STUDENT EVALUATION OF CLINICAL EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT

Descriptive Analysis
Data from the forced-choice inventory items were entered according to the coded
responses (1-5) with responses of 6 (can’t answer) coded as “99” and removed from the data set
prior to parametric analysis. Student explanations as to why they could not answer a particular
forced-choice item were reviewed for thematic content, in order to determine if instrument
revisions would address the situations identified.
Prior to data entry, scores for items 9, 11, 21, and 25 were reverse-coded, as they
reflected negative characteristics of the learning environment. Prior to analysis, respondents’
“scale scores” were calculated by adding the scores for the items within each scale (see
Appendix B for a list of items within each scale). Data analysis was focused on determination of
SECEE inventory validity and reliability.
The 319 end of semester study participants fairly evenly represented the three student
levels, with 100 sophomore students, 94 juniors, and 122 seniors. Fifty sophomores, 40 juniors
and 37 seniors completed the pretest inventory. The vast majority of participants in both the
pretest and end of semester inventory (N = 297 and 120, respectively) were generic BSN
students. Only 15 students (4 students in the pretest group) reported being enrolled in RN to
BSN programs.
As expected, the majority of participants in both the pretest and end of semester
inventory reported being assigned a staff nurse at the clinical site (N = 63 and 159, respectively).
Fewer students (N = 21 and 59) reported being assigned an RN preceptor for the clinical rotation.
An unexpected finding was the number of students (N = 37 for pretest inventory and 86 for end
of semester inventory) who reported working only with their instructor at the clinical site, not
47