2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.nepr.2021.103258
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessment methods and tools to evaluate postgraduate critical care nursing students' competence in clinical placement. An integrative review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0
3

Year Published

2022
2022
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
0
13
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Ensuring reliability and validity of tools is important in order to avoid different interpretations or measurements between raters [ 33 ]. In this study, the PGF was used to evaluate the quality of the tools, and only two tools showed a grade of “adequate” or higher, while most showed “weak” or “very weak.” These results were similar to those of a systematic review of evidence-based knowledge measurement tools in nursing practice [ 34 ] and a systematic review of tools for measuring learning outcomes in healthcare students using the PGF [ 35 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ensuring reliability and validity of tools is important in order to avoid different interpretations or measurements between raters [ 33 ]. In this study, the PGF was used to evaluate the quality of the tools, and only two tools showed a grade of “adequate” or higher, while most showed “weak” or “very weak.” These results were similar to those of a systematic review of evidence-based knowledge measurement tools in nursing practice [ 34 ] and a systematic review of tools for measuring learning outcomes in healthcare students using the PGF [ 35 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The kappa value between the two raters over the MMAT scoring was 0.79, indicating substantial agreement 43. In this review, we included all articles due to their information values, even though some studies were not rated as high on quality due to their research designs 46…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Autor upitnika koji je dao saglasnost za korišćenje istog, nije dostavio bodovni sistem za evaluaciju, stoga smo tumačenje dobijenih odgovora izvršili prema bodovnom sistemu koji smo sami kreirali. Za kreiranje bodovnog sistema uzeti su u obzir radovi autora Bijanija i sr., Sandarsa, Øvrebø i sr. i Rodžersa i sr. [6; [10][11][12]. Prema Likertovoj skali koja je korišćena u upitniku, ispitanik je mogao da odgovori sa: 1 = nikad; 2 = retko; 3 = povremeno; 4 =obično; 5 = uvek.…”
Section: Opis Instrumentaunclassified