4.6 Article

Quality assurance of the clinical learning environment in Austria: Construct validity of the Clinical Learning Environment, Supervision and Nurse Teacher Scale (CLES plus T scale)

期刊

NURSE EDUCATION TODAY
卷 66, 期 -, 页码 158-165

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.nedt.2018.04.022

关键词

Construct validity; Competence development; Clinical learning environment; CLES plus T scale

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Within nursing education, the clinical learning environment is of a high importance in regards to the development of competencies and abilities. The organization, atmosphere, and supervision in the clinical learning environment are only a few factors that influence this development. In Austria there is currently no valid instrument available for the evaluation of influencing factors. Objectives: The aim of the study was to test the construct validity with principal component analysis as well as the internal consistency of the German Clinical Learning Environment, Supervision and Teacher Scale (CLES + T scale) in Austria. Method: The present validation study has a descriptive-quantitative cross-sectional design. The sample consisted of 385 nursing students from thirteen training institutions in Austria. The data collection was carried out online between March and April 2016. Starting with a polychoric correlation matrix, a parallel analysis with principal component extraction and promax rotation was carried out due to the ordinal data. Results: The exploratory ordinal factor analysis supported a four-component solution and explained 73% of the total variance. The internal consistency of all 25 items reached a Cronbach's a of 0.95 and the four components ranged between 0.83 and 0.95. Conclusion: The German version of the CLES + T scale seems to be a useful instrument for identifying potential areas of improvement in clinical practice in order to derive specific quality measures for the practical learning environment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据