背景:批判性思考是護理人員的重要護理能力之一，然而與臨床護理人員批判性思考能力相關的實證資料非常少，多數為護生方面的研究報告。目的:探討臨床護理人員之批判性思考能力及其影響因素。方法:為橫斷式、描述性之研究設計；以南部某醫學中心護理人員為對象，採結構式問卷「批判性思考能力量表」共收案570位，以SPSS 12.0 for Windows進行描述性和單因子變異數分析。結果⑴護理人員的批判性思考能力呈中等程度，指標分數為66.9分，其中以解釋能力最高，其次是驗證評鑑能力，以推論能力最差。⑵護理人員的年齡、工作年資、教育程度及層級職稱於批判性思考能力呈顯著性差異；年齡31－ 40歲和大於40歲者之批判性思考能力分別高於20－ 30歲的護理人員；工作年資5.1－ 10年、10.1－ 15年、15.1－ 20年以及20年以上者，其批判性思考能力均分別高於工作年資未滿1年、1－ 2年以及2.1－ 5年的護理人員；碩士教育程度之批判性思考能力的得分高於大學及專科的護理人員；N2、N3 及N4 層級以上之批判性思考能力高於N和N1 層級者，N4 層級以上之批判性思考能力高於N2 層級者，N1 層級之批判性思考能力高於N層級職稱的護理人員。結　論／實務應用可作為教育界在護理課程之規劃及教學方式的參考、醫院行政主管於護理人員在職教育之課程規劃及新進人員訓練的參考。

Background: Critical thinking (CT) is an important professional competency for nurses. However, evidence-based reports on CT amongst clinical nurses are few, and most address CT in nursing students only.
Purpose: This study explores critical thinking abilities in clinical nurses.Methods: Researchers conducted a cross-sectional, correlational study using the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA). This study recruited 570 clinical nurses working at a medical center in southern Taiwan.Results: (1) The critical thinking ability of clinical nurses was found to be “moderate”, with an index score of 66.9.The highest WGCTA subscale score was that for “interpretation ability and the lowest was that for “inference ability.(2) The study found significant differences between critical thinking ability and the variables of age, working years,education level and position/title. Scheffe’s post hoc analysis indicated that the critical thinking ability of nurses in the
31－40 year and over 40 year old age range to be significantly higher than those in the 20－30 year old range. The critical thinking ability of nurses in the 5.1－10, 10.1－15, 15.1－20, and over 20 years working years categories all ranked higher than those with less than 5 years of work experience. The critical thinking ability of nurses with master’s degrees was significantly higher than those with either a bachelor’s or diploma degree. The critical thinking ability of nurses at levels N2, N3 and N4 was higher than those at either the N or N1 levels, with N4 higher than N2 and N1 higher than N.Conclusions: Study findings may serve as a reference to improve nursing education curricula and teaching strategies.
Findings may also be used to improve the effectiveness of nurseorientation and on-the-job training programs.