ArticleBMC nursing2025
Structuring higher-order thinking: a national analysis of learning outcomes in Swedish undergraduate nursing thesis courses.
Article in BMC nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigher-order thinking is a central objective in nursing education, particularly within thesis courses where students are expected to demonstrate analytical reasoning and scholarly autonomy.
aimThe aim of this study is to examine the structure, cognitive complexity, and knowledge domain classification of learning outcomes in degree project courses within Swedish undergraduate nursing education.
methodsThis national cross-sectional study examined the cognitive structure of 236 intended learning outcomes derived from 23 universities and university colleagues offering undergraduate nursing thesis courses across all Swedish higher education institutions (N = 25). Active verbs were extracted and analyzed using manifest content analysis, descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney U tests, and Spearman's rank correlation.
resultsUsing Bloom's revised taxonomy as the analytical framework, we identified 58 unique active verbs. All institutions included outcomes at multiple taxonomic levels, with "Analyzing" and "Applying" most frequently used. In contrast, "Understanding" was rarely represented, despite its foundational role in cognitive progression. Lexical diversity and alignment with higher-order thinking varied significantly across institutions. One-third of the verbs were not included in Bloom's taxonomy, highlighting the interpretive challenges in applying taxonomic models to curriculum analysis.
conclusionThese findings suggest divergent pedagogical assumptions underlying outcome design and underscore the need for more coherent, epistemologically informed approaches to ensure thesis courses truly support academic development. The results may inform quality assurance practices and contribute to ongoing debates about the role of research training in undergraduate nursing education.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.