High-Fidelity Simulation and Clinical Judgment of Nursing Students in a Maternal–Newborn Course
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical judgment, one’s ability to think like a nurse, is an essential skill for safe nursing practice. With the rise of simulation to replace clinical experiences, there is limited evidence regarding the effectiveness of simulation on the development of clinical judgment. This study explored differences in clinical judgment in maternal–newborn courses between undergraduate nursing students participating exclusively in simulation and those participating in hospital-based clinical experiences. Following completion of the clinical rotation, students participated in an evaluative maternal–newborn high-fidelity simulation experience that was recorded and evaluated using the Lasater’s Clinical Judgment Rubric (2007). Lasater’s Clinical Judgment Rubric scores between the simulation and clinical practice groups were compared using an independent sample t-test. There was no statistical difference in clinical judgment scores between the simulation and hospital-based clinical groups ( t = −1.056, P = .295). Our findings suggest that simulation may be a comparable alternative to clinical experience in nursing education.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it