Cognitive Rehearsal Training for Upskilling Undergraduate Nursing Students Against Bullying: A Qualitative Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this qualitative study is to examine the effectiveness of an anti-bullying intervention called Cognitive Rehearsal Training (CRT) using a workshop format to increase third year nursing students’ knowledge and confidence to address bullying behaviour. A lanyard card identifying ten common bullying behaviours and possible phrases to stand up to bullying was used as a tool to Stop! Reflect! and Respond! as a process to resolve conflict (Griffin, 2004; Griffin & Clark, 2014). Although similar bullying interventions have been studied among practicing nurses, few studies exist that involve students within their pre-licensure training program (Iheduru-Anderson, 2014; Thomas, 2010) and none in Canada. Fifty eight third year undergraduate nursing students in two classrooms took part in an anti-bullying workshop introducing the use of CRT as a tool to address bullying behaviour, and provided feedback regarding the utility of the CRT tool. One significant theme was that confidence and competence are inextricably linked, and lack of confidence to address conflict was reported to result in absenteeism, depression, thoughts of quitting school, and withdrawal from school-related responsibilities. Another key theme was that faculty profoundly impact the outcomes of bullying; students expect faculty to be knowledgeable about bullying and to have the skills to mediate conflict. A third theme was that power is an integral element in bullying dynamics, and participants commonly described feelings of vulnerability, powerlessness, and a reluctance to respond assertively to conflict, and the belief that catastrophic things would happen if they did. The findings of the study support the use of the CRT tool and its integration into undergraduate nursing curricula.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".