STUDENT EVALUATION OF CLINICAL EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

differences between academic ranks of students in all but one scale score at SMA. However, at SMW institution, only one scale score (Department Atmosphere) was found to have significant differences according to student academic level. The ANOVA results indicate that the SECEE instrument did detect differences between student levels, but that the differences found were not consistent across institutions. This finding was not unexpected, as the nursing programs at LMA, SMA, and SMW have institution-specific programs of study and clinical foci for each academic level. An interesting sidelight is that when differences were detected between levels of students, the junior students appeared to perceive their clinical education environments less positively than did the sophomore or senior students (see Table 10 in the Results section). These findings present another possible topic for research, beyond that of instrument validation. It may be of interest to find out why students at one level perceive their environments more or less positively than students at other levels. Scale score differences were also found between students evaluating different clinical site groups at the two small institutions (SMA and SMW). The clinical sites at the smaller institutions required much less grouping prior to ANOVA analysis, and thus clinical groups were most likely more homogeneous. No scale score differences were found between site groups at LMA institution; however, the 35 different clinical sites evaluated by LMA students were collapsed into 10 site groups, prior to analysis. This forced grouping meant that as many as seven distinct clinical learning sites were grouped together for analysis. Although the sites were grouped according to the type of nursing care provided at the facility, the nature of the learning environment (facilities, equipment, staff, and patient population) may have been very different. Thus, student evaluations may have varied greatly within one site group. It is encouraging to note that differences between clinical site groups were found for the institutions for which 92
minimal grouping of sites was required. In the future, it would be beneficial to limit grouping of clinical sites as much as possible. Those sites with only one or two students could be analyzed over a period of several semesters, allowing collection of data from several students experiencing the same clinical learning site, without having to group sites together for analysis. In addition to detecting differences in inventory scale scores between student sub- populations, the instrument was able to differentiate between the same students’ evaluations of different clinical sites. For those students at LMA who evaluated two different clinical sites on the pretest and end of semester inventories (n = 60), there were no significant correlations between the scale scores for the two inventories. This result indicates that individual students do evaluate distinct clinical sites differently when using the SECEE inventory. The above results appear to support construct validity of the SECEE instrument. One would expect different student populations (i.e. different academic levels of students) to evaluate clinical learning environments differently. One would also expect individual students to evaluate distinct clinical sites somewhat differently, and to evaluate the same clinical site similarly on two separate occasions within a limited time frame. Finally, an instrument would be expected to identify differences between distinct clinical sites, in terms of student perceptions of the learning environments. The SECEE inventory was found to meet all of these construct validity expectations. The lack of differentiation between clinical site groups at LMA may have been largely due to the extensive grouping of distinct sites having only one or two student respondents, prior to analysis. 93
Page 1 and 2:
STUDENT EVALUATION OF CLINICAL EDUC
Page 3 and 4:
significant for any of the four sca
Page 5 and 6:
Table of Contents List of Tables vi
Page 7 and 8:
Tables List of Tables 1. Identifica
Page 9 and 10:
Student Evaluation of Clinical Educ
Page 11 and 12:
development of different skills and
Page 13 and 14:
Examples of applied learning enviro
Page 15 and 16:
hear about a topic, but must contac
Page 17 and 18:
with others and participation in a
Page 19 and 20:
ideal applied learning environment
Page 21 and 22:
contingencies present in the learni
Page 23 and 24:
that many aspects of the clinical e
Page 25 and 26:
The second instrument-based clinica
Page 27 and 28:
Empirical Investigations of the Tra
Page 29 and 30:
etween 18 and 31% of variance in sc
Page 31 and 32:
.32 for the student actual form and
Page 33 and 34:
significantly differentiated betwee
Page 35 and 36:
were lower than preferred scores fo
Page 37 and 38:
Table 1. Identification and Frequen
Page 39 and 40:
Although the above-mentioned learni
Page 41 and 42:
The original two-page SECEE instrum
Page 43 and 44:
espondents. Analysis of item respon
Page 45 and 46:
sites having few respondents. If in
Page 47 and 48:
Chapter 3 Methods The following sec
Page 49 and 50: added, based on the applied cogniti
Page 51 and 52: Limiting the number of items while
Page 53 and 54: clinical sites, for the purposes of
Page 55 and 56: Descriptive Analysis Data from the
Page 57 and 58: Study participants responded “can
Page 59 and 60: Table 2 SECEE Inventory Forced-choi
Page 61 and 62: Item 22. Students helped each other
Page 63 and 64: Table 3 Scale Means and Standard De
Page 65 and 66: sites more favorably (M = 11.81) th
Page 67 and 68: Table 6 Reliability Coefficients fo
Page 69 and 70: assists in reducing the confounding
Page 71 and 72: Table 8 ANOVA Results, Student Leve
Page 73 and 74: Table 10 Scale Score Means and Stan
Page 75 and 76: Sophomore SMA students rated the Le
Page 77 and 78: Support at site group 5 more positi
Page 79 and 80: Table 12 Scale Score Means and Stan
Page 81 and 82: SMA 14 n = 7 Site Group Comm. / 17
Page 83 and 84: Analysis of Narrative Inventory Dat
Page 85 and 86: Analysis of the narrative student c
Page 87 and 88: Student comments reflecting scaled
Page 89 and 90: Table 17 Frequencies of Student Res
Page 91 and 92: Table 18 Frequencies of Student Res
Page 93 and 94: Chapter 5 Discussion and Conclusion
Page 95 and 96: their own clients as a hindrance to
Page 97 and 98: the Department Atmosphere scale, an
Page 99: end of semester perception of the l
Page 103 and 104: the instrument, the investigator fe
Page 105 and 106: also may have averted a higher inci
Page 107 and 108: number of students reporting that n
Page 109 and 110: 6. Add a fifth response item to the
Page 111 and 112: with individual patients, and are a
Page 113 and 114: separately at each item pertaining
Page 115 and 116: Conclusion The applied learning asp
Page 117 and 118: References American Association of
Page 119 and 120: Fraser, B. J. & O’Brien, P. O. (1
Page 121 and 122: Reilly, D. E. & Oerman, M. H. (1992
Page 123 and 124: Appendix A Original SECEE Instrumen
Page 125 and 126: Key: 1 = very seldom 2 = sometimes
Page 127 and 128: Inventory Scale Item Number Communi
Page 129 and 130: Appendix C Revised SECEE Instrument
Page 131 and 132: Key: 1 = Strongly Agree 2 = Agree 3
Page 133 and 134: Key: 1 = Strongly Agree 2 = Agree 3
Page 135 and 136: Table of Specifications for Student
Page 137 and 138: Appendix E 129
Page 139 and 140: Appendix F 131
Page 141 and 142: KARI SAND-JECKLIN 2003 White Oak Dr
Page 143 and 144: Staff Nurse: employed part-time at
show all

STUDENT EVALUATION OF CLINICAL EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?