Effect of AI Critical Appraisal Training on Critical Thinking in Nursing Students
ClinicalTrials.gov Studies
Summary
NIH registered a new cluster randomized controlled trial (NCT07538986) evaluating an AI Critical Appraisal Training method against traditional case-based learning for undergraduate nursing students. The study measures critical thinking disposition, AI literacy, and clinical reasoning skills pre- and post-intervention, with no stated compliance obligations for external parties.
“During the research process, if the participants felt any discomfort, they could immediately request to stop the research and withdraw from the study.”
What changed
NIH published a clinical trial registration for a cluster randomized controlled trial examining the effect of AI Critical Appraisal Training on nursing students' critical thinking, AI literacy, and clinical reasoning. The experimental group received AI-assisted case analysis with error annotation; the control group received equivalent traditional case-based instruction. Data collection occurred at pre-test and post-test intervals using validated instruments.
This is an informational registry entry with no compliance obligations or regulatory implications for external parties. Healthcare education researchers and nursing programs may monitor the published findings for insights into AI-enhanced pedagogy.
Archived snapshot
Apr 20, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
Effect of AI Critical Appraisal Training on Critical Thinking in Nursing Students
N/A NCT07538986 Kind: NA Apr 20, 2026
Abstract
This study is a cluster randomized controlled trial aimed at evaluating the impact of the "AI Critical Thinking Training" teaching method on the critical thinking, AI literacy, and clinical reasoning abilities of undergraduate nursing students. Random allocation methods (such as the coin-tossing method) were used to randomly assign eligible classes as a whole to either the experimental group or the control group. The experimental group received AI critical thinking training (using AI to analyze cases and annotate their errors), while the control group received the same amount of time in traditional case-based teaching. The research tools included the Chinese version of the Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory, the AI Literacy Scale, the Clinical Reasoning Scale, and a standardized case analysis scoring sheet. Data collection was conducted twice, before the experiment (pre-test) and after the experiment (post-test). The protocol was based on mature educational theories, with a clear process and extremely low risk, demonstrating good scientific and feasibility. During the research process, if the participants felt any discomfort, they could immediately request to stop the research and withdraw from the study.
Conditions: Healthy
Interventions: AI Critical Appraisal Training, Traditional Case-Based Learning
Related changes
Get daily alerts for ClinicalTrials.gov Studies
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Source
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from NIH.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when ClinicalTrials.gov Studies publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.