12.01.2013 Views

STUDENT EVALUATION OF CLINICAL EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT

STUDENT EVALUATION OF CLINICAL EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT

STUDENT EVALUATION OF CLINICAL EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

healthcare programs, school nursing, clinic or physician offices, home health / hospice, and<br />

specialty care units in the hospital environment. Even after grouping the cell sizes were not<br />

equivalent, with the number of respondents in each site group varying from 4 to 26. The median<br />

number of respondents per site group cells was 8.<br />

Initial analysis consisted of four ANOVAs with site group as the independent variable<br />

and scale score as the dependent variable. Although all F ratios were significant at p < .01,<br />

indicating that scale scores differed according to clinical group, the Levene Statistic for<br />

Homogeneity of Variance was violated for tests on two of the four scales (Communication /<br />

Feedback and Learning Opportunities). Therefore, the additional grouping variable of institution<br />

was used, and separate ANOVAs were run for each institution, resulting in 12 separate analyses.<br />

The MANOVA procedure was not used for testing as the dependent variables (scale scores) were<br />

found to be fairly highly correlated. The Dunnett T3 test was used for all post hoc analyses, as<br />

some ANOVA tests violated the Homogeneity of Variance assumption. ANOVA statistics are<br />

presented in Table 11 and scale means and standard deviations by clinical site group appear in<br />

Table 12.<br />

Results indicated that there were significant differences in scale scores according to<br />

clinical site groups. For the SMW institution, ANOVA results were significant for all but one<br />

scale score (Learning Opportunities). Significant differences between student evaluations of<br />

clinical sites were found for the Communication and Feedback Scale F (6. 54) = 3.41, p < .01.<br />

Post Hoc comparisons of SMW data indicated that students rated the Communication / Feedback<br />

of clinical site group 5 more positively (M = 9.00) than site group 1 (M = 15.89), site group 2 (M<br />

= 15.20), and site group 7(M = 15.29), p < .05. Differences between site groups were also found<br />

for the Learning Support scale F (6, 54) = 3.46, p < .01. SMW students rated the Learning<br />

68

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!