lnu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Assessment during clinical education among nursing students using two different assessment instruments
Karolinska Institutet, Sweden;Södersjukhuset, Sweden.
Linnaeus University, Faculty of Technology, Department of computer science and media technology (CM). Linnaeus University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Pedagogy and Learning. Karolinska Institutet, Sweden. (EdTechLnu)ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3738-7945
Karolinska Institutet, Sweden.
Umeå University, Sweden;Sophiahemmet University, Sweden.
2024 (English)In: BMC Medical Education, E-ISSN 1472-6920, Vol. 24, no 1, article id 852Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background Assessment of undergraduate students using assessment instruments in the clinical setting is known to be complex. The aim of this study was therefore to examine whether two different assessment instruments, containing learning objectives (LO`s) with similar content, results in similar assessments by the clinical supervisors and to explore clinical supervisors’ experiences of assessment regarding the two different assessment instruments.

Method A mixed-methods approach was used. Four simulated care encounter scenarios were evaluated by 50 supervisors using two different assessment instruments. 28 follow-up interviews were conducted. Descriptive statistics and logistic binary regression were used for quantitative data analysis, along with qualitative thematic analysis of interview data.

Result While significant differences were observed within the assessment instruments, the differences were consistent between the two instruments, indicating that the quality of the assessment instruments were considered equivalent. Supervisors noted that the relationship between the students and supervisors could introduce subjectivity in the assessments and that working in groups of supervisors could be advantageous. In terms of formative assessments, the Likert scale was considered a useful tool for evaluating learning objectives. However, supervisors had different views on grading scales and the need for clear definitions. The supervisors concluded that a complicated assessment instrument led to limited very-day usage and did not facilitate formative feedback. Furthermore, supervisors discussed how their experiences influenced the use of the assessment instruments, which resulted in different descriptions of the experience. These differences led to a discussion of the need of supervisor teams to enhance the validity of assessments.

Conclusion The findings showed that there were no significant differences in pass/fail gradings using the two different assessment instruments. The quantitative data suggests that supervisors struggled with subjectivity, phrasing, and definitions of the LO´s and the scales used in both instruments. This resulted in arbitrary assessments that were time-consuming and resulted in limited usage in the day-to-day assessment. To mitigate the subjectivity, supervisors suggested working in teams and conducting multiple assessments over time to increase assessment validity.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer Nature, 2024. Vol. 24, no 1, article id 852
Keywords [en]
Assessment, Clinical education, Feedback, Learning objectives
National Category
Educational Sciences
Research subject
Pedagogics and Educational Sciences, Education
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-131640DOI: 10.1186/s12909-024-05771-xISI: 001285774000006Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85200862577OAI: oai:DiVA.org:lnu-131640DiVA, id: diva2:1887447
Funder
Karolinska InstituteAvailable from: 2024-08-08 Created: 2024-08-08 Last updated: 2024-08-21Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(1090 kB)51 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 1090 kBChecksum SHA-512
dc01e09fff58e40cbed41f50a8bf027a9a94dfa881d1d604bb48598b1ff9b0d30cf6cd00ee3c59f97a1d28d1c12c110476786c14eb641fc5e589905c27f4c0ee
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records

Masiello, Italo

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Masiello, Italo
By organisation
Department of computer science and media technology (CM)Department of Pedagogy and Learning
In the same journal
BMC Medical Education
Educational Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 51 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 127 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf