STUDENT EVALUATION OF CLINICAL EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

according to the Dunnett T3 test demonstrated that sophomore students rated the Department Atmosphere of their sites (M = 10.63) significantly more positively (p < .01) than juniors did (M = 12.90). At LMA institution, there were significant differences in student evaluations of the clinical learning environment according to student level for all four scales. Differences between student levels on the Communication / Feedback scale were significant F (2, 123) = 5.95, p < .01, with senior students at LMA institution having rated their clinical environments significantly more positively (M = 12.94) than junior students did (M = 17.26), p < .01. Student level also accounted for significant differences in student perception of clinical site Learning Opportunities F (2, 123) = 3.89, p < .05. Senior students rated Learning Opportunities more positively (M = 14.17) than junior students did (M = 17.83), p < .05. ANOVA results also indicated differences between student academic levels for the Learning Support scale F (2, 123) = 3.50, p < .05. Again, seniors evaluated their sites more positively (M = 14.95) than did juniors (M = 17.07), p < .05. Differences between student levels were also identified for the Department Atmosphere scale F (2, 123) = 5.00, p < .01. Seniors students at LMA rated the Department Atmosphere of their clinical education environments (M = 11.54) higher than did both juniors (M = 14.07) and sophomores (M = 13.62). The Homogeneity of variance assumption was violated only for the Department Atmosphere Scale ANOVA [F (2,123) = 3.35, p = .038]. Differences on three of the four scale scores were found for SMA students. Differences between academic levels of students were found for the Communication and Feedback scale F (2, 117) = 3.85, p < .05, with sophomore SMA students having evaluated their clinical environments more positively (M = 11.16) than did junior students (M = 14.42). Differences between student levels were also found for the Learning Support scale F (2, 117) = 6.68, p < .01. 66
Sophomore SMA students rated the Learning Support at their clinical sites significantly more positively (M = 11.85) than both junior (M = 16.22) and senior students (M = 14.97) on the Learning Support scale, p < .01. Students of different academic levels also evaluated the Department Atmosphere of their learning environments differently F (2, 117) = 5.69, p < .01, with sophomore students having evaluated their sites more positively (M = 10.63) than both junior students (M = 12.90) and senior students (M = 13.33), p < .01. The Levene Statistic for homogeneity of variance was significant only for the Learning Support scale [F (2, 117) = 5.71, p = .004]. Differences in Scale Scores According to Clinical Site Groups. One means to support the validity of an environmental measure is to compare student responses to the inventory across a variety of settings, in order to determine whether the instrument is able to distinguish between distinct environmental settings (Richards, 1996). The investigation of whether there were differences between SECEE inventory scale scores based on the clinical site being evaluated was conducted via ANOVA testing. Prior to this analysis, it was necessary to group some clinical sites together, as several sites were evaluated by only one or two students. Site grouping was based upon the type of nursing care provided at the site, and the dean or faculty at the schools of nursing at each institution confirmed appropriateness of the grouping. Site grouping reduced the number of clinical groups from 56 to 25. The degree of grouping required was not similar across institutions. Only one site identified by SMW students was grouped with another site within the same hospital. Six sites evaluated by SMA students were grouped together with other sites, with the grouped sites representing primarily specialty care units (intensive care units, labor and delivery, and other units with only one respondent). In contrast, 24 identified clinical sites at LMA were consolidated into 10 site groups. The grouped sites represented community 67
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: Table 10 Scale Score Means and Stan
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?