MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3027053136 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v10n8p47

Translation and validation of the traditional Chinese NLN educational practices questionnaire, simulation design scale and student satisfaction and self-confidence in learning

2020· article· en· W3027053136 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Baljit Kaur Gill

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCronbach's alphaScale (ratio)Mainland ChinaExploratory factor analysisReliability (semiconductor)PsychologyApplied psychologyStatisticsSocial psychologyPsychometricsClinical psychologyChinaMathematicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and objective: Globally, the use of clinical simulation has been incorporated in different nursing programs. It is important to evaluate simulation using reliable and valid instruments. Using the same instrument helps to evaluate simulation under the same criteria both nationally and internationally. The National League of Nursing developed three simulation scales which is widely used in different countries and demonstrates a good reliability and validity. Nevertheless, it is only available in English. The aim of the study was to translate the original NLN simulation evaluation scales into Traditional Chinese and evaluate its psychometric properties.Methods: Beaton and colleague’s (2000) cross-cultural adaptation guidelines was adopted. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α) and Corrected item-total correlation was used to determine the internal reliability. Haccoun’s single group technique was used to assess the equivalent of the scale in the original and the translated version. Lastly, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was used to determine the factor structure and Intra-Class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) to test the stability of translated scale.Results: Nine simulation experts from Hong Kong, Mainland China, Singapore and Taiwan confirmed translation of the NLN scales (EPQ-C, SDS-C, SSCL-C). Cronbach’s alpha of all subscales and overall scales were acceptable (0.72-0.89). The intra-language, inter-language and temporal inter-language cross correlations between the original and translated scales were correlated (p < 0.01). ICC of the translated scales ranges from good to excellent (0.78-0.91). Lastly, EFA also demonstrated the items were theoretically coherent (≥ 0.40) and have the same factor structure as the original English version.Conclusions: Traditional Chinese NLN simulation evaluation scales demonstrated strong validity and reliability.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.153
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and PracticeSame topicSimulation-Based Education in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207