Development and reliability testing of the quality clinical placement evaluation tool

Authors:
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Aims and objectives: To develop and test the content and face validity, and reliability of the quality clinical placement evaluation tool.Background: The importance of clinical experience during undergraduate nursing degrees is undisputed. To date, tools available to measure quality of clinical placements have focused on single perspectives, that of the undergraduate or that of the supervising nurse. The quality clinical placement evaluation tool was proposed to provide an assessment of clinical placement experiences informed by supervising ward nurses and undergraduate stakeholders.Design: The study employed a cross‐sectional design.Methods: The internal validity of an existing instrument was evaluated by an expert panel and modified for use in the acute care sector. Surveys were completed by undergraduate students (n = 48) and supervising ward nurses (n = 47). Factor analysis was used to identify themes drawn from the literature and explore redundancy of items. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency and test–retest (five to seven days apart).Results: Reliability testing showed good internal consistency for the tool; test–retest reliability testing results were moderate to good for students and fair to moderate for nurses. Factor analysis identified three core themes related to supervising ward nurse responses that could also be applied to undergraduate nurses. The domains identified were the following: welcome and belonging; support to meet learning needs; and confidence and competence: reflections on learning.Conclusions: The quality clinical placement evaluation has shown statistically acceptable levels of reliability and validity for measuring the quality of clinical placement from perspectives of undergraduates and supervising ward nurses.Relevance to clinical practice: The tool provides tertiary institutions, acute care facilities, wards and individuals with the means to capture views of the quality of clinical placement which can also be used to undertake comparisons over time and between sites.

This publication has 30 references indexed in Scilit: