STUDENT EVALUATION OF CLINICAL EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

having been assigned any resource person. Only two respondents reported being assigned a non-nurse resource person. Missing data. Only two of the demographic items contained a frequency of missing data worthy of concern. The first was the student ID number. Thirty-five students did not identify their inventories with the first two letters of their mother’s first name and the last two digits of their social security number. This presented a problem only when attempting to match pretest and end of semester inventories for test-retest reliability determination. The second demographic item with a frequency of missing data worthy of concern was clinical site identification. Sixty- six respondents to the end of semester inventory and 22 respondents to the pretest inventory did not identify the clinical site they were evaluating. Missing data were not evenly distributed across institutions. All students at SMW institution completed the site identification item for both the pretest and end of semester inventories. There were 40 cases of missing site identification data from the end of semester inventories at LMA and 9 cases from the pretest inventories. At SMA, 26 students completing the end of semester inventory and 9 students completing the pretest inventory failed to identify the clinical site they were evaluating. The missing site identifications resulted in exclusion of these inventories from any analysis using clinical site as a study variable. Data from the forced-choice portion of the inventory contained few occurrences of missing data (items left blank by respondents). Of the 319 completed end of semester inventories, only 17 “open” cells were identified. No more than three respondents left any particular item blank. The pre-test data contained only six open cells, with no more than one respondent leaving any item blank. 48
Study participants responded “can’t answer” to inventory items with a higher frequency than that of leaving items blank. Of the 319 completed end of semester inventories, there were 183 occurrences of response number “6” (can’t answer). These occurrences were not evenly distributed. Of the seven items with a frequency of ten or more can’t answer responses (numbers 2, 5, 8, 9, 21, 22, and 28), four dealt with preceptor or resource nurse issues and three contained issues related to other students in the clinical learning environment. Thirty-nine explanations for “can’t answer” responses were provided by students, accounting for 21.3% of the “can’t answer” responses. Student explanations for the four preceptor/resource nurse items with highest frequency of “can’t answer” responses were all similar, stating that there had been no preceptor or resource nurse assigned to the student. Student explanations for “can’t answer” responses to items related to other students at the clinical site were also similar, citing the absence of other students at the particular clinical site. Overall, the total number of student responses that were either open or entered as “can’t answer” was relatively low, representing less than two percent of total possible responses to the instrument. Therefore, the impact on data analysis was assumed to be negligible. The pretest inventory data contained only six open cells among the 127 completed instruments and 61 “can’t answer” cells. Again less than two percent of total possible data was either missing or coded as “can’t answer”. Descriptive Statistics Descriptive analysis of forced-choice items revealed that overall item means varied from 1.70 to 2.62 on the end of semester inventory administration, indicating that respondents evaluated the clinical sites positively to some degree (bear in mind that a lower item or scale score indicates a positive evaluation of that aspect of the clinical learning environment). 49
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: Descriptive Analysis Data from the
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 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?