|کد مقاله||کد نشریه||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||نسخه تمام متن|
|366910||621469||2015||5 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||دانلود رایگان|
این مقاله ISI می تواند منبع ارزشمندی برای تولید محتوا باشد.
- تولید محتوا برای سایت و وبلاگ
- تولید محتوا برای کتاب
- تولید محتوا برای نشریات و روزنامه ها
• The test-retest reliability of the CLES + T scale was evaluated with overall good results.
• There was reasonable agreement and no systematic differences between repeated measurements over time.
• The CLES + T scale can reliably measure the student nurses' perception of learning environment and supervision in a hospital.
The Clinical Learning Environment, Supervision and Nurse Teacher (CLES + T) scale evaluates the student nurses' perception of the learning environment and supervision within the clinical placement. It has never been tested in a replication study. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the test-retest reliability of the CLES + T scale. The CLES + T scale was administered twice to a group of 42 student nurses, with a one-week interval. Test-retest reliability was determined by calculations of Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs) and weighted Kappa coefficients. Standard Error of Measurements (SEM) and Smallest Detectable Difference (SDD) determined the precision of individual scores. Bland–Altman plots were created for analyses of systematic differences between the test occasions. The results of the study showed that the stability over time was good to excellent (ICC 0.88–0.96) in the sub-dimensions “Supervisory relationship”, “Pedagogical atmosphere on the ward” and “Role of the nurse teacher”. Measurements of “Premises of nursing on the ward” and “Leadership style of the manager” had lower but still acceptable stability (ICC 0.70–0.75). No systematic differences occurred between the test occasions. This study supports the usefulness of the CLES + T scale as a reliable measure of the student nurses’ perception of the learning environment within the clinical placement at a hospital.
Journal: Nurse Education in Practice - Volume 15, Issue 4, July 2015, Pages 253–257