The relationship between levels of Alexithymia and communication skills of nursing students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background & Objective: Effective communication in the nursing profession is not just a personal skill but is accepted as a learned and gained technique in the instructional process. It is possible for nurses to professionally provide effective and quality service with the establishment, development, and transfer to emotion of effective communication with people. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between levels of alexithymia and communication skills of nursing students. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted among students attending the School of Nursing in a university in Turkey in the 2017-2018 Spring semester. A total of 634 nursing students participated in the study. The data in the study were collected with the “Student Introduction Form”, the “Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS)” and the “Communication Skills Scale (CSS)”. Means, standard deviations, t-test, ANOVA and Pearson correlation analysis were used for the analysis. Results: The mean TAS scores of the nursing students were found to be 56.31±8.82, and the students had “moderate alexithymia” based on the average scores of the scale. The mean CSS scores of the nursing students in the study was found to be 91.16±12.99, and the students had “Good level of communication” based on the average scores of the scale. In our study, a negative and moderate correlation between the levels of alexithymia of nursing students and their communication skills was detected (p: 0.001). Conclusion: It was found that as the levels of alexithymia of nursing student increased, their communication skills decreased. How to cite this:Sancar B, Aktas D. The relationship between levels of Alexithymia and communication skills of nursing students. Pak J Med Sci. 2019;35(2):489-494. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.35.2.604 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".