Use of NCLEX Preparation Strategies in a Hospital Orientation Program for Graduate Nurses
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes outcomes from the first year of a hospital orientation program for graduate nurses that was expanded to systematize and enrich preparation of graduate nurses for success on the NCLEX-RN licensure examination. The study protocol provided the Assessment Technologies Institute predictor examination to assess risk for licensure examination failure, review materials, and a meeting with an education specialist to identify and prioritize study needs. Those at highest risk for failure were also provided an in-depth written study plan and ongoing follow-up and support until the licensure examination was taken. The study sample consisted of 90 graduate nurses who were hired from May through August of 2005 at the University of Kansas Hospital. The pass rate for participants was 86.7% on the first attempt in year 1 of the program. At-risk graduates who reported that the predictor results impacted their study habits and followed the study recommendations were more likely to pass the licensure examination. Graduate nurses reported a high level of satisfaction with the support provided. Specific challenges faced by hospital nurse administrators in recruitment and retention and return on investment over a 3-year improvement plan are described.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it