ArticleBMC medical education2024
The design, implementation, and evaluation of a blended (in-person and virtual) Clinical Competency Examination for final-year nursing students.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
introductionStudies have reported different results of evaluation methods of clinical competency tests. Therefore, this study aimed to design, implement, and evaluate a blended (in-person and virtual) Competency Examination for final-year Nursing Students.
methodsThis interventional study was conducted in two semesters of 2020-2021 using an educational action research method in the nursing and midwifery faculty. Thirteen faculty members and 84 final-year nursing students were included in the study using a census method. Eight programs and related activities were designed and conducted during the examination process. Students completed the Spielberger Anxiety Inventory before the examination, and both faculty members and students completed the Acceptance and Satisfaction questionnaire.
findingsThe results of the analysis of focused group discussions and reflections indicated that the virtual CCE was not capable of adequately assessing clinical skills. Therefore, it was decided that the CCE for final-year nursing students would be conducted using a blended method. The activities required for performing the examination were designed and implemented based on action plans. Anxiety and satisfaction were also evaluated as outcomes of the study. There was no statistically significant difference in overt, covert, and overall anxiety scores between the in-person and virtual sections of the examination (p > 0.05). The mean (SD) acceptance and satisfaction scores for students in virtual, in-person, and blended sections were 25.49 (4.73), 27.60 (4.70), and 25.57 (4.97), respectively, out of 30 points, in which there was a significant increase in the in-person section compared to the other sections. (p = 0.008). The mean acceptance and satisfaction scores for faculty members were 30.31 (4.47) in the virtual, 29.86 (3.94) in the in-person, and 30.00 (4.16) out of 33 in the blended, and there was no significant difference between the three sections (p = 0.864).
conclusionEvaluating nursing students' clinical competency using a blended method was implemented and solved the problem of students' graduation. Therefore, it is suggested that the blended method be used instead of traditional in-person or entirely virtual exams in epidemics or based on conditions, facilities, and human resources. Also, the use of patient simulation, virtual reality, and the development of necessary virtual and in-person training infrastructure for students is recommended for future research. Furthermore, considering that the acceptance of traditional in-person exams among students is higher, it is necessary to develop virtual teaching strategies.
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.