Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35715840›Full record

ArticleBMC nursing2022

Personal statement versus psychological test as admission to the nursing degree: an evaluation.

Marian Traynor, Colin Mc Neill, Audrey Roulston

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nursing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Marian TraynorSchool of Nursing & Midwifery, Queen's University Belfast, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast, BT9 7BL, N. Ireland. m.traynor@qub.ac.uk.
Colin Mc NeillIdentity Exploration Ltd, 50 Stranmillis Embankment, Belfast, Co Antrim, N. Ireland.
Audrey RoulstonSchool of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work, Queen's University Belfast, 6 College Park, Belfast, BT7 1NN, N. Ireland.

Funding

Burdett Trust for Nursing SB\ZA\1o1o10662\311523
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA review of admissions to nursing in Northern Ireland was prompted by the growing number of applications and a desire to ensure that the applicants had the right values for a career in nursing. Concerns regarding authorship, plagiarism and reliability of personal statements used to select applicants to interview was the focus of this research. This study evaluates the psychometric properties of a Personal Statement (PS) as a method for admission to a nursing programme and a values-based psychological screening tool, Nurse Match (NM).

methodsA self-selecting, purposive sample (n = 228; 9.7%) was drawn from applicants to Schools of Nursing in the United Kingdom (n = 2350). Participants all of whom had completed a Personal Statement were asked to complete a psychological tool and the scoring outcomes and psychometric properties of both tests were investigated. Statistical analysis was conducted using Minitab 17.

resultsApplicants from 18 schools and five colleges responded. The majority (72.4%) were aged 18-19. Findings provide practical, theoretical, statistical, and qualitative reasons for concluding that the Personal Statement has substantial limitations as a measure of suitability. It does not compare well with international test standards for psychometric tests. In contrast, NM is a valid and reliable measure with good discriminatory power, standardised administration and consistent marking.

conclusionNM is a viable alternative to the PS for shortlisting applicants for nursing interviews.

Indexed as

AdmissionsNursing studentPersonal statementPre-registration nursingPsychological testPsychometric testValues-based recruitment

Identifiers

PMID35715840
PMCPMC9204378

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.