See the published version of this preprint at BMC Nursing.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research article
Simon Cooper
Federation University Australia
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5561-3099
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: The quality of nursing clinical placements has been found to vary. Placement evaluation tools for nursing students are available but lack contemporary reviews of clinical settings. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop a feasible, valid and reliable clinical placement evaluation tool applicable to nursing student placements in Australia and beyond.
Methods: An exploratory mixed methods co-design project. Phase 1 included a literature review; expert rating of potential question items and Nominal Group Technique meetings with a range of stakeholders for item development. Phase 2 included on-line pilot testing of the Placement Evaluation Tool (PET) with 1,263 nursing students, across all year levels at six Australian Universities and one further education college in 2019-20, to confirm validity, reliability and feasibility.
Results: The PET included 19-items (rated on a 5-point agreement scale) and one global satisfaction rating (a 10-point scale). Placements were generally positively rated. The total scale score (19 items) revealed a median student rating of 81 points from a maximum of 95 and a median global satisfaction rating of 9/10. Criterion validity was confirmed by item correlation: Intra-class Correlation Co-efficient ICC = .709; scale total to global score r = .722; and items to total score ranging from .609 to .832. Strong concurrent validity was demonstrated with the Clinical Learning Environment and Supervision Scale (r= .834). Internal reliability was identified and confirmed in two subscale factors: Clinical Environment (Cronbach’s alpha = .94) and Learning Support (alpha = .96). Based on the short time taken to complete the survey (median 3.5 minutes) and students’ comments, the tool was deemed applicable and feasible.
Conclusions: The PET was found to be valid, reliable and feasible. Use of the tool as a quality assurance measure is likely to improve education and practice in clinical environments. Further international evaluation of the instrument is required to fully determine its psychometric properties.
Keywords
Clinical placement, clinical practicum, education, quality improvement, students, nursing
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Nursing.
No community comments so far
Submission checks complete
On 07 Oct, 2020
Editorial decision: Accept
On 07 Oct, 2020
No comments provided
Review #1 received
Received 27 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 30 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 30 Aug, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 28 Aug, 2020
Editor assigned
On 17 Aug, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 16 Aug, 2020
Editor invited
On 16 Aug, 2020
Version 1
Posted 18 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 05 Aug, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 30 Jul, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 20 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 08 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 26 Jun, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 18 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 07 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 06 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 06 Jun, 2020
First submitted
On 03 Jun, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Nursing
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Nursing.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Simon Cooper
Federation University Australia
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5561-3099
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Nursing.
No community comments so far
Submission checks complete
On 07 Oct, 2020
Editorial decision: Accept
On 07 Oct, 2020
No comments provided
Review #1 received
Received 27 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 30 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 30 Aug, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 28 Aug, 2020
Editor assigned
On 17 Aug, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 16 Aug, 2020
Editor invited
On 16 Aug, 2020
Version 1
Posted 18 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 05 Aug, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 30 Jul, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 20 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 08 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 26 Jun, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 18 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 07 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 06 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 06 Jun, 2020
First submitted
On 03 Jun, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Nursing
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Nursing.
Background: The quality of nursing clinical placements has been found to vary. Placement evaluation tools for nursing students are available but lack contemporary reviews of clinical settings. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop a feasible, valid and reliable clinical placement evaluation tool applicable to nursing student placements in Australia and beyond.
Methods: An exploratory mixed methods co-design project. Phase 1 included a literature review; expert rating of potential question items and Nominal Group Technique meetings with a range of stakeholders for item development. Phase 2 included on-line pilot testing of the Placement Evaluation Tool (PET) with 1,263 nursing students, across all year levels at six Australian Universities and one further education college in 2019-20, to confirm validity, reliability and feasibility.
Results: The PET included 19-items (rated on a 5-point agreement scale) and one global satisfaction rating (a 10-point scale). Placements were generally positively rated. The total scale score (19 items) revealed a median student rating of 81 points from a maximum of 95 and a median global satisfaction rating of 9/10. Criterion validity was confirmed by item correlation: Intra-class Correlation Co-efficient ICC = .709; scale total to global score r = .722; and items to total score ranging from .609 to .832. Strong concurrent validity was demonstrated with the Clinical Learning Environment and Supervision Scale (r= .834). Internal reliability was identified and confirmed in two subscale factors: Clinical Environment (Cronbach’s alpha = .94) and Learning Support (alpha = .96). Based on the short time taken to complete the survey (median 3.5 minutes) and students’ comments, the tool was deemed applicable and feasible.
Conclusions: The PET was found to be valid, reliable and feasible. Use of the tool as a quality assurance measure is likely to improve education and practice in clinical environments. Further international evaluation of the instrument is required to fully determine its psychometric properties.
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...