ArticleBMC nursing2024
Usability of Standards for Scaffolding in a Health Sciences Programme: A feasibility Study.
Article in BMC nursing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStandards contribute to comprehensive and programmatic implementation of educational strategies, such as scaffolding. Although the development of educational standards follows a rigorous consensus approach, they are socially constructed and could result in varied interpretations by users. Reports of varied implementation of standards in health professions education underscore the need to test the developed standards for scaffolding in health sciences programmes. Usability entails determining whether a product like standards works as intended under the expected conditions and contexts. This study aimed to describe the usability of standards for scaffolding in a health sciences programme through a pilot study.
methodsA multi-method design employing user and expert-based usability evaluation techniques sought to describe the usability of the standards for scaffolding in a three-year pre-registration nursing programme. The user sample of nurse educators drawn from the programme, conducted a self-assessment on scaffolding practices in the programme using a developed standards checklist. For the expert sample, three-panel members with an understanding of the discipline and programme context were purposively sampled. These panelists studied the users' self-assessment reports before completing an author-generated heuristics checklist to support or refute any of the standards. Descriptive statistics, comparative and content analysis were applied to analyse data from users' interviews and expert's completed heuristics checklist, determining the standards' usability, and identifying the usability flaws or strengths.
resultsThe users had three or more years of teaching experience in the competency-based curriculum for nursing. The experts shared an average of 16 years of experience in teaching in higher education, and seven years of experience in quality assurance and programme accreditation. The four standards had a usability score of above average (68%). Seven usability strengths and four usability flaws were identified. Usability flaws related to misinterpretation of some criteria statements and terminologies, multiple meanings, and users' challenges in generating evidence for some criteria.
conclusionsThe pilot study revealed the context-based 'truth' regarding the fidelity of a health sciences programme evaluation on scaffolding, as well as identifying the ideal contextual conditions in which the standards for scaffolding health sciences programmes would work best. The identified usability flaws highlighted the need for further revisions of the standards. Future research on the feasibility of the standards in other health sciences programmes and contexts is recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.