MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2980849073 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v10n1p101

The relation between standardized test scores and NCLEX-RN failure

2019· article· en· W2980849073 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lindsay Domiano, Danielle Charrier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLicensureLogistic regressionNursing shortageNursingTest (biology)Economic shortageMedicineNurse educationFamily medicinePsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

First time pass rates on the National Council Licensure Examination – Registered Nurses (NCLEX-RN) are the desired outcome of Schools of Nursing across the United States. The purpose of this study was to determine if there was a relation between standardized testing scores and NCLEX-RN failure among students in a baccalaureate nursing program. This study utilized a retrospective correlational design to identify relations between the dependent variables NCLEX-RN failure and the independent variables. The 16 Independent Variables were: Fundamentals of Nursing Practice and Repeat, Adult Health Nursing and Repeat, Mental Health Nursing and Repeat, Pediatric Nursing and repeat, Obstetrical Nursing and Repeat, Community Health Nursing and Repeat, RN Exit Exam and Repeat, and Pharmacology and Pharmacology Repeat. The statistical tests utilized for data analysis were: logistic regression, multiple logistic regression model, and Pearson’s χ2 cross-tabulations. Significant findings identified students “at risk” for NCLEX-RN failure. Faculty intervention early on and throughout the students’ nursing program will help improve student outcomes, NCLEX-RN success, and ultimately helping to alleviate the nursing shortage.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.422 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice→Same topicNursing Roles and Practices→French-language works237,207→