STUDENT EVALUATION OF CLINICAL EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Review of the analyses indicated that the overall alpha for the entire instrument was quite high--.94 for both LMA and SMA institutions and .89 for SMA. The reliability of the instrument as a whole was highest with all items included. Review of scale reliabilities by institution indicated that reliability for the Learning Opportunities Scale might be slightly higher with the item “I felt overwhelmed by the demands of my role in this environment” taken out of the scale. Removal of this item results in reliabilities of .02 to .03 higher for all institutions. Otherwise, reliability alphas were highest with all items included in each of the four scales. There were only two items for which correlations of individual items with the scale were below .35 for more than one institution: (1) the previously mentioned “felt overwhelmed” item in the Learning Opportunities Scale, and (2) the “Competition with other health professional students negatively impacted the student experience” item from the Department Atmosphere scale. Test-Retest Reliability. In order to determine test-retest reliability for the instrument, pretest and end of semester scale scores were compared for the sub-sample of SMW and SMA students who evaluated the same clinical site on the pretest and end of semester inventories (n = 66). The lack of student identification of their completed inventories resulted in the loss of 20 cases from the test-retest reliability determination. Significant correlations were found between the pretest and end of semester scores for each inventory scale (p < .001) for those students who evaluated the same clinical sites on both inventories (n = 46). Correlations ranged from .50 to .61 (see Table 7 for all correlation results). In addition, a sub-sample of LMA students completed two SECEE inventories, evaluating different clinical sites on the pretest and end of semester inventory. According to Richards (1996), comparison of the same participants’ evaluations of discrete environments 60
assists in reducing the confounding person-environment sources of variance. If differences in individual student evaluations of discrete sites are found, the differences are most likely due to the discrimination ability of the instrument. For student participants evaluating different clinical sites on the pretest and end of semester inventories (n = 60), no significant correlations were found between pretest and end of semester scale scores (p > .05). This result indicates that there was no relationship between the evaluations of different clinical sites, when the same students evaluated two different sites. Correlations between inventory scale scores ranged from -.01 to .20. These correlations also appear in Table 7. Differences in Scale Scores According to Student Academic Level. As the SECEE Inventory was able to detect differences between institutions in terms of student evaluation of sites, the researcher wondered whether it might also detect differences between student evaluation of sites according to student academic level (sophomore, junior, senior). Thus, comparative ANOVAs were computed for differences in scale scores (dependent variable) by student level (independent variable), after sorting data by institution. ANOVA results are presented in Table 8 and significance levels for post hoc tests are shown in Table 9. Cell means and standard deviations for the scale scores according to student level can be found in Table 10. The Dunnett T3 method was used for all post hoc tests, as there was violation of the homogeneity of variance assumption for some of the ANOVAs (violations will be identified in discussion of each analysis). Results indicated that for institution SMW, differences between scale scores were only significant for the Department Atmosphere scale [F (2, 66) = 4.70, p < .05]. However, according to the Levene Statistic, the assumption of homogeneity of variance was violated for the test [F (2, 66) = 3.93, p = .025]. Multiple comparisons 61
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: Table 6 Reliability Coefficients fo
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?