MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610575189 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v7n10p36

Canadian NCLEX-RN outcomes: A two-year cross-sectional exploratory study in Ontario

2017· article· en· W2610575189 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Nancy A. Sears, Maha Othman, Leah O'Neil, Wilma M. Hopman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsKingston General HospitalQueen's UniversitySt. Lawrence College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLicensureConfidence intervalMedicineLogistic regressionOdds ratioPsychologyDemographyMedical educationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Objective: In January 2015, 10 of 12 registered nurse regulators in Canada began using the National Council Licensure Exam for Registered Nursing (NCLEX-RN) as the entry-to-practice examination. We examine the NCLEX-RN performance of BScN graduates from three sites of one program across the first 2 years of its use. We aim to investigate the relationship between undergraduate academic performance and NCLEX-RN performance, and to determine predictors of success and/or failure on the exam.Methods: A total of 215 graduates who wrote the 2015 or 2016 NCLEX-RN participated in the study. Course grades, final program percentage grade and GPAs, and students’ time to complete the program are examined against pass/fail performance on the NCLEX-RN. Student’s t test and Chi Square tests are used for comparative analysis. Logistic regression identified the odds ratio and associated 95% confidence interval for each one-unit increase in GPAs as a predictor of success.Results: Overall, 141 of 215 (66%) graduates passed NCLEX-RN and 74 (34%) failed, with no significant difference between the two years. Time to complete the program is significantly lower (p = .002) and graduating GPA is significantly higher (p < .001) among those who passed the NCLEX-RN compared to those who failed. With one exception, all course grades are significantly higher for students who passed, compared to those who failed. The odds of passing the NCLEX-RN increase by 10 (95% CI 4.5, 22.6) for each one-point increase in GPA. At a GPA of 4.0, zero failures on NCLEX-RN are observed.Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first Canadian systematic institutional based study examining the relationship between NCLEX-RN performance and academic factors. The study concludes high academic performance remains a strong predictor for NCLEX-RN success. Future, preferably multicenter larger studies, could further the understanding of the performance on this exam in Canada and support practices enhancing students’ success on the NCLEX-RN.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.240
GPT teacher head0.564
Teacher spread0.324 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and PracticeSame topicNursing Roles and PracticesFrench-language works237,207