Development and Testing of Tools to Evaluate Public Health Nursing Clinical Education at the Baccalaureate Level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tools to evaluate clinical coursework with community groups for basic baccalaureate students are limited and often have not been sufficiently validated. This study developed and tested 2 tools. The initial phase of development involved identifying expected outcomes for clinical course work and specific tool items from 2 sources of information: (a) U.S. and Canadian policy documents on public health and community health nursing and (b) themes and skills identified as important or satisfying by nursing students during their clinical coursework. The tools were then tested for reliability and validity with subsequent classes of students using predefined criteria. The tool "Confidence in Using Public Health Nursing Skills" was developed from 2 sources: the themes and skills identified as important by students and beginning practice expectations identified from policy documents. The tool "Satisfaction With Team Projects" was developed from student responses to questions on satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Both tools were found to be reliable in terms of internal consistency reliability and valid in terms of content and structure. The tool or the process to develop the tool will be useful for designing and evaluating appropriate clinical education.
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 | 0.058 | 0.198 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".