Evaluation of Incremental Validity of Casper in Predicting Program and National Licensure Performance of Undergraduate Nursing Students: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Academic success has been the primary criterion for admission to many nursing programs. However, academic success as an admission criterion may have limited predictive value for success in noncognitive skills. Adding situational judgment tests, such as Casper, to admissions procedures may be one strategy to strengthen decisions and address the limited predictive value of academic admission criteria. In 2021, admissions processes were modified to include Casper based on concerns identified with noncognitive skills. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to (1) assess the incremental validity of Casper scores in predicting nursing student performance at years 1, 2, 3, and 4 and on the National Council Licensing Examination (NCLEX) performance; and (2) examine faculty members' perceptions of student performance and influences related to communication, professionalism, empathy, and problem-solving. METHODS: We will use a multistage evaluation mixed methods design with 5 phases. At the end of each year, students will complete questionnaires related to empathy and professionalism and have their performance assessed for communication and problem-solving in psychomotor laboratory sessions. The final phase will assess graduate performance on the NCLEX. Each phase also includes qualitative data collection (ie, focus groups with faculty members). The goal of the focus groups is to help explain the quantitative findings (explanatory phase) as well as inform data collection (eg, focus group questions) in the subsequent phase (exploratory sequence). All students enrolled in the first year of the nursing program in 2021 were asked to participate (n=290). Faculty will be asked to participate in the focus groups at the end of each year of the program. Hierarchical multiple regression will be conducted for each outcome of interest (eg, communication, professionalism, empathy, and problem-solving) to determine the extent to which scores on Casper with admission grades, compared to admission grades alone, predict nursing student performance at years 1-4 of the program and success on the national exam. Thematic analysis of focus group transcripts will be conducted using interpretive description. The quantitative and qualitative data will be integrated after each phase is complete and at the end of the study. RESULTS: This study was funded in September 2021, and data collection began in March 2022. Year 1 data collection and analysis are complete. Year 2 data collection is complete, and data analysis is in progress. CONCLUSIONS: At the end of the study, we will provide the results of a comprehensive analysis to determine the extent to which the addition of scores on Casper compared to admission grades alone predicts nursing student performance at years 1-4 of the program and on the NCLEX exam. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/48672.
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,106 | 0,095 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,026 | 0,005 |
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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».