Validation of student academic advising and counseling evaluation tool among undergraduate nursing students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Academic advising and counseling services support students in achieving their educational outcomes. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of research on academic advising and student-support systems among nursing students. Therefore, the current study aims to develop a student academic advising and counseling survey (SAACS) and measure its validity and reliability. METHODS: Cross-sectional design was used to collect online self-administered data from undergraduate nursing students in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The SAACS is developed based on relevant literature and tested for content and construct validity. RESULTS: A total of 1,134 students from both sites completed the questionnaire. Students' mean age was 20.3 ± 1.4, and the majority of them were female (81.9%), single (95.6%), and unemployed (92.3%). The content validity index (CVI) of SAACS overall score (S-CVI) is 0.989, and S-CVI/UA (universal agreement) is 0.944, which indicates excellent content validity. The overall SAACS reliability showed an excellent internal consistency with a Cronbach's Alpha of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.966 - 0.972). CONCLUSIONS: The SAACS is a valid and reliable tool for assessing students' experience with academic advising and counseling services and can be utilized to improve those services in nursing school settings.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".