Self-assessment or self deception? A lack of association between nursing students’ self-assessment and performance
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AIM: The aim of this study was to examine senior year nursing students' ability to self-assess their performance when responding to simulated emergency situations. BACKGROUND: Self-assessment is viewed as a critical skill in nursing and other health professional programmes. However, while students may spend considerable time completing self-assessments, there is little evidence that they actually acquire the skills to do so effectively. By contrast, a number of studies in medicine and elsewhere have cast doubt on the validity of self-assessment. METHOD: In 2007, a one-group pre-test, post-test design was used to answer the question, 'How accurate are senior year nursing students in assessing their ability to respond to emergency situations in a simulated medical/surgical environment compared to observer assessment of their performance?' A total of 27 fourth year nursing students from a university in Ontario were asked to complete a questionnaire before and after an objective structured clinical examination which assessed their ability to respond to emergency situations. Self-assessments were compared with observed performance. FINDINGS: The experience of dealing with the simulated crisis situations significantly increased perceived confidence and perceived competence in dealing with emergency situations, although it did not affect self-perceived ability to communicate or collaborate. All but 1 of the 16 correlations between self-assessment and the objective structured clinical examination total scores were negative. Their self-assessment was also unrelated to several indices of experience in critical care settings. CONCLUSION: Self-assessment in nursing education to evaluate clinical competence and confidence requires serious reconsideration as our well-intentioned emphasis on this commonly used practice may be less than effective.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle