 0.25 | t = 2.630, p = 0.009 d = 0.18 | t = 8.040, p < 0.001 d = 0.54 | t = 2.838, p < 0.001 d = 0.19 | ||
| Following periodicals | Nursing | Yes | 18.89 ± 7.66 | 19.19 ± 7.88 | 23.74 ± 7.75 | 22.02 ± 7.06 |
| No | 19.90 ± 7.48 | 19.18 ± 7.94 | 23.45 ± 6.14 | 23.07 ± 5.63 | ||
| test, p | t = 1.019, p = 0.309 d = 0.13 | t = 0.005, p = 0.996 d = 0.00 | t = 0.301, p = 0.764 d = 0.04 | t = 1.198, p = 0.233 d = 0.18 | ||
| Medical | Yes | 18.44 ± 6.99 | 18.45 ± 7.11 | 27.67 ± 5.22 | 25.09 ± 4.54 | |
| No | 20.19 ± 6.38 | 19.42 ± 6.20 | 24.59 ± 5.33 | 24.14 ± 4.67 | ||
| test, p | t = 3.248, p = 0.001 d = 0.27 | t = 1.823, p = 0.069 d = 0.14 | t = 7.047, p < 0.001 d = 0.58 | t = 2.472, p = 0.014 d = 0.21 | ||
| Age (Years) (r, p) | Nursing | r = 0.013, p = 0.829 r²=0.000 |
r = 0.077, p = 0.202 r²=0.006 |
r = 0.022, p = 0.714 r²=0.001 |
r = 0.018, p = 0.767 r²=0.000 |
|
| Medical |
r = 0.003, p = 0.920 r²=0.000 |
r = 0.030, p = 0.369 r²=0.001 |
r = 0.004, p = 0.896 r²=0.000 |
r = 0.022, p = 0.522 r²=0.001 |
||
Bivariate comparisons are exploratory and intended to describe unadjusted associations; results should be interpreted cautiously due to multiple testing. Effect sizes are reported (Cohen’s d, partial η², r²) to support practical interpretation alongside p-values. Parametric tests were used when the normality and homogeneity assumptions were met; otherwise, nonparametric equivalents (Mann–Whitney U or Kruskal–Wallis) were applied
Values presented in bold indicate statistically significant differences between groups (p < 0.05)
Table 4.
Hierarchical linear regression models for SRAS subscales (UAR, NATSR, PATSR, PATR)
| Model | Block | Variables Entered | R | R² | Adj. R² | ΔR² | F change (df1, df2) | p (ΔF) | Durbin–Watson |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 (DV: UAR) | 1 | Faculty | 0.014 | 0.000 | -0.001 | 0.000 | 0.236 (1, 1161) | 0.627 | — |
| 2 | + Previous scientific research experience + Statistics course attendance + Research methods course attendance | 0.049 | 0.002 | -0.001 | 0.002 | 0.835 (3, 1158) | 0.475 | — | |
| 3 (Final) | + Participation in scientific meetings + Following scientific studies in the field + Following periodicals | 0.131 | 0.017 | 0.011 | 0.015 | 5.789 (3, 1155) | 0.001 | 1.900 | |
| Model 2 (DV: NATSR) | 1 | Faculty | 0.002 | 0.000 | -0.001 | 0.000 | 0.004 (1, 1161) | 0.950 | — |
| 2 | + Previous scientific research experience + Statistics course attendance + Research methods course attendance | 0.047 | 0.002 | -0.001 | 0.002 | 0.850 (3, 1158) | 0.467 | — | |
| 3 (Final) | + Participation in scientific meetings + Following scientific studies in the field + Following periodicals | 0.102 | 0.010 | 0.004 | 0.008 | 3.191 (3, 1155) | 0.023 | 1.883 | |
| Model 3 (DV: PATSR) | 1 | Faculty | 0.125 | 0.016 | 0.015 | 0.016 | 18.298 (1, 1161) | < 0.001 | — |
| 2 | + Previous scientific research experience + Statistics course attendance + Research methods course attendance | 0.160 | 0.026 | 0.022 | 0.010 | 3.988 (3, 1158) | 0.008 | — | |
| 3 (Final) | + Participation in scientific meetings + Following scientific studies in the field + Following periodicals | 0.283 | 0.080 | 0.074 | 0.054 | 22.766 (3, 1155) | < 0.001 | 2.054 | |
| Model 4 (DV: PATR) | 1 | Faculty | 0.133 | 0.018 | 0.017 | 0.018 | 20.856 (1, 1161) | < 0.001 | — |
| 2 | + Previous scientific research experience + Statistics course attendance + Research methods course attendance | 0.143 | 0.020 | 0.017 | 0.003 | 1.074 (3, 1158) | 0.359 | — | |
| 3 (Final) | + Participation in scientific meetings + Following scientific studies in the field + Following periodicals | 0.168 | 0.028 | 0.022 | 0.008 | 3.091 (3, 1155) | 0.026 | 2.022 |
R = multiple correlation coefficient; R² = explained variance; Adj. R² = adjusted R²; ΔR² = increase in explained variance at each block; F change = significance of R² change; Durbin–Watson reported for final models. Faculty coded as 0 = Nursing, 1 = Medicine
Regression analyses showed that research engagement was more strongly associated with positive-attitude subscales (PATSR, PATR), whereas negative-attitude subscales (UAR, NATSR) showed minimal associations. Model explanatory power was low (R² = 0.010–0.080), indicating limited predictive capacity (Table 4).
After adjustment, research engagement was associated with positive-attitude subscales (PATSR, PATR), whereas negative-attitude domains showed minimal associations. Faculty remained significant, but overall explanatory power was low (R² = 0.010–0.080), indicating limited predictive capacity (Table 5).
Table 5.
Final hierarchical regression models predicting SRAS subscales (n = 1,163)
| Outcome (DV) | Significant Predictors (Final Model) | B (95% CI) | p | Model R² |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UAR | Following scientific studies | 1.84 (0.53–3.14) | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Following periodicals | -1.80 (-3.31– -0.28) | 0.021 | ||
| NATSR | Following scientific studies | -1.60 (-3.00– -0.19) | 0.026 | 0.010 |
| Following periodicals | 1.85 (0.22–3.47) | 0.026 | ||
| PATSR | Faculty (Medicine vs. Nursing) | 0.86 (0.04–1.68) | 0.039 | 0.080 |
| Conducting research | 1.62 (0.71–2.53) | 0.001 | ||
| Research methods course | 1.18 (0.19–2.17) | 0.020 | ||
| Following scientific studies | 1.06 (0.02–2.09) | 0.045 | ||
| PATR | Faculty (Medicine vs. Nursing) | 0.79 (0.05–1.52) | 0.036 | 0.028 |
| Conducting research | 1.55 (0.73–2.36) | < 0.001 | ||
| Research methods course | 1.20 (0.30–2.09) | 0.009 | ||
| Following scientific studies | 1.08 (0.15–2.01) | 0.023 |
B = unstandardized coefficient; CI = confidence interval. Results shown for final hierarchical models (Block 3). Faculty coded as 0 = Nursing, 1 = Medicine
Only significant predictors (p < 0.05) are displayed
Discussion
Interpretation should focus on subscale-specific and regression-based findings rather than general comparisons. The results indicate that differences in research attitudes are more strongly associated with research engagement and curricular exposure than with discipline alone.
Prior evidence indicates that structured research exposure, mentorship, and institutional research culture are key determinants of research attitudes among health students [18, 21, 22]. Consistent with this, the higher positive-attitude scores observed among medical students may reflect greater access to research opportunities rather than inherent disciplinary differences. In contrast, barriers in nursing education—such as clinical workload, limited mentorship, and restricted research opportunities—may constrain engagement and contribute to less favourable attitudes [5, 10, 12, 23]. These findings suggest that between-discipline differences are more likely driven by variations in exposure and engagement rather than discipline itself and should be interpreted cautiously given the cross-sectional design.
Previous evidence shows variation in research engagement and attitudes across disciplines. Students often report more favorable attitudes toward research than practicing nurses, possibly reflecting differences in role demands and opportunity structures [24]. In nursing education, barriers such as clinical workload, limited mentorship, and restricted research opportunities may constrain engagement, whereas structured research exposure is associated with more favorable attitudes [5, 10, 12, 14, 23]. Although most studies report similar patterns [9, 25, 26], some evidence suggests that nursing students may still show reluctance toward research, indicating that structural constraints may limit sustained engagement [14].
Evidence consistently shows that structured research learning opportunities are associated with more favorable research attitudes and engagement. In both nursing and medical education, research training, participation in scientific activities, and exposure to research methodology courses are linked to higher motivation and competence [17, 22, 23, 27, 28]. Variations across studies suggest that these attitudes are shaped more by institutional and curricular factors than by discipline alone [15, 16, 19, 29–34].
Higher academic levels were generally associated with more favorable research attitudes, likely reflecting increased exposure to research activities [13, 18, 21, 26, 35]. However, inconsistent findings across studies suggest that attitudes are shaped not only by academic level but also by contextual factors such as curriculum structure, mentorship, and prior research exposure [5, 10, 18, 21, 27, 28].
Consistent with this, engagement in research-related activities—including research training, participation in scientific events, and exposure to research methodology—was associated with higher motivation, competence, and more favorable attitudes across both nursing and medical education [17, 22, 23, 27, 28, 36–39]. In nursing education, structured activities such as research courses, journal follow-up, and participation in scientific meetings appear to support research engagement and positive attitudes toward evidence-based practice [22, 28, 39].
Regression findings indicate a consistent pattern: positive-attitude subscales (PATSR, PATR) were more strongly associated with research engagement and curricular exposure than with discipline, whereas negative-attitude domains (UAR, NATSR) showed minimal differences after adjustment. This suggests that the apparent advantage among medical students reflects greater exposure to research-related activities rather than inherent disciplinary differences. In contrast, less favorable patterns among nursing students may be linked to contextual constraints such as clinical workload and limited research opportunities [12, 14]. Overall, differences between disciplines appear to be driven by modifiable structural and educational factors. However, the low explained variance indicates limited predictive capacity, and findings should be interpreted as modest, context-dependent associations rather than causal relationships.
Limitations of the study
Several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the single-institution design limits the generalizability of the findings to other educational contexts with different curricular structures and research environments. In addition, the overall response rate (31.2%) may introduce nonresponse bias, as students with greater interest in research may have been more likely to participate, potentially leading to an overestimation of positive attitudes.
Second, the cross-sectional design precludes causal inference, and observed associations may reflect selection effects. Third, the use of self-reported measures may introduce social desirability and recall bias. Fourth, unmeasured variables—such as mentorship quality, access to research opportunities, academic performance, and clinical experience—may have contributed to residual confounding despite multivariable adjustment.
Furthermore, the unequal group sizes between medical and nursing students may have influenced the precision of between-group comparisons and the stability of regression estimates, particularly for the smaller nursing subgroup. In addition, multiple unadjusted comparisons in the bivariate analyses may increase the risk of type I error; therefore, these findings were interpreted as exploratory, with primary emphasis placed on multivariable results.
Finally, the low explained variance of the regression models indicates limited predictive capacity, suggesting that important determinants of research attitudes were not captured. Therefore, the findings should be interpreted cautiously, particularly with regard to generalizability and predictive strength.
Conclusions and recommendations
This study shows that differences in research attitudes between medical and nursing students are more strongly associated with research engagement and curricular exposure than with discipline alone. Positive-attitude domains were consistently linked to active research involvement and structured learning opportunities, whereas negative-attitude domains showed minimal differences after adjustment.
These findings highlight the importance of integrating structured, mentored research experiences into undergraduate health curricula to strengthen positive research attitudes. However, given the relatively low explained variance of the models, the findings should be interpreted as partial and context-dependent associations. Future research using longitudinal and multi-center designs may help further clarify these relationships.
Supplementary Information
Acknowledgements
We would like to extend our sincere gratitude to the students who participated in this study. Their voluntary involvement and valuable contributions played a crucial role in the successful completion of the research.
Authors’ contributions
Study conception and design: BÇ, SÖ, EÇT Data collection: BÇ, SÖ, EÇT Data analysis and interpretation: SÖ Drafting of the article: SÖ, EÇT Manuscript writing: BÇ, SÖ Critical revision of the article: BÇ, SÖ, EÇT All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This study received ethical approval dated 09/12/2024 and numbered 2024-12/2 from the Atatürk University Faculty of Nursing Ethics Committee. Prior to data collection, necessary institutional permissions were obtained from the relevant faculties. Informed consent was secured from all participants who voluntarily agreed to participate in the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Van Wicklin SA. The 2025 International Council of Nurses Definitions of Nursing and Nurse: A Global Blueprint for Practice. Plast Aesthetic Nurs. 2025;45(4):200–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Barrios-González EE, et al. Attitude Toward Research in Nursing Interns and Medical Specialty Residents in a Pediatric Hospital in Mexico. Nursing Forum. Wiley Online Library; 2025.
- 3.Trujillo JA, Ricardez AA, Díaz DV. Actitud hacia la investigación científica de estudiantes de enfermería. CuidArte. 2021;4(7):22–35. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Ross JG, Burrell SA. Nursing students’ attitudes toward research: An integrative review. Nurse Educ Today. 2019;82:79–87. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Almarwani AM. Factors influencing undergraduate and newly graduated nursing students’ competence and attitudes toward nursing research: a structural equation modeling analysis. BMC Nurs. 2025;24(1):585. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Al-Duhoun AH, et al. Exploring Jordanian nurses’ attitudes toward conducting nursing research: cross-sectional study from Jordan. Front Med. 2025;12:1646739. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Moya-Salazar J, et al. Favorable Attitudes Toward Research in Nursing Students During Internship: A Cross-Sectional Study in Peru. SAGE Open Nurs. 2023;9:23779608231206776. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Chang C-Y, et al. Directions of the 100 most cited nursing student education research: A bibliometric and co-citation network analysis. Nurse Educ Today. 2021;96:104645. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Long NH, et al. Current status of scientific research of nursing students at Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy. J Med Pharm. 2023;13:48–9. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Oducado RMF. Factors affecting nursing students’ attitude towards research: a survey in a Philippine higher education institution. Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Keperawatan Indonesia, 2021. 11(01).
- 11.YILMAZ D et al. Awareness and Attitudes of Nursing Students on Research, Advancements and Postgraduate Education. Black Sea Journal of Health Science: pp. 29–30.
- 12.Çağlar M, Saray B, Şengül D. Hemşirelik Öğrencilerinin Araştırma Yapma ve Sonuçlarının Kullanımında Karşılaştığı Engeller. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Dergisi. 2020;7(1):41–7. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Ünver S, et al. Attitude of nursing students toward scientific research: a cross-sectional study in Turkey. J Nurs Res. 2018;26(5):356–61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Yılmaz D, İflazoğlu B, Yılmaz DU. İntörn hemşirelik öğrencilerinin bilimsel araştırma yapmaya yönelik tutumlarının belirlenmesi. Ordu Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Çalışmaları Dergisi. 2020;3(1):27–35. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Karaibrahimoğlu A, Karaoğlu N. Tıp Öğrencilerinin İstatistik ve Bilimsel Araştırmaya Yönelik Kaygı ve Tutumları. Med J Suleyman Demirel Univ. 2018;25(4):420–8. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Sobczuk P, et al. Are medical students interested in research?–students’ attitudes towards research. Ann Med. 2022;54(1):1538–47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Çelen R. Hemşirelik öğrencilerinin kanıta dayalı hemşireliğe yönelik tutumlarının belirlenmesi. Sürekli Tıp Eğitimi Dergisi. 2018;27(2):99–106. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Alyousefi N et al. How do medical students perceive their research experiences and associated challenges? Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 2023: pp. 9–20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 19.Meraj L, et al. Perceptions and attitudes towards research amongst medical students at Shifa College of Medicine. JPMA. 2016;66(2):165–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Korkmaz Ö, Şahin A, Yeşil R. Bilimsel araştırmaya yönelik tutum ölçeği geçerlilik ve güvenirlik çalışması. İlköğretim Online. 2011;10(3):961–73. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Abusamak M, et al. Knowledge, attitudes, practices and barriers of medical research among undergraduate medical students in Jordan: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24(1):23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Vujaklija A, et al. Can teaching research methodology influence students’ attitude toward science? Cohort study and nonrandomized trial in a single medical school. J Investig Med. 2010;58(2):282–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Yılmaz D, et al. Hemşirelik Öğrencilerinin Araştırma, Gelişmelere ve Lisansüstü Eğitime Yönelik Farkındalık ve Tutumları. Black Sea J Health Sci. 2023;6(3):360–9. [Google Scholar]
- 24.Karaahmetoğlu GU, Kutahyalioglu NS. Registered Nurses’ and nursing students’ attitudes towards scientific research: A cross-sectional study. J Nursology. 2024;27(1):79–87. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Gürdoğan EP, Kınıcı E, Aksoy B. Hemşirelik öğrencilerinin araştırmaya, gelişmelere yönelik farkındalık ve tutumları ile akademik motivasyon düzeyleri arasındaki ilişki. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi. 2021;11(2):339–47. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Halabi JO. Attitudes of Saudi nursing students toward nursing research. Saudi J Health Sci. 2016;5(3):118–24. [Google Scholar]
- 27.Ommering BW, et al. Academic success experiences: promoting research motivation andSelf-Efficacy beliefs among medical students. Teach Learn Med. 2021;33(4):423–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Si J. Course-based research experience of undergraduate medical students through project-based learning. Korean J Med Educ. 2020;32(1):47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Gamsızkan Z, et al. Tıp Fakültesi Öğrencilerinin Bilimsel Araştırmalara Yönelik Tutumları. Harran Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi. 2022;19(1):116–9. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Göksel AG, Yıldız L. Üniversite öğrencilerinin bilimsel araştırmaya yönelik tutumları: Spor Bilimleri Fakültesi örneği. Eurasian Res Sport Sci. 2021;6(1):1–14. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Hernández R, et al. Index of Undergraduate Students’ Attitude towards scientific research: a study in Peru and Spain. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia. 2021;10(3):416–27. [Google Scholar]
- 32.İlhan A, Çelik HC, Aslan A. Üniversite öğrencilerinin bilimsel araştırmaya yönelik tutumlarının incelenmesi. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2016;17(2):141–56. [Google Scholar]
- 33.Miller JD, et al. The development of attitudes toward science and technology: a longitudinal analysis of Generation X. Sci Public Policy. 2025;52(1):16–31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Shah SMM et al. Grooming future physician-scientists: evaluating the impact of research motivations, practices, and perceived barriers towards the uptake of an academic career among medical students. Cureus, 2017. 9(12). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 35.Kartal YA, Hızlıol B. Ebelik öğrencilerinin bilimsel araştırmalara yönelik kaygı ve tutumlarının belirlenmesi. Sağlık Akademisyenleri Dergisi. 2021;8(2):126–32. [Google Scholar]
- 36.Can R, Tambağ H, Sürmeli FC. Öğrencilerin Hemşirelikte Araştırmalara Yönelik Tutum ve Farkındalıkları. Samsun Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi. 2020;5(2):207–13. [Google Scholar]
- 37.Çelik S. Hemşirelik öğrencilerinin bilimsel araştırmaya yönelik kaygı ve tutumlarının belirlenmesi. Sağlık Bilimleri ve Meslekleri Dergisi. 2014;1(2):23–31. [Google Scholar]
- 38.Kes D, Şahin ÖÖ. Hemşirelik öğrencilerinin bilimsel araştırma yapmaya yönelik kaygı ve tutumlarının belirlenmesi. Online Turkish J Health Sci. 2019;4(1):68–78. [Google Scholar]
- 39.Hasabo EA, et al. Statistics for undergraduate medical students in Sudan: associated factors for using statistical analysis software and attitude toward statistics among undergraduate medical students in Sudan. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):889. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.