MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development of Professionalism Assessment Scale for Nurse Educator

2016· article· en· W2585425614 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bharat Pareek, Kiran Batra, Raman Kalia

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Journal of Nursing Education and Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicHealthcare Education and Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScale (ratio)NursingMedicineMedical educationEngineeringPsychologyVeterinary medicineGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nursing profession began with a genuine desire to serve and care for others, combined with a sense of compassion and commitment. Nurse Educator play a vital role in the health care system globally. The professionalism and performance of Nurse Educators, link closely to the productivity and quality of services they provide. It is important to identify factors influencing professionalism of Nurse Educators if the quality of education in the organizations to be improved. A non experimental methodological study was carried out to develop professionalism assessment scale for Nurse Educator. The conceptual framework used to guide this study was Healthy Work Environments for Nurses-Components, Factors and Outcomes developed by Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario in 2007. Scale was prepared under five stages i;e conceptualization and item generation, preliminary evaluation, administration to development sample, analysis of scale development data and scale refinement and validation. Psychometric qualities of the scale such as validity (content, convergent, divergent and know group) and reliability (internal consistency and stability) was determined at preliminary level. After preliminary evaluation, scale was introduced to 30 Nurse Educators of various nursing institutions using judgmental sampling technique. SPSS was used for statistical analysis. Factor analysis approach was used to determine construct validity of the scale. Principal component analysis (extraction method) was used to determine total variance of scale items which resulted into extraction of nine components (domains of professionalism) of scale based on Eigen value =1. Further Varimax with Kaiser Normalization (Rotation Method) was performed to determine scale items correlation and all 34 scale's items were positively correlated and retained in the scale (Based on factor loading of 0.4). Reliability (internal consistency) of scale was determined. Cronbach's Alpha is used to determine internal consistency (p=.926) where as test retest method was used to determine scale's stability (p=.89) and scale found to be reliable. Domain wise correlation were also calculated which indicates high internal consistency among all nine domains of scale. Finally scale user's norms were established.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.167
GPT teacher head0.569
Teacher spread0.402 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Journal of Nursing Education and ResearchSame topicHealthcare Education and Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207