MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417161468 · doi:10.3390/nursrep15120437

Growth and Adaptation of Newly Graduated Nurses Based on Duchscher’s Stages of Transition Theory and Transition Shock Model: A Longitudinal Quantitative Study

2025· article· en· W4417161468 on OpenAlexaff
Lynette Cusack, Loren Madsen, Judy Boychuk Duchscher, Wenpeng You

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransition (genetics)Multinomial logistic regressionLongitudinal studyPerceptionLogistic regressionRegression analysisAdaptation (eye)Shock (circulatory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The transition from student to registered nurse is a vulnerable period characterised by emotional strain, role ambiguity, and transition shock. Although Graduate Nurse Transition Programs (GNTPs) aim to strengthen early practice readiness, few evaluations use longitudinal, theory-informed approaches or validated tools. Aim: To examine the professional role development of new graduate nurses (NGNs) across three transition stages within a major Australian health service. Design and Methods: A longitudinal quantitative study guided by Duchscher’s Stages of Transition Theory and the Transition Shock Model. A customised 75-item questionnaire—adapted from the Professional Role Transition Risk Assessment Instrument and the Professional and Graduate Capability Framework—was administered at three transition points (March 2020–March 2021). Four domains were assessed: Responsibilities, Role Orientation, Relationships, and Knowledge and Confidence. Descriptive statistics, Principal Component Analysis (PCA), chi-square tests, and multinomial logistic regression identified developmental patterns and predictors of transition stage. Results: PCA supported a four-factor structure consistent with the theoretical domains, explaining 62% of variance. Significant stage-based improvements were found in clinical decision-making (RS6, p = 0.005), managing pressure (RS11, p = 0.003), leadership perception (RO5, p = 0.001), and emotional regulation (RL20, p < 0.001). Regression analysis identified role confusion (RS7, χ2 = 18.112, p = 0.001), leadership potential (RL1, χ2 = 25.590, p < 0.001), workplace support (RL16, χ2 = 12.760, p = 0.013), and critical thinking confidence (KN13, χ2 = 10.858, p = 0.028) as strong predictors of transition stage. By Stage 3, most NGNs demonstrated increased autonomy, confidence, and professional integration. A coordinator-to-graduate ratio of 1:12 facilitated personalised mentorship. Conclusions: Findings provide robust evidence for theoretically grounded GNTPs. Tailored interventions—such as early mentorship, mid-stage stress support, and late-stage leadership development—can enhance role clarity, confidence, and workforce sustainability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.301 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing ReportsSame topicNursing education and managementFrench-language works237,207