STUDENT EVALUATION OF CLINICAL EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

healthcare programs, school nursing, clinic or physician offices, home health / hospice, and specialty care units in the hospital environment. Even after grouping the cell sizes were not equivalent, with the number of respondents in each site group varying from 4 to 26. The median number of respondents per site group cells was 8. Initial analysis consisted of four ANOVAs with site group as the independent variable and scale score as the dependent variable. Although all F ratios were significant at p < .01, indicating that scale scores differed according to clinical group, the Levene Statistic for Homogeneity of Variance was violated for tests on two of the four scales (Communication / Feedback and Learning Opportunities). Therefore, the additional grouping variable of institution was used, and separate ANOVAs were run for each institution, resulting in 12 separate analyses. The MANOVA procedure was not used for testing as the dependent variables (scale scores) were found to be fairly highly correlated. The Dunnett T3 test was used for all post hoc analyses, as some ANOVA tests violated the Homogeneity of Variance assumption. ANOVA statistics are presented in Table 11 and scale means and standard deviations by clinical site group appear in Table 12. Results indicated that there were significant differences in scale scores according to clinical site groups. For the SMW institution, ANOVA results were significant for all but one scale score (Learning Opportunities). Significant differences between student evaluations of clinical sites were found for the Communication and Feedback Scale F (6. 54) = 3.41, p < .01. Post Hoc comparisons of SMW data indicated that students rated the Communication / Feedback of clinical site group 5 more positively (M = 9.00) than site group 1 (M = 15.89), site group 2 (M = 15.20), and site group 7(M = 15.29), p < .05. Differences between site groups were also found for the Learning Support scale F (6, 54) = 3.46, p < .01. SMW students rated the Learning 68
Support at site group 5 more positively (M = 9.86) than site groups 1 (M = 16.92), 2 (M = 15.60), and 7 (M = 15.51), p < .05. ANOVA analysis also detected differences in scale scores according to clinical site group for the Department Atmosphere scale F (6, 54) = 4.83, p < .01. Again, SMW students at site group 5 rated the Department Atmosphere more positively (M = 8.43) than students at site 2 (M = 12.78). In addition, students at site 4 (M = 9.58) perceived the Department Atmosphere to be more positive than students at site 2 (M = 12.78), p < .05. Levels of significance for the differences found between site groups at SMW appear in Table 13. At SMA, two of the four scales were found to have significant differences according to site groups. Students evaluated the Learning Support F (11, 83) = 1.92, p < .05 and the Department Atmosphere F (11, 83) = 1.95, p < .05 differently according to clinical site group. However multiple comparisons using the Dunnett T3 test did not reveal significant differences between individual site groups (p > .05). LMA institution data differed from the other institutions in that no significant differences between clinical site groups were found for any of the four scales. 69
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 and 74: Table 10 Scale Score Means and Stan
Page 75: Sophomore SMA students rated the Le
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?