STUDENT EVALUATION OF CLINICAL EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT

number of students reporting that no resource person was assigned them was higher than
expected. In addition, same-level students from the same institution did not always respond
consistently to this item, when there most likely should have been consistency in student
experience with a resource person. Students may have been somewhat confused about whether
the item was addressing formal assignment to a resource person, or informal identification of the
staff person who was assigned the same patient(s) as a possible resource for the student. In
future instrument revisions, an additional response option could be included, indicating that no
formal assignment to a preceptor / resource person was made, but that the student worked
informally with the staff assigned to provide care for the patient to whom the student was
assigned.
During data analysis, a minor inconvenience was identified related to layout of the scaled
portion of the inventory. The point value assigned to the Likert agree to disagree scale made
data somewhat more difficult to interpret, as a lower point value represented a more positive
perception of the learning environment. Generally, a higher point value represents a more
positive or desired state. In the future, the point values for the scale could be reversed, so that
the “strongly agree” response is assigned a point value of “5” rather than “1”. The result would
be a higher point value indicating a more positive student perception of the learning
environment, which seems a bit more logical.
Four reverse-coded items were included in the forced-choice portion of the inventory, for
the purpose of minimizing response bias. These items did not seem to present a problem to
respondents and mean scores indicate that students responded appropriately to the items (see
Table 2 in the results section). Some degree of reverse coding of items will be maintained in
future inventory revisions.
99