ABSTRACT
Quality of life (QOL) is presented as a global, unidimensional, and subjective assessment of one's life. This study examined the impact of perceived health status, hope, and optimism on QOL in 93 women after suffering a cardiac event. Construct validity was examined by estimating a model where QOL was measured with four indicators, and perceived health was measured with the SF-36 Health Survey. Hope was measured with the Herth Hope Index and dispositional optimism was measured with the Life Orientation Test. The unidimensionality of QOL and its response to health status, hope, and optimism were tested. Fit indices suggested that the theoretical relations posited were compatible with the data, (chi 2(42) = 44.125, p = .382, RMSEA = .0001, GFI = .942). The model explained 66% of the variance in QOL. Modeling suggested the presence of a complex latent concept composed of hope and optimism that influenced QOL.
Subject(s)
Coronary Disease/rehabilitation , Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation/rehabilitation , Myocardial Revascularization/rehabilitation , Nursing Assessment/methods , Quality of Life , Aged , Coronary Disease/psychology , Coronary Disease/therapy , Female , Florida , Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation/psychology , Humans , Likelihood Functions , Middle Aged , Models, Psychological , Multivariate Analysis , Myocardial Revascularization/psychology , Reproducibility of ResultsABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the attainment of critical thinking skills of students before and after curriculum revision of a baccalaureate nursing program. The California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) was used to measure the critical thinking ability of the students at program entry, midpoint, and at exist. The sample consisted of three cohorts of students: cohort 1 (n = 55) was the baseline class before curriculum revision, whereas cohorts 2 (n = 55) and 3 (n = 73) were the first two classes to experience the revised curriculum. The results revealed that cohort 2 achieved significantly higher critical thinking scores than the baseline cohort. Cohort 2 also improved dramatically on all subscales from test 1 to test 3. However, cohort 3 failed to demonstrate improved critical thinking scores over time. Findings have implications for measuring critical thinking.