Faculty attitudes towards nursing students with disabilities in the clinical setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this phenomenological study was to explore nursing faculty attitudes towards students with disabilities enrolled in baccalaureate nursing programs. Additionally, we aimed to describe the types of accommodations provided to students with disabilities in the clinical setting.Methods: In two institutions of higher education in the southeastern United States, purposive and snowball sampling was used to recruit 14 nursing faculty with experience teaching in clinical courses. One-on-one interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide. Data were transcribed and analyzed using Colaizzi’s process for phenomenological data analysis. The social model of disability served as the conceptual framework for the study.Results: Six themes emerged from the data analysis: ‘Math is a basic required skill,’ ‘You can’t just skip clinical,’ ‘It’s my job to help them learn,’ ‘I’m not prepared for this,’ ‘What type of job will they get,’ and ‘overcoming obstacles.’ Nursing faculty reported positive attitudes towards students with disabilities, but also voiced concerns about patient safety and the ability for a student with a disability to find success. Several barriers including disclosure, lack of accessibility in hospitals, nursing culture, and faculty workload were identified.Conclusions: A lack of clear policies and guidelines leaves nursing faculty unsure of what accommodations are appropriate for students with disabilities and how to implement accommodations in clinical courses. The study demonstrates a need for continuing education regarding teaching methodologies that are effective and meaningful for students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, diagnosed anxiety, and specific learning disabilities. Further research is warranted to identify appropriate accommodations for students with disabilities in the clinical setting.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".