MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3188481516 · doi:10.1111/inr.12705

NCLEX‐RN<sup>©</sup> preparation resources available online in French: An integrative review

2021· review· en· W3188481516 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michelle Lalonde, Gabrielle Prairie, Brandi Vanderspank‐Wright, Julie Chartrand, Linda M. Hall, Michelle Lamont

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Nursing Review · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOttawa HospitalInstitut du Savoir MontfortMontfort HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGraduation (instrument)FrenchCINAHLEnglish languageLicensureGrey literatureMedical educationMEDLINEMedicinePsychologyPolitical scienceNursingMathematics educationHumanitiesPsychological interventionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aim This review describes the availability of online French NCLEX‐RN © preparation resources for candidates Background One entry to practice requirement for Canadian nurses is to successfully pass a licensing exam upon graduation from their educational program. In 2015, the American NCLEX‐RN © replaced the Canadian entry to practice licensing examination which was offered in Canada's two official languages: English and French. The NCLEX‐RN © was developed in English and later translated to French. Since its implementation, Francophone candidates and educators in Canada have reported a lack of preparatory resources available in their language and have had substantial lower NCLEX‐RN © pass rates, consistently below 50% Methods An integrative review using Whittemore and Knafl's framework was conducted between February and May 2019, and updated in September 2020, through online searches of CINAHL, PubMed, Science Direct and Google Scholar databases. Grey literature was included from 2012 onwards. Results are presented narratively. Results A total of 17 French language preparatory resources were found. These resources were categorised into four main groups: (1) What is the NCLEX‐RN © ?; (2) What do I need to do prior to writing the NCLEX‐RN © ?; (3) What is assessed through the NCLEX‐RN © ? and finally, (4) How can I practice before taking the NCLEX‐RN © ? Conclusion Limited French‐language NCLEX‐RN © preparatory resources exist for Francophone candidates. Furthermore, practice questions in French are few compared to what is available in English Implications for Nursing and Nursing Policy Other countries may consider implementing an entry to practice exam such as the NCLEX‐RN © because of its availability in both the French and English language, as well as the possibility of translating the exam to other languages, creating a potential market for this test around the globe. The lack of preparatory resources in French is a major concern to Francophone candidates undertaking such a high‐stakes examination in their language. Nursing stakeholders and policy leaders should acknowledge that such gaps place Francophone writers in a disadvantaged position in comparison to their Anglophone counterparts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.401 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Nursing ReviewSame topicNursing Roles and PracticesFrench-language works237,207