Turkish adaptation of the undergraduate nursing clinical evaluation form: a validity and reliability study

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 6, 550 - 558, 04.11.2021

Burcu Arkan , Seda Pehlivan Dilek Yılmaz , Nursel Vatansever

https://doi.org/10.18621/eurj.885563

Öz

Objectives: The study was conducted for the purpose of determining the validity and reliability of the “Undergraduate Nursing Clinical Evaluation Form (CEF)” in a Turkish sample.

Methods: One hundred sixty-seven students enrolled in Faculty of Health Sciences Department of Nursing participated in the study. Study data were collected via the Student Description Form and CEF. The Cronbach's α internal consistency coefficient was calculated for the reliability of the total scale. Pearson correlation analysis was used to determine the correlation between items and total scores.

Results: In the validity of the scale, CFA was used to investigate the consistency of the scale with the original scale. When the fit indices of the model tested using CFA were examined, it was seen that the chi-square value was significant. When the Cronbach's α reliability coefficients were examined, the reliability of the form was found to be quite good in terms of domains and total score. The correlations between the items and total scale score ranged between 0.42 and 0.77. Cronbach's α coefficient was greater than 0.90 for each item.

Conclusions: Undergraduate Nursing Clinical Evaluation Form is a valid and reliable tool that can be used in the Turkish culture.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Nursing, reliability, clinical evaluation

Kaynakça

• 1. Karadağ G, Kılıç SP, Ovayolu N, Ovayolu Ö, Kayaaslan H. [Difficulties encountered by nursing students in practices and their views about nurses]. TAF Prev Med Bull 2013;12:665-72. [Article in Turkish]
• 2. Sharif F, Masoumi S. A qualitative study of nursing student experiences of clinical practice. BMC Nurs 2005;4:1-7.
• 3. Bisholt B, Ohlsson U, Engtrom AK, Johansson AS, Gustafsson M. Nursing students’ assessment of the learning environment in different clinical settings. Nurse Educ Pract 2014;14:304-10.
• 4. Moonaghi HK, Mirhaghi A, Oladi S, Zeydi AE. A journey across an unwelcoming field: a qualitative study exploring the factors influencing nursing student’s clinical education. Health Sci J 2015;9:1-7.
• 5. Ha EH. Attitudes toward clinical practice in undergraduate nursing students: a Q methodology study. Nurse Educ Today 2015;35:733-9.
• 6. Hassan S. Challenges in clinical learning: experiences of Maldivian nursing students. Maldives National J Res 2017;5:79-94.
• 7. O’Mara L, McDonald J, Gillespie M, Brown H, Miles L. Challenging clinical learning environments: experiences of undergraduate nursing students. Nurse Educ Pract 2014;14:208-13.
• 8. Porter J, Al-Motlaq M, Hutchinson C, Sellick K, Burns V, James A. Development of an undergraduate nursing clinical evaluation form (CEF). Nurse Educ Today 2011;31:58-62.
• 9. D'Souza MS, Karkada SN, Parahoo K, Venkatesaperumal R. Perception of and satisfaction with the clinical learning environment among nursing students. Nurse Educ Today 2015;35:833-40.
• 10. Midgley K. Pre-registration student nurses perception of the hospital-learning environment during clinical placements. Nurse Educ Today 2006;26:338-45.
• 11. Mthimunye KDT, Daniels FM. Student nurses' perceptions of their educational environment at a school of nursing in Western Cape province, South Africa: a cross-sectional study. Curationis 2019;42:e1-e11.
• 12. Taştekin A, Türkdönmez B, Güler M, Yılmaz A, Erşahan T. [Related factors and satisfaction levels of nursing students in clinical setting]. FN Hem Derg 2016;24:24-9. [Article in Turkish]
• 13. Chan D. Development of the clinical learning environment inventory: using the theoretical framework of learning environment studies to assess nursing students' perceptions of the hospital as a learning environment. J Nurs Educ 2002;41:69-75.
• 14. Papathanasiou IV, Tsaras K, Sarafis P. Views and perceptions of nursing students on their clinical learning environment: teaching and learning. Nurse Educ Today 2014;34:57-60.
• 15. Yonge O, Myrick F, Haase M. Student nurse stress in the preceptorship experience. Nurse Educ 2002;27:84-8.
• 16. Serçekuş P, Başkale H. Nursing students' perceptions about clinical learning environment in Turkey. Nurse Educ Pract 2016;17:134-8.
• 17. Arkan B, Ordin, Y, Yılmaz D. Undergraduate nursing students' experience related to their clinical learning environment and factors affecting to their clinical learning process. Nurse Educ Pract 2018;29:127-32.
• 18. Arrigoni C, Grugnetti AM, Caruso R, Gallotti ML, Borrelli P, Puci M. Nursing students' clinical competencies: a survey on clinical education objectives. Ann Ig 2017;29:179-88.
• 19. Glick S, Fernandez L, Irby DM, Harleman E, Fernandez A. Teaching about health care disparities in the clinical setting. J Gen Int Med 2010;25(Suppl 2):95-101.
• 20. Nikbakht-Nasrabadi A, Mohammadpour A, Abbasi M, Javadi M. Iranian nursing students perspective of their rights in clinical evaluation: a thematic analysis study. Life Sci J 2012;9:5568-74.
• 21. Booth J, Collins S, Hammond A. Considered evaluation of clinical placements in a new medical school. Asses Eval High Educ 2008;34:7-29.
• 22. Penman J, Oliver M. Meeting the challenges of assessing clinical placement venues in a bachelor of nursing program. J Uni Teach Learn Pract 2004;1:59-73.
• 23. Tavşancıl E. Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım; 2010.
• 24. Kline RB. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 3rd ed. New York: The Guilford Press; 2011.
• 25. Büyüköztürk Ş, Akgün ÖE, Özkahveci Ö, Demirel F. The validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Educational Scienses: Theory&Practice 2004;4:231-9.
• 26. Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 1993.
• 27. Bentler PM. Comparative fit indixes in structural models. Psychol Bull 1990;107:238-46.
• 28. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 1999;6:1-55.
• 29. Aksayan S, Gözüm S. [A guide for transcultural adaptation of the scale]. Hemşirelik Araştırma Dergisi 2002;4:9-14. [Article in Turkish]
• 30. Şencan H. Reliability and validity in social and behavioral measurement. 1. ed., Ankara: Seçkin Publishing, 2005.
• 31. Rattray J, Jones MC. Essential elements of questionnaire design and development. J Clin Nurs 2007;16:234-43.
• 32. Şimşek ÖF. Introduction to Structural Equation Modeling, LISREL Fundamental Principles and Practices. İstanbul: Ekinoks, 2010.
• 33. Hayran M. Basic statistic for health research. Art Ofset Matbacılık Yayıncılık Org. Ltd Şti, Ankara: 2011.
• 34. DeVellis RF. Scale development, theory and applications. 3rd ed. India: SAGE Publication Inc; 2012.
• 35. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60:34-42.