MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nursing students' and clinical educators' perceptions of characteristics of effective clinical educators in an Australian university school of nursing

2002· article· en· W2114400987 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsNursingChecklistCompetence (human resources)Interpersonal communicationPersonalityPerceptionNurse educationPsychologyMedicineMedical educationInterpersonal relationshipSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This study is a replication of research undertaken by Mogan and Knox in 1987, which investigated and described characteristics of 'best' and 'worst' clinical educators. They developed and used an instrument known as the Nursing Clinical Teacher Effectiveness Inventory (NCTEI), a 48 item checklist that describes discrete characteristics clustered into five subscales or categories: teaching ability; interpersonal relationships, personality traits, nursing competence and evaluation. The tool has since been used in several countries including Greece, Hong Kong, Israel and North America and is the instrument most frequently used to identify effective clinical teaching characteristics of clinical educators. AIM: The aim of the present study was to administer the NCTEI to undergraduate nursing students and clinical educators in a school of nursing at an Australian university to explore the perceived characteristics of effective clinical educators as rated by students and educators, and the significant differences and commonalities between these perceptions. FINDINGS: Results indicate that the category of Interpersonal Relationships was the most highly valued characteristic rated by both Australian students and clinical educators, and both groups (students and educators) ranked the subset of personality as the lowest amongst five categories. In common with Mogan and Knox, this study found that students who had not been exposed to real clinical situations prior to commencing nursing studies ranked items related to interpersonal relationships more highly than students who had previous nursing experience. Although there were no statistically significant differences in the two groups, students were more concerned with evaluation while clinical educators were more concerned with nursing competence. CONCLUSION: This study is the first research to be reported in Australia, which has simultaneously compared both students' and educators' perceptions and the first to replicate Mogan and Knox's seminal work. Findings point to the need for clinical educators to value interpersonal relationships with students as well as clinical competence.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.640
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.397 · 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