Nursing Competence of Students: Congruence Between the Perceptions of Nursing Students’ and Their Preceptors’ Assessment

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 28 Sayı: 3, 275 - 282, 24.09.2025

Cahide Ayik , Merve Aliye Akyol , Şeyda Seren İntepeler

https://doi.org/10.17049/jnursology.1535780

Öz

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the congruence between nursing students' self-assessments and their preceptors' assessments of nursing competence at graduation.

Methods: This cross-sectional, descriptive study was conducted with a purposeful sample of 382 participants, including 191 nursing students and 191 nurses serving as student preceptors in the west of Türkiye. A descriptive characteristics form and the Holistic Nursing Competence Scale were used to collect data. The data were analyzed utilizing descriptive statistics, paired t-tests, and standardized mean differences. The study was documented according to the STROBE checklist.

Results: At the group level, the nursing students' self-assessment for overall nursing competence (5.60 ± 0.88) was higher than the assessment by preceptors (5.37 ± 1.32) and significantly different (t = 2.277, P = .024, Cohen's d = .165). When congruence between students’ and preceptors’ assessments was examined at the single student-preceptor level, in comparison to their preceptors, students rated their nursing competence higher on every sub-scale and the overall competence scale.

Conclusion: The present study revealed a lack of congruence between student self-assessments and preceptor assessments. Students rated their own competencies higher than the preceptors compared to the preceptors’ evaluations. The findings suggest that it is important to be careful when evaluating students' competence levels, and that it is necessary to use different assessment methods, such as rubrics, in addition to self-assessment.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Competence , compliance , nursing students , nurses

Etik Beyan

For the conduct of the study, written permission from Dokuz Eylul University Faculty of Nursing (date: May 13, 2022, number: E-51688696-799-256586) and Dokuz Eylul University Hospital (date: May 18, 2022, number: E-99577370-100-259875) has been obtained. Ethical approval for the study was received from the Dokuz Eylul University Non-Interventional Research Ethics Committee (date: May 25, 2022, decision no.: 2022/19-06). Verbal and written consent was obtained from individuals who volunteered to participate in the study. Written permission was received from Adeviye Aydın via e-mail for the scale used in the study.

Destekleyen Kurum

None

Öğrencilerin Hemşirelik Yeterliği: Hemşirelik Öğrencilerinin Algıları ile Rehberlerinin Değerlendirmeleri Arasındaki Uyum

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışma, hemşirelik öğrencilerinin öz değerlendirmeleri ile rehberlerinin mezuniyet aşamasında hemşirelik yeterliğine ilişkin değerlendirmeleri arasındaki uyumu değerlendirmeyi amaçlamıştır.

Yöntemler: Bu kesitsel, tanımlayıcı çalışma, Türkiye’nin batısında 191 hemşirelik öğrencisi ve onlara rehberlik yapan 191 hemşire dâhil olmak üzere 382 katılımcıdan oluşan amaçlı bir örneklemde gerçekleşti. Verilerin toplanmasında tanımlayıcı özellikler formu ve Bütünsel Hemşirelik Yeterlik Ölçeği kullanıldı. Veriler tanımlayıcı istatistikler, eşleştirilmiş t-testi ve standartlaştırılmış ortalama fark kullanılarak analiz edildi. Çalışma STROBE kontrol listesine göre yazılmıştır.

Bulgular: Hemşirelik öğrencilerinin genel hemşirelik yeterliğine ilişkin öz değerlendirmeleri (5,60 ± 0,88), rehberlerin değerlendirmesinden (5,37 ± 1,32) grup düzeyinde daha yüksekti ve anlamlı derecede farklıydı (t = 2,277, P = ,024, Cohen d = ,165). Öğrencilerin ve rehberlerin değerlendirmeleri arasındaki uyum tek öğrenci-rehber düzeyinde incelendiğinde, rehberlerle karşılaştırıldığında öğrenciler hemşirelik yeterliklerini her alt boyutta ve toplam yeterlilik ölçeğinde daha yüksek puanladılar.

Sonuç: Bu çalışma, öğrencilerin öz değerlendirmeleri ile rehber değerlendirmeleri arasında uyum eksikliği olduğunu ortaya çıkarmıştır. Rehberlerin değerlendirmeleriyle karşılaştırıldığında öğrenciler kendi yeterliklerini rehber hemşirelerden daha yüksek değerlendirmişti. Bulgular, öğrencilerin yeterlilik düzeylerini değerlendirirken dikkatli olunması gerektiğini, öz değerlendirmenin yanı sıra rubrik gibi farklı değerlendirme yöntemlerinin de kullanılması gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yeterlik , uyum , hemşirelik öğrencileri , hemşireler

Etik Beyan

Çalışmanın yürütülmesi için Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi’nden 13 Mayıs 2022 tarih ve E-51688696-799-256586 sayılı, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hastanesi’nden ise 18 Mayıs 2022 tarih ve E-99577370-100-259875 sayılı yazılı izin alınmıştır. Çalışma için etik onay Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Girişimsel Olmayan Araştırmalar Etik Kurulu’ndan 25 Mayıs 2022 tarih ve 2022/19-06 sayılı kararla alınmıştır. Çalışmaya katılmaya gönüllü olan bireylerden sözlü ve yazılı onam alınmıştır. Çalışmada kullanılan ölçek için Adeviye Aydın’dan e-posta yoluyla yazılı izin alınmıştır.

Destekleyen Kurum

Yoktur

Kaynakça

• 1. World Health Organization (WHO). State of the World’s nursing 2020: investing in education, jobs and leardership. Access date: April 10, 2025. Access address: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240003279
• 2. Shustack L. Integrating google earth in community health nursing courses: Preparing globally aware nurses. Nurse Educ. 2020;45(2):E11-E12. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000000709
• 3. Álvarez-Nieto C, Richardson J, Parra-Anguita G, et al. Developing digital educational materials for nursing and sustainability: The results of an observational study. Nurse Educ Today. 2018;60(September 2017):139-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.10.008
• 4. Salminen L, Tuukkanen M, Clever K, et al. The competence of nurse educators and graduating nurse students. Nurse Educ Today. 2021;98:104769. https://doi.org/10.1016/10.1016/j.nedt.2021.104769
• 5. European Commission. Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions on a renewed EU agenda for higher education, 2017. Access date: April 10, 2025. Access adress: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52017DC0247&from=EN
• 6. World Health Organization (WHO). Nurse educator core competencies. 2016. Access date: April 10, 2025. Access adress: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/nurse-educator-core-competencies
• 7. Nabizadeh-Gharghozar Z, Alavi NM, Ajorpaz NM. Clinical competence in nursing: A hybrid concept analysis. Nurse Educ Today. 2021;97(December 2020):104728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104728
• 8. Aiken LH, Sloane D, Griffiths P, et al. Nursing skill mix in European hospitals: cross-sectional study of the association with mortality, patient ratings, and quality of care. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26(7):559-568. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2016-005567
• 9. Kajander-Unkuri S, Leino-Kilpi H, Katajisto J, et al. Congruence between graduating nursing students’ self-assessments and mentors’ assessments of students’ nurse competence. Collegian. 2016;23(3):303-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colegn.2015.06.002
• 10. Järvinen T, Virtanen H, Kajander-Unkuri S, Salminen L. Nurse educators’ perceptions of factors related to the competence of graduating nursing students. Nurse Educ Today. 2021;101:2-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2021.104884
• 11. American Association of Colleges of Nursing. The essentials: core competencies for professional nursing education 2021. Access date: April 10, 2025. Access adress: https://www.aacnnursing.org/Portals/0/PDFs/Publications/Essentials-2021.pdf
• 12. Purabdollah M, Zamanzadeh V, Ghahramanian A, Valizadeh L, Mousavi S, Ghasempour M. Competencies expected of undergraduate nursing students: A scoping review. Nurs Open, 2023;10(12):7487-7508. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.2020
• 13. The National Qualifications Framework for Higher Education. Access date: April 10, 2025. Access adress: https://uluslararasi.yok.gov.tr/uluslararasilasma/tyyc
• 14. The Nursing Education Association. The Nursing Education Association-Association for Evaluation and Accreditation of Nursing Education Programs (2025-2029) action plan. Access date: April 10, 2025. Access adress: https://www.hemed.org.tr/
• 15. Association for Evaluation and Accreditation of Nursing Education Programs. Access date: April 10, 2025. Access adress: https://www.hepdak.org.tr/
• 16. Flinkman M, Leino-Kilpi H, Numminen O, Jeon Y, Kuokkanen L, Meretoja R. Nurse competence scale: a systematic and psychometric review. J Adv Nurs. 2017;73(5):1035-1050. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13183
• 17. Theander K, Wilde-Larsson B, Carlsson M, et al. Adjusting to future demands in healthcare: Curriculum changes and nursing students’ self-reported professional competence. Nurse Educ Today. 2016;37:178-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2015.11.012
• 18. Missen K, Mckenna L, Beauchamp A. Registered nurses’ perceptions of new nursing graduates’ clinical competence: A systematic integrative review. Nurs Heal Sci. 2016;18(2):143-153. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12249
• 19. Craig SB, Hannum K. Research update: 360-degree performance assessment. Consult Psychol J Pract Res. 2006;58(2):117-124. https://doi.org/10.1037/1065-9293.58.2.117
• 20. Takase M, Yamamoto M, Sato Y. The factors related to self-other agreement/disagreement in nursing competence assessment: Comparative and correlational study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018;80(2018):147-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.01.011
• 21. Ayik C, Akyol MA. Self-perceived competence and its related factors in nursing students at graduation: the role of self-efficacy. Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh. 2023;20(1):1-8. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijnes-2023-0017
• 22. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(4):344-349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008
• 23. Sherrod D, Holland C, Battle L. H. Nurse preceptors: a valuable resource for adapting staff to change. Nurs Manag. 2020;51(3):50-53. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NUMA.0000654876.89427.e0.
• 24. Campbell S, Greenwood M, Prior S, et al. Purposive sampling: complex or simple? Research case examples. J Nurs Res. 2020;25(8):652-661. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987120927206
• 25. Takase M, Teraoka S. Development of the holistic nursing competence scale. Nurs Heal Sci. 2011;13(4):396-403. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2018.2011.00631.x
• 26. Aydin A, Hiçdurmaz D. Holistic nursing competence scale: Turkish translation and psychometric testing. Int Nurs Rev. 2019;66(3):425-433. https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.12514
• 27. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson; 2013.
• 28. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
• 29. Numminen O, Leino-Kilpi H, Isoaho H, Meretoja R. Congruence between nurse managers’ and nurses’ competence assessments: A correlation study. J Nurs Educ Pract. 2014;5(1):142-150. https://doi.org/10.5430/jnep.v5n1p142
• 30. Önal A, Seren İntepeler Ş. Comparison of self‐competency and executive (charge) nurse competency assessments of clinical nurses. Int Nurs Rev. 2024;71:1015-1022. https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.12955
• 31. Bounoua L, Cury F, Regner I, Huguet P, Barron KE, Elliot AJ. Motivated use of information about others: Linking the 2×2 achievement goal model to social comparison propensities and processes. Br J Soc Psychol. 2012;51(4):626-641. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02027.x
• 32. Burke E, Kelly M, Byrne E, Ui Chiardha T, Mc Nicholas M, Montgomery A. Preceptors’ experiences of using a competence assessment tool to assess undergraduate nursing students. Nurse Educ Pract. 2016;17:8-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/10.1016/j.nepr.2016.01.004
• 33. Benny J, Porter JE, Joseph B. A systematic review of preceptor’s experience in supervising undergraduate nursing students: Lessons learned for mental health nursing. Nurs Open. 2023;10(4):2003-2014. https://doi.org/10.1111/10.1016/10.1002/nop2.1470
• 34. Vae KJU, Engström M, Mårtensson G, Löfmark A. Nursing students’ and preceptors’ experience of assessment during clinical practice: A multilevel repeated-interview study of student–preceptor dyads. Nurse Educ Pract. 2018;30:13-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2017.11.014
• 35. Numminen O, Meretoja R, Isoaho H, Leino-Kilpi H. Professional competence of practising nurses. J Clin Nurs. 2013;22(9-10):1411-1423. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04334.x
• 36. Lakanmaa R, Suominen T, Perttilä J, Ritmala‐Castrèn M, Vahlberg T, Leino‐Kilpi H. Graduating nursing students’ basic competence in intensive and critical care nursing. J Clin Nurs. 2014;23(5-6):645-653. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12244
• 37. Chen SH, Chien LY, Kuo ML, Li YH, Chiang MC, Liu YC. Exploring discrepancies in perceived nursing competencebetween postgraduate-year nurses and their preceptors. J Contin Educ Nurs. 2017;48(4):190-196. https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20170321-10
• 38. Onay T, Seren İntepeler Ş. Homework and performance evaluation with rubric: Continuous improvement example. University of Health Sciences Journal of Nursing. 2023;5(1):55-60. https://doi.org/10.48071/sbuhemsirelik.1148282