Anatomical Knowledge Retention in Second‐Year Bachelor of Science & Psychiatric Nursing Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing concern that nursing, medical and allied health students do not retain enough anatomical knowledge to confidently and successfully apply it in future classroom and clinical settings (Doomernik et al., 2017). Evidence now shows that knowledge retention is impacted by many factors including admission criteria, age, sex, ethnicity, prior knowledge of science/biology, a gap between high school and university, and health care discipline (McVicar et al., 2016; Vogl, 2017). In Canada, the discipline of nursing can be subdivided into three professional designations, each with different educational requirements; Registered Nurses, Licensed Practical Nurses, and Registered Psychiatric Nurses (Canadian Nurses Association, 2019). At MacEwan University students in the Psychiatric Nursing Diploma Program (PND) and the Bachelor of Science in Nursing Program (BScN) take the same first year anatomy course. With the understanding that discipline choice has a potential impact on knowledge retention, this study aimed to determine the overall difference in anatomical knowledge retention between second‐year PND students and second‐year BScN students, and if there is a difference based on organ system. To address these questions, second‐year PND and BScN students were quizzed on knowledge that was covered in the anatomy course. For each system, students were asked to answer nine to eleven knowledge and comprehension level multiple‐choice questions. The scores from these quizzes were compared to the first‐year examination scores on the same content to determine overall knowledge retention. Data were statistically analyzed using SPSS II, and means were compared using 2‐sample t‐tests and two‐way ANOVA. The scores are described for each organ system by reporting the mean and standard deviation (SD). The mean score of questions from all organ systems in year one was 81.16 ± 10.6 (SD). Comparing that score to matched test items in year two, there is a significant decrease in the overall mean score from 81.16 ± 10.6 (SD) to 57.86 ± 11.8 (SD) (P<0.01) in BScN students and 51.05 ± 6.06 (SD) (P<0.001) in PND students. This equates to a 76.7% retention rate in BScN students and 69.8% retention rate in PND students. Compared to year 1, organ‐specific knowledge retention levels varied between BScN students and PND students, however the highest retention and lowest retention systems were similar between both cohorts. The highest retention levels were seen in the gastrointestinal system (89.7% BScN; 80.5% PND), respiratory system (88.5% BScN; 86.3% PND), integumentary system (80.1% BScN; 72.7% PND) and special senses (78.7% BScN; 63.0% PND). Retention levels were lowest for the musculoskeletal system (69.3% BScN; 62.2% PND) and the vascular system (53.9% BScN; 62.8% PND). This demonstrates a significant decrease in knowledge retention in both PND and BScN students over the course of one year. Retention levels were organ system and cohort‐specific. PND students demonstrated a significantly lower overall retention rate, however, had a higher level retention in the low scoring vascular system, and less variance in retention levels between systems compared to BScN students.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".