MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091710292 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v2n3p25

Development and psychometric testing of the nursing student satisfaction scale for the associate nursing programs

2012· article· en· W2091710292 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hsiu‐Chin Chen, Huan-Sheng Lo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExploratory factor analysisConfirmatory factor analysisScale (ratio)Reliability (semiconductor)Stratified samplingPsychometric testingPsychologyNursingCurriculumTest (biology)Goodness of fitInternal consistencyPsychometricsMedicineClinical psychologyStructural equation modelingComputer sciencePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The purpose of this nationwide study was to assess psychometric properties of the Nursing Student Satisfaction Scale (NSSS) for measuring student satisfaction with nursing programs. Methods: This methodological study addressed the development, evaluation, and validation of a newly developed instrument using a cross-sectional design. Proportionally stratified random sampling was utilized to select 138 Associate in Science in Nursing (ASN) programs for participation. Results: Evidence of psychometric evaluation indicated that the internal consistency reliability was consistently acceptable throughout a previous 3-year psychometric evaluation study to this methodological study. The Curriculum and teaching, Professional social interaction, and Environment (CPE) 3-factor model of the NSSS was suggested by the exploratory factor analysis and was supported by the confirmatory factor analysis based on the results of “goodness-of-fit” test. Conclusions: The NSSS demonstrates sound psychometric properties and provides a theory-based approach to the measurement of nursing student satisfaction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.340
GPT teacher head0.557
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and PracticeSame topicEvaluation of Teaching PracticesFrench-language works237,207