Changing nurse licensing examinations: media analysis and implications of the Canadian experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This study examines perceptions of the implementation of National Council Licensing Examination in Canada through a content analysis of articles in the media. BACKGROUND: Public opinions of nursing in the media have been acknowledged as important for the profession, specifically in relation to their portrayal of nursing. INTRODUCTION: The Canadian Council of Registered Nurse Regulators began using the US-based National Council Licensing Examination as entry examination (also known widely as NCLEX) for Canada's registered nurses, discontinuing the previous Canadian Registered Nurse Examination in 2015. METHODS: A qualitative content analysis was conducted of media reports that emerged following adoption of the National Council Licensing Examination in Canada, and highlight the image of nursing portrayed in the media during this key regulatory policy change. RESULTS: Release of the examination results for the first three quarters of 2015 identified a much lower overall Canadian pass rate than with the previous exam. Media reports highlight differences in perception of the examination between Canadian regulators and other stakeholders in the context of the examination experiences reported and test results. Issues around applicability of the examination to Canadian nursing practice, curriculum alignment, language translation concerns and stakeholder engagement were identified. DISCUSSION: The implementation of the National Council Licensing Examination in Canada highlighted lack of communication among nursing stakeholders in the country. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the media reporting has been negative and poses a reputational risk to the Canadian nursing profession. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING POLICY: This change in the licensing requirement has significant policy implications for nursing in Canada and globally. Issues such as appropriate examination translation, access to appropriate test preparation materials, assurance that the examination reflects distinctive aspects of a country's healthcare system and the need for stakeholder engagement were identified.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".