Correlations Between Clinical Judgement and Learning Style Preferences of Nursing Students in the Simulation Room
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health care educators account for variables affecting patient safety and are responsible for developing the highly complex process of education planning. Clinical judgement is a multidimensional process, which may be affected by learning styles. The aim was to explore three specific hypotheses to test correlations between nursing students' team achievements in clinical judgement and emotional, sociological and physiological learning style preferences. METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted with Swedish university nursing students in 2012-2013. Convenience sampling was used with 60 teams with 173 nursing students in the final semester of a three-year Bachelor of Science in nursing programme. Data collection included questionnaires of personal characteristics, learning style preferences, determined by the Dunn and Dunn Productivity Environmental Preference Survey, and videotaped complex nursing simulation scenarios. Comparison with Lasater Clinical Judgement Rubric and Non-parametric analyses were performed. RESULTS: Three significant correlations were found between the team achievements and the students' learning style preferences: significant negative correlation with 'Structure' and 'Kinesthetic' at the individual level, and positive correlation with the 'Tactile' variable. No significant correlations with students' 'Motivation', 'Persistence', 'Wish to learn alone' and 'Wish for an authoritative person present' were seen. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION: There were multiple complex interactions between the tested learning style preferences and the team achievements of clinical judgement in the simulation room, which provides important information for the becoming nurses. Several factors may have influenced the results that should be acknowledged when designing further research. We suggest conducting mixed methods to determine further relationships between team achievements, learning style preferences, cognitive learning outcomes and group processes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".