Virtual Health Assessment Laboratory Course Delivery and Nursing Student Clinical Judgment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is essential to explore virtual learning experiences to identify their impact on nursing students' learning. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between the virtual delivery of a health assessment laboratory course and nursing students' clinical judgment. METHODS: Using a mixed-methods explanatory sequential design, the investigators appraised the final laboratory examinations of both in-person and virtual delivery cohorts using the Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric (LCJR) and then interviewed faculty members. RESULTS: The LCJR total mean scores (mean = 10.64) and mean scores for Effective Noticing (mean = 3.48) were higher for the virtual delivery students. The faculty reported that virtual delivery advances students' critical appraisal skills related to subjective assessment but advocated for in-person delivery to develop physical examination techniques. CONCLUSION: Although the mean clinical judgment scores were higher for the students whose course delivery was virtual, in-person experiences are necessary to develop psychomotor techniques to prepare students for clinical practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".