STUDENT EVALUATION OF CLINICAL EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

consequences of use of data resulting from the SECEE instrument are: (a) identification of clinical sites perceived by students as providing a positive learning experience, and sites perceived as providing a less positive experience; (b) provision of feedback to clinical agency facilitators related to student perception of their experiences at the site; and (c) revision, adaptation, or alteration of clinical sites and instruction practices used for the undergraduate nursing program. Unintended, but possible consequences of data use include: (a) conflict between students or faculty and clinical agency staff as a result of negative student evaluation and (b) discipline of agency staff or nursing faculty who are evaluated unfavorably by students. It is the investigator’s opinion that the use of data resulting from instrument administration should not result in negative consequences, if consideration is given to assure constructive communication of results to students, faculty, and clinical agencies. Revisions to Improve Data Gathering and Analysis. A question which arose during revision of the scaled items of the original SECEE inventory related to the benefit of inclusion of response option number “6” (can’t answer). The option was included in instrument revision, with the hope that the analysis of data gathered would either confirm that the option provided helpful information or demonstrate that it was unnecessary. Results of the analysis supported inclusion of the “can’t answer” response as an option for the forced-choice items. Student explanations for the “can’t answer” response indicated that being unable to answer was related to a lack of exposure to the particular issue they were asked to evaluate within the identified clinical site, rather than to lack of clarity of the inventory item as it was written. Students provided logical reasons for the inability to answer particular items, such as there being no other students at the clinical site, or not having been assigned a resource nurse at the site. The inclusion of the sixth response option provided additional valuable information about student experiences and 96
also may have averted a higher incidence of items left blank by respondents. There was a very low incidence of missing data for the scaled inventory items—only 17 missing responses to the forced-choice items were found for the 319 completed end of semester inventories. It should be of benefit to continue to provide the “can’t answer” response option in instrument revisions, at least until trends can be determined for items having frequent responses of “can’t answer” and for items left blank. Eventually this option might be changed to “no opportunity to experience” or “not applicable” A few issues of concern were noted in review of the data resulting from the demographic items within the inventory. Student identification of their completed inventories was missing in 35 cases. The missing data may have been the result of student fear for loss of anonymity, particularly when there were few students evaluating a particular clinical site. The method of inventory identification (first two letters of mother’s first name and last two digits of the student’s social security number) was chosen in order to protect student anonymity, so a lower incidence of missing data was expected. However, the only analysis affected by missing identification was the correlation of individual student responses to the pretest and end of semester inventories. This issue may continue to be a problem if further instrument testing involves comparison of student responses at different points in time. Missing data and incomplete responses were also a problem for the clinical site identification item. Twenty percent of the end of semester inventories and seventeen percent of the pretest inventories were missing clinical site identification. This resulted in the exclusion of these inventories from the comparative analysis of scale scores according to clinical sites. It was interesting to note that in the analysis of the original SECEE inventory there was not a problem with missing clinical site identification. However, the original instrument did not request student 97
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 and 100: end of semester perception of the l
Page 101 and 102: minimal grouping of sites was requi
Page 103: the instrument, the investigator fe
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?