A Confidence and Preparedness Survey: Cognitive Interviews for Tool Assessment and Nursing Student Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Safe medication administration is a critical responsibility of registered nurses and is an essential skill developed during nursing education. Student confidence and preparation regarding medication administration are essential aspects of professional skill building. The Confidence and Preparation Survey (CPS) was used previously among homogeneous nursing student samples. The existing dominant discourse, shaped by ideologies and systems, can unfortunately lead to limited perspectives; therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate and refine the CPS for feasibility, clarity, and validity among nursing students primarily from groups that have been historically marginalized. A secondary purpose considered the conditions that affect perceived confidence and preparedness. Cognitive interviews were undertaken with baccalaureate nursing students ( n = 11) attending an urban college of nursing in the Northeastern region of the United States. Data were analyzed using rapid qualitative techniques and the framework matrix method. The CPS was readily understood and interpreted by this sample. Student perspectives of conditions that influence their understanding and interpretation of the CPS are described under three themes: (1) prior outside of school healthcare experiences influence understanding, (2) school experiences support survey comprehension, and (3) concerns over insufficient training within school. Findings also include a revised CPS instrument ready for further testing.
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 | 0.016 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".