Nonviolent Communication (NVC) training increases empathy in baccalaureate nursing students: A mixed method study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Ineffective communication among healthcare team members is associated with decreased collaborative efforts and adverse patient outcomes. The impact of empathy on collaboration with colleagues and patient interaction has been previously demonstrated. Studies have yet to measure the impact of (Nonviolent Communication [NVC]) on empathy in nursing students. Purpose: The purpose of this mixed methods study was to test a communication intervention (NVC) with baccalaureate student nurses to examine its effect on empathy. Methods: A mixed methods single group pre/post test design incorporating the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) to measure empathy was used. A paired samples t test was calculated to compare means scores pre and post intervention. One-way ANOVA was used to examine between group differences. Interpretive methods were used to analyze qualitative data collected via journal entries during the training and focus groups immediately following and 2 years post intervention. Results/Findings: Quantitative results revealed an increase in empathy (69.1 to 71.4, p = .037) post training. Qualitative analyses demonstrated positive impact of NVC in empathizing with self and others. Clinical impact was especially noted when working with psychiatric patients. Conclusion: Incorporating NVC into nursing education could feasibly prevent future hardship as students advance their nursing careers. Further research may be needed to capture the larger impact that NVC could have on nurses and nursing students.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".