Factors contributing to students’ satisfaction with direct observation of procedural skills in the school of nursing sciences at the University of Zambia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Direct observation of procedural skills is an evidence-based assessment tool used for assessing competence in the practical procedures that nursing students undertake during clinical placement. Having knowledge about students’ satisfaction with their educational issues is very important as it helps both faculty and students to achieve educational goals. However factors that may influence student satisfaction with this method of assessment are not known in the school of nursing sciences at the University of Zambia. The purpose of this study was to investigate factors influencing student satisfaction with direct observation of procedural skills in order to get students views on this assessment tool. A cross sectional quantitative survey was used on ninety two (92) conveniently sampled final year undergraduate nursing students. Data were collected using a validated self-reported questionnaire and analysed using IBM SPSS Version 20. Fisher’s exact tests were used to determine association between student satisfaction and the independent variables. A p-value of ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant. Major findings revealed that poor clinical environment 98.9% and faculty non availability 98% influenced student’s satisfaction negatively. Other significant associations where clinical experiences, and feedback, with p ≤ .05. In conclusion, the major factors that influenced student satisfaction included poor clinical environment which was not conducive for assessments as it lacked many essential medical surgical supplies and non-availability of faculty in the clinical area who were needed to provide feedback, guidance and supervision to the students. Improving the clinical environment, ensuring faculty availability in order to provide timely and constructive feedback may help students achieve their learning objectives. Direct observation of procedural skills still remains an appropriate tool to assess student clinical competence. However, further research and development of cheap, less stressful and economic methods of clinical evaluation to blend with this tool is required in the school of nursing sciences.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".