Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 403
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
   Table of Contents      
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 25  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 325-332

Development and psychometric assessment of nursing student's satisfaction with first clinical practical education questionnaire: Modified version


1 School of Nursing and Midwifery, Department of Nursing, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran
2 Nursing Care Research Center in Chronic Diseases, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran
3 Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Ahvaz jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran

Date of Submission29-Dec-2018
Date of Decision18-Mar-2020
Date of Acceptance27-Apr-2020
Date of Web Publication17-Jun-2020

Correspondence Address:
Marziyeh Asadizaker
Nursing Care Research Center in Chronic Diseases, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijnmr.IJNMR_229_18

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Background: The present study aimed to develop an instrument for assessing nursing students' satisfaction with First Clinical Practical Education (SFCPE), and then to test the validity and reliability of the instrument. Materials and Methods: In this methodological research, the views of a panel of 15 clinical professors, in terms of the clinical nursing principles and skills training, were used to develop the instrument. The content validity of the instrument was evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively based on the panel's views. The data was collected from the questionnaire completed by 380 second- and third-semester nursing students in 15 medical universities of Iran. The Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was later performed to determine the construct validity of the instrument. The reliability of the instrument and stability analysis were evaluated using the internal consistency test by calculating Cronbach's alpha and by the test-retest method, respectively. Results: Throughout the development phase, 16 items were added to the SFCPE instrument, and a 42-item instrument was later developed. During the qualitative and quantitative content validity reviews, the number of added items decreased to 38 items. Finally, a 37-item instrument consisting of seven factors was developed. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients of 0.95 and 0.75–0.9 were obtained for the whole instrument and the factors, respectively. Pearson's correlation coefficient was within the normal range (0.71–1). Conclusions: The developed SFCPE is a valid and reliable instrument that can be used for assessing the satisfaction of nursing students in terms of clinical nursing principles and skills.

Keywords: Nursing, personal satisfaction, psychometrics, students


How to cite this article:
Mohammadnejad F, Asadizaker M, Molavynejad S, Saki-Malehi A. Development and psychometric assessment of nursing student's satisfaction with first clinical practical education questionnaire: Modified version. Iranian J Nursing Midwifery Res 2020;25:325-32

How to cite this URL:
Mohammadnejad F, Asadizaker M, Molavynejad S, Saki-Malehi A. Development and psychometric assessment of nursing student's satisfaction with first clinical practical education questionnaire: Modified version. Iranian J Nursing Midwifery Res [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Jul 13];25:325-32. Available from: http://www.ijnmrjournal.net/text.asp?2020/25/4/325/287026




  Introduction Top


Clinical experience has always been an integral part of nursing education.[1],[2] In the meantime, the first clinical experience is important, since it is the time at which a person confirms the nursing profession as his/her career.[3] The first encounter or autonomy enhances their learning or makes them more dependent on instructors as a result of fear.[4] Nursing students feel anxious since they have no skills and knowledge to take care of the patient. For this reason, many nursing students are not satisfied with their clinical education department.[1]

Dynamic and competitive learning settings along with other challenges have made universities more aware of the importance of student satisfaction.[5] Satisfaction is defined as the state of mind resulted from confirming the individual expectations of reality. The lack of a standard definition for satisfaction has become an intricate problem, as measuring student satisfaction is an effective instrument for the development of higher education with desirable quality.[6] In order to assess the nursing students' perceptions of clinical learning settings, there is a need for valid and reliable instruments that can assess the quality of hospital departments as appropriate clinical learning settings.[7]

There are various psychometric instruments for measuring students' satisfaction with the dimensions of their curriculum. These instruments include “Nursing Student Satisfaction Scale for the Associate Nursing Programs (NSSSANP),”[8] “Satisfaction with Simulation Experience Scale (SSE), “[9] “Satisfaction with Cultural Simulation Experience Scale (SCSES),”[10] “Undergraduate Nursing Student Academic Satisfaction Scale (UNSASS), “[11] and “ the evaluation of the Undergraduate Clinical Education Environment Measure (UCEEM). “[12] “Satisfaction withFirst Clinical Practical Education (SFCPE), “ developed by Asadizaker et al., is another questionnaire that has been recently designed and underwent a psychometric evaluation; it consists of 26 items and seven areas.[13] As noted, various instruments have been designed to assess the nursing student satisfaction level with nursing education programs in general, in which most of them have focused on the study of the educational setting, and SFCPE is the only instrument that specifically addresses the first clinical practical education.

Up to now, only a single instrument, SFCPE, has been designed to perform the psychometric evaluation to assess the nursing students' satisfaction with the process of the first clinical education experience, and their research is an action research, as well as their study population is limited to the studied students and the expert panel of limited universities; hence, there is a need to develop and re-analyze psychometric evaluation of this instrument. Therefore, the present study aimed to develop and analyze the psychometric evaluation of SFCPE.


  Materials and Methods Top


This study is a methodological research. This study was conducted in medical universities affiliated to the Ministry of Health and Medical Education of Iran from January to October 2017. The development and psychometric evaluation of the SFCPE instrument was performed in three steps as follows. The first step involved the development of the SFCPE instrument, using views of the panel of experts and literature review. In the second step, the validity of the new instrument was evaluated and then corrected. Finally, the reliability of the instrument was evaluated in the third phase.

In this research, the instrument measuring nursing student satisfaction from the first clinical experience, which was designed by Asadizaker et al. (2015), was developed. To extract the items in this instrument, the following methods were used: Focus group, literature review, titles, and objectives of nursing internship approved by the Iran's Institute for Research and Planning in Higher Education and Ministry of Health and Medical Education. The content validity was calculated using Content Validity Index (CVI) and Content Validity Ratio (CVR). A total of 26 items were extracted from seven factors including instructor performance, integrated plan, feelings and perceptions, learning atmosphere, scheduling, facilities, and access to professionals using EFA. Cronbach's alpha and Spearman–Brown split-half method were used to examine the internal consistency; the stability was also evaluated using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). The Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the first to seven dimensions and general scale were calculated as 0.92, 0.82, 0.78, 0.73, 0.70, 0.65, 0.60, and 0.92, which are also indicative of an appropriate internal consistency for each dimension of the questionnaire. The Spearman–Brown coefficient was 0.91 and the internal correlation index was 0.926, indicating a high degree of internal consistency and instrument stability, respectively.[13] The specialist panel's views and the literature review were used to develop the SFCPE instrument in the present study. One of the primary steps in designing the instrument is determining the domain and scope of the intended concept, which can be achieved through a review of studies and interviews by experts as appropriate methods for determining the scope and the concept in question.[14]

In order to improve the evaluation quality and achieve the desired results at the beginning of this process, theoretical and practical definitions of vocabulary and dimensions of the questionnaire, using the viewpoints of instructors and literature review, were given to 15 research panels consisting of clinical field professors teaching in Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares, Shahid Beheshti, Shiraz, Isfahan, Arak, Gilan, Ilam, Kermanshah, and Jahrom, Iran, who were specialized in teaching the clinical skills and principles of nursing and also in performing the psychometric evaluation of nursing education instruments. They were later asked, considering the importance of the subject and the scope of the factors involved in nursing students' satisfaction from the first clinical education experience, to provide the effective proposed items in this area as well as their supplementary and corrective views in written form to develop the instrument. The SFCPE measure was given to the expert panel through email and in person. The proposed items were added to the instrument, corrective changes were made to the items, and the new questionnaire entered the psychometric stage after collecting information obtained from experts' views and literature review and after consulting with the members of the research team.

Validity indicates how much the instrument measures the concept or the construct in question.[15] The instrument was evaluated in terms of content validity and construct validity in the present research. Evidence of content validity implies the extent to which the term “measurement” encompasses all the major components of the concept.[16] To determine content validity, two qualitative and quantitative methods were used.

Qualitative validity was confirmed using a technique based on experts' judgment.[16] In this regard, the instrument was given to 15 experts through email and in person, and they were asked to examine instrument items based on the criteria including using proper words, simplicity, clarity, ambiguity, or conceptual similarity. Corrective changes were made to the instrument after the data collection and the instrument was entered into a quantitative content validity review.

Quantitative content validity analysis was performed using two methods of CVR and CVI. To determine CVR, 15 experts were asked to review each item based on a 3-point scale (It is necessary; it is useful, but not necessary; it is not necessary). Then, the responses were calculated based on the scale.[17],[18] According to the Lawshe Table, items with a CVR of 0.49 (based on the assessment by 15 experts) were maintained [Table 1].[19]
Table 1: Critical values for Lawshe's Content Validity Ratio

Click here to view


Waltz and Bausell's method was used to assess the CVI. To fulfill this, the instrument was provided to 15 experts who were later asked to determine the relevance, clarity, and fluency of each item in the instrument using score range of 1–4, in terms of the Waltz and Bausell's content validity index.[20] The CVI was calculated for each item by dividing the number of experts who were agree with assign ratings 3 and 4 to the item on the total number of experts. In this method, the items with scores of higher than 79 are suitable, between 70 and 79 require correction, and less than 70 are unacceptable.[21]

EFA was performed to determine the construct validity. EFA is a collection of multivariate statistical processes providing a better understanding of the measured variables by determining a set of main dimensions responsible for the most variance in certain indices.[22] EFA was performed by principal factor analysis with varimax rotation. Various studies offered different ratios for the sample size required for factor analysis. In this regard, various studies have reported minimum subjects-variables ratio as 3 to 1, 10 to 1, 15 to 1, and 20 to 1.[23] In the present study, 10 students were considered for each item. Considering that the number of instrument items was 38, 380 nursing students in second and third semesters from the University Medical Sciences of Iran, Shiraz, Ahvaz, Shahid Beheshti, Arak, Hamedan, Lorestan, Kermanshah, Golestan, Qazvin, Kashan, Ilam, Jahrom, Dezful, and Shahrekord were selected using the stratified random sampling and were then enrolled in the study. To ensure the adequacy of the sample size, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index, which has 0.94 as a significant level (p < 0.001), was used. Therefore, the data adequacy and capability were confirmed, so that the factor analysis can be performed on them later.

One of the basic criteria for evaluating the instrument quality is reliability. Reliability refers to the instrument's stability in measuring the characteristic in question.[16] Cronbach's alpha is considered as the best way to evaluate internal consistency. Cronbach's alpha coefficient of <0.7 is satisfactory and <0.8 indicates high internal consistency of the instrument.[24] The internal consistency of the instrument was measured by calculating Cronbach's alpha separately for each dimension and for the whole scale. Test-retest method was used to evaluate the stability of the questionnaire. To fulfill that, the questionnaire was completed by 15 members of the target group twice with a two-week interval. All data analysis steps were performed using SPSS Ver. 22.

Ethical considerations

The present study was conducted after obtaining permission from the Vice-Chancellor of Research of Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences in Ahvaz with the code of ethics IR.AJUMS.REC.1396.62. After explaining the research goals, the freedom to participate in the study, and confidentiality of the information, the researcher invited university professors and students who were interested to participate in the study.


  Results Top


The subjects were 380 nursing students in second and third semesters. The response rate was 100%. The minimum and maximum age ranges of students were 19 and 23 years, respectively. Also, the majority of them were female (68.40%). A total of 96.40% of students had diplomas. A total of 86.10% and 18.40% students were studying in second and third semesters, respectively. The data were collected from 10 clinical wards, with the general surgery ward accounting for the highest percentage (51%). This questionnaire was distributed among the nursing undergraduate students, studying in 15 universities of medical sciences in Iran.

Instrument development

During the instrument development phase, 16 items related to the nursing students' satisfaction from the first clinical education experience were added to the SFCPE instrument, and a 42-item instrument was later developed.

Content validity

Content validity was evaluated quantitatively and quantitatively. During the qualitative content validity review and after obtaining the experts' views, the statements of 20 items were corrected, the two items were deleted from the total number of instrument items because of their semantic overlapping, and one item was split into two items. Consequently, the number of items reached 41 items at the end of this stage.

Quantitative content validity review

After calculating the CVI, the two items scored 0.75, which were corrected and maintained according to the research team' views and desired CVI score, and 39 other items obtained the desired score (0.79–1). After calculating the CVR and considering the desired CVR score of 0.49, three items scored 0.46, based on 15 experts' views, and were accordingly omitted. The 42-item instrument was developed into a 38-item instrument after following processes: making changes to the items resulting from the development outcome and the results of qualitative and quantitative content validity analyses performed on the instrument, and modifying the items in the form of deletion, splitting, and correction.

Construct validity

The results of factor analysis showed KMO index rate of 0.94, indicating a sufficient sample size for factor analysis. The Bartlett's test of sphericity also showed the suitability of factor analysis for identifying the structure of the factor model at a significant level (p < 0.001) and indicated discoverable relationships between the variables that underwent factor analysis [Table 2].
Table 2: KMO* sampling adequacy index and the results of Bartlett's test of sphericity

Click here to view


According to the results of factor analysis with varimax rotation, all questions of the instrument were evaluated with an eigenvalue of 1 [Table 3]. Finally, the resultant 38-item instrument was developed consisting of eight factors. The first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh factors consisting of 9, 7, 4, 7, 4, 3, and 7 items had factor loadings of 0.39–0.70, 0.41–0.72, 0.53–0.73, 0.42–0.61, 0.53–0.78, 0.53–0.72, and 0.47–0.79, respectively. The eighth factor was omitted as it had only a single item. The results of EFA showed that, after removing one item at this stage, “37-item SFCPE” instrument was classified into seven factors as follows: “Instructor's performance,” “Coherence of the curriculum,” “Instructor's behavior,” “Attention to students' feelings and perceptions,” “Emotional atmosphere and learning in the clinical setting,” “Creating a favorable condition to enter the profession,” and “Creating appropriate learning opportunities,” “with 5-point Likert scale,” ranging from “Completely satisfied” to “Completely dissatisfied.”
Table 3: Factor loadings from exploratory analysis by the items of the SFCPE*

Click here to view


Reliability

The reliability of the questionnaire was assessed using an internal consistency test by calculating Cronbach's alpha. The stability was evaluated by performing the test-retest method and also calculating the intra-cluster correlation index. The internal consistency of 0.95 was obtained for the final version of the 37-item instrument used for the sample of 380 students. Also, the reliability of the instrument for each of the factors was good, with the minimum and maximum Cronbach's alpha values as 0.75 and 0.90, respectively [Table 4]. The instrument stability was assessed by performing a test-retest method, in accordance with the scores obtained from the 15 students at two test intervals (two-week intervals). The Pearson's correlation coefficient was within the normal range (0.71–1), which implies the acceptable stability of the instrument. The results of the reliability assessment showed that the nursing student's Satisfaction withFirst Clinical Practical Education instrument enjoys a high degree of stability.
Table 4: Principal factor analysis with varimax rotation and Cronbach's alpha coefficients

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


The framework of the present study focused on the concept of satisfaction from the first clinical education experience. Understanding students' experiences in a clinical setting provides a good perspective for nursing faculties. Accordingly, satisfaction is an important characteristic in nursing education; hence, it is important for making the process of learning more attractive and meaningful.[25]

The SFCPE instrument was developed based on the experts' views and review of the relevant studies. At the psychometric evaluation phase of the instrument, the results of content validity (qualitative and quantitative), construct validity (exploratory factor analysis), internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha coefficient), and stability (test-retest reliability method) confirmed the validity and reliability of the developed instrument. Finally, a valid and reliable 37-item instrument was developed in seven domains as follows: “instructor's performance,” “coherence of the curriculum,” “instructor's behavior,” “attention to students' feelings and perceptions,” “emotional atmosphere and learning in the clinical setting,” “creating a favorable condition to enter the profession,” and “creating appropriate learning opportunities. “

In the present research, “instructor's performance” was recognized as the most important domain for students' satisfaction, which includes nine items on students' satisfaction with the instructor's role in providing appropriate clinical education, training communication skills, continuous interaction with other educational elements, and compliance with training rules. Also, three items of the instructor's performance dimension of the SFCPE instrument remained in this the newly developed instrument. Tavakoli et al.'s study showed that most of the students and instructors considered the role of instructor as the most important dimension.[26] The second domain included coherence of the curriculum, consisting of 7 items. The items in this domain were related to the students' satisfaction with the content of the curriculum, correct notification to students on the procedure of presenting the curriculum, and the coherence between the faculty and the clinical departments in the students' first clinical experience. Three items of the curriculum coherence dimension of the SFCPE instrument remained in this the newly developed instrument. Peters et al.[27] and Yang et al.[28] also confirmed the need to pay attention to the coherent structure of clinical education and enhancement of student learning through the clarification of educational goals, design of appropriate learning activities, and clinical education innovations tailored to the curriculum.

The third domain included the instructor's behavior consisting of three items. This new dimension was not found in the SFCPE instrument; also, it examines students' satisfaction regarding instructors' decent treatment toward students and his/her capability and being a role model. Three items of instructor's performance of the SFCPE instrument were included in this new dimension. Collier also stated that personality characteristics, educational skills, and interpersonal relationships play a decisive role in the effectiveness of his education.[29] The fourth domain included paying attention to the students' feelings and perceptions consisting of seven items that were related to the students' satisfaction from overcoming the stress caused by the first clinical exposure, and the feeling of calm and the instructor's reasonable expectations, his/her attempts to provide support to the students, and give feedback on their behavior. The item of ''attention to students' feelings and perceptions'' dimension of the SFCPE instrument was included in the same dimension of the newly developed instrument. Also, it was noted that nursing students experience a lot of stress during the first year of study, most of which are related to clinical components.[30] Other studies have placed emphasis on the importance of the supportive, guiding, encouraging, facilitating role of clinical educators along with their clinical competence, good morality, and seriousness of clinical education quality.[31] The fifth domain included the emotional atmosphere and learning in the clinical setting, consisting of four items that were related to students' satisfaction with clinical facilities and interactions of professional nurses. Two items of the same dimension of the SFCPE instrument were included in this dimension of the newly developed SFCPE instrument. Gemuhay et al. pointed out in their study that the characteristics of the clinical setting have a significant effect in this respect, and the alignment of the healthcare objectives with the instructor's educational objectives can have a positive effect on clinical education.[32] In fact, in the nursing profession, compatibility between the education department and the clinical setting requires cooperation of the instructors of nursing faculties with professional nurses, the realization of which will ultimately ensure the progress of the nursing profession.[33]

The sixth domain included creating a favorable condition to enter the profession consisting of three items, which are related to the students' satisfaction at the end of the internship period and the creation of an appropriate opportunity for understanding nursing job responsibilities. None of the items of this dimension of the SFCPE instrument was included in the same dimension of the newly developed instrument. Elliot and Shin believed that students' satisfaction assessments make the universities change their plans in accordance with the students' needs and allow them to develop a system to continuously monitor these programs.[34]

The seventh domain included creating appropriate learning opportunities consisting of three items. This new dimension does not exist in the SFCPE instrument and examines students' satisfaction from the free access to the instructor and the creation of learning opportunities. In a study, emphasis was on the necessity of having an instructor in the department, access to him/her, and cooperation of the instructor with the students in the clinical ward.[33] For learning clinical capabilities, students need to gain clinical experience and practice skills by observing, participating, performing clinical procedures, and inferring and managing the patients under the supervision of the instructor, since the goal of clinical education is to provide opportunities for clinical education, so that students can link the theoretical information with practical facts.[27]

The scheduling and facilities dimensions were not included in the new instrument, and the items of these dimensions were distributed in the other dimensions of the instrument that has been developed. The use of a standard SFCPE questionnaire makes it possible to become aware of features and facilities that are essential for the development of the program, and accordingly, the nursing and midwifery faculties can consider the needs and views of their students in their educational planning on the first clinical experience (clinical nursing principles and skills). This awareness can be also used as a guide to change their curricula in accordance with the students' needs and allow them to develop a system, which is constantly monitoring the nursing curriculum and enhances the students' level of satisfaction. In this study, the validity of Iranian baccalaureate nursing students' satisfaction was explored using theFirst Clinical Practical Education Questionnaire. Therefore, the findings are not broadly transferable. Consequently, further studies are needed on nursing students worldwide, to explore the validity of this scale.


  Conclusion Top


Attempts were made in the present study, in addition to develop a valid instrument for assessing the satisfaction of nursing students from the first clinical education experience, to inform the reader about the validity of the instrument and its evaluation procedure by providing sufficient information on the process of evaluating the validity and reliability of the instrument. In addition, the results of the study showed that the newly developed SFCPE has desirable psychometric features as well as reliability and validity to assess the nursing students' satisfaction from the first clinical education experience.

Acknowledgements

This study was extracted from a master's degree thesis of Farzaneh Mohammadnejad, funded and supported by Vice - chancellor for Research and Technology Development, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran (research code: U - 96017). We sincerely acknowledge the authorities of Universities of Medical Sciences, nursing students, and faculty members who helped us in conducting this study.

Financial support and sponsorship

Vice-chancellor for Research and Technology Development, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran

Conflicts of interest

Nothing to declare.



 
  References Top

1.
Baraz S, Memarian R, Vanaki Z. Learning challenges of nursing students in clinical environments: A qualitative study in Iran. J Edu Health Promot 2015;4:52.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
2.
Bawadi HA, Al-Hamdan ZM, Nabolsi M, Abu-Moghli F, Zumot A, Walsh A. Jordanian nursing student and instructor perceptions of the clinical learning environment. Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh 2019;16. doi: 10.1515/ijnes-2018-0037.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Khademian Z, Sharif F. Nursing students'initial clinical experiences. IJNR 2012;7:23-33.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Qalehsari MQ, Khaghanizadeh M, Ebadi A. Lifelong learning strategies in nursing; A systematic review. Electron Physician 2017;9:5541-50.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Galletta M, Portoghese I, Aviles Gonzales CI, Melis P, Marcias G, Campagna M, et al. Lack of respect, role uncertainty and satisfaction with clinical practice among nursing students: The moderating role of supportive staff. Acta Biomed 2017;88:43-50.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Walker S, Rossi D, Anastasi J, Gray-Ganter G, Tennent R. Indicators of undergraduate nursing students' satisfaction with their learning journey: An integrative review. Nurse Educ Today 2016;43:40-8.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Gustafsson M, Blomberg K, Holmefur M. Test-retest reliability of the clinical learning environment, supervision and nurse teacher (CLES+T) scale. Nurse Educ Pract 2015;15:253-7.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Chen HC, Farmer S, Barber L, Wayman M. Development and psychometric testing of the nursing student satisfaction scale. Nurs Educ Perspect 2012;33:369-73.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Levett-Jones T, McCoy M, Lapkin S, Noble D, Hoffman K, Dempsey J, et al. The development and psychometric testing of the satisfaction with simulation experience scale. Nurse Educ Today 2011;31:705-10.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Courtney-Pratt H, Levett-Jones T, Lapkin S, Pitt V, Gilligan C, Van der Riet P, et al. Development and psychometric testing of the satisfaction with cultural simulation experience scale. Nurse Educ Pract 2015;15:530-6.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Dennison S, El-Masri MM. Development and psychometric assessment of the undergraduate nursing student academic satisfaction scale (UNSASS). J Nurs Meas 2012;20:75-89.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Abbasi Z, Esmaeilpour Zanjani S, Ahmadi S. Psychometric properties of undergraduate clinical education enviornment measure (UCEEM) in nursing and midwifery students in IRAN. J Urmia Nurs Midwifery Faculty 2016;14:145-50.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Asadizaker M, Abedsaeedi Z, Abedi H-A, Saki A. Development of a psychometric scale to measure student nurse satisfaction with their first practical clinical education. Acta Medica Mediterranea 2015;31:1337e44.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, Melgar-Quiñonez HR, Young SL. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Front Public Health 2018;6:149.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Grove SK, Burns N, Gray J. The practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2016.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Valizadeh Zare N, Mohammadi E, Zare K, Ehahi N. Design and psychometric evaluation of coping scale in recipients of kidney transplant. Evidence Based Care 2017;7:45-53.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Liu YQ, Yu Y, Bai JB, Chen XL. Development and psychometric properties of the maternal health needs scale in Chinese maternal women. Midwifery 2020;81:102588.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Rodrigues IB, Adachi JD, Beattie KA, MacDermid JC. Development and validation of a new tool to measure the facilitators, barriers and preferences to exercise in people with osteoporosis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2017;18:540.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity 1. Personnel Psychol 1975;28:563-75.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
LoBiondo-Wood G, Hober J. Nursing Research: Methods and Critical Appraisal for Evidence-Based Practice. St. Louis: Mosby- Elsevier; 2014.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Zamanzadeh V, Ghahramanian A, Rassouli M, Abbaszadeh A, Alavi-Majd H, Nikanfar AR. Design and implementation content validity study: Development of an instrument for measuring patient-centered communication. J Caring Sci 2015;4:165-78.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Swami V, Barron D, Weis L, Voracek M, Stieger S, Furnham A. An examination of the factorial and convergent validity of four measures of conspiracist ideation, with recommendations for researchers. PLoS One 2017;12:e0172617.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Pouladi S, Noroozi F. Designing and assessment of the psychometric properties of nursing and midwifery students' motivation about selection of their field of study. JNE 2017;6:41-9.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Taber KS. The Use of Cronbach's Alpha When Developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Res Sci Educ 2018;48:1273-96.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Papastavrou E, Dimitriadou M, Tsangari H, Andreou C. Nursing students' satisfaction of the clinical learning environment: A research study. BMC Nurs 2016;15:44.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Tavakoli M, Khazaei T, Tolyat M, Ghorbani S. The Quality of clinical education from the viewpoints of students and instructors of paramedical and nursing-obstetrics schools of Birjand University of Medical Sciences. DMed 2014;21:41-8.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Peters S, Clarebout G, Diemers A, Delvaux N, Verburgh A, Aertgeerts B, et al. Enhancing the connection between the classroom and the clinical workplace: A systematic review. Perspect Med Educ 2017;6:148-57.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Yang WP, Chao CS, Lai WS, Chen CH, Shih YL, Chiu GL. Building a bridge for nursing education and clinical care in Taiwan—Using action research and Confucian tradition to close the gap. Nurse Educ Today 2013;33:199-20.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Collier AD. Characteristics of an effective nursing clinical instructor: The state of the science. J Clin Nurs 2018;27:363-74.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Hasan AA, Abu Jaber A. The relationship between Internet addiction, psychological distress, and coping strategies in a sample of Saudi undergraduate students. Perspect Psychiatr Care 2019. doi: 10.1111/ppc.12439.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Reising DL, James B, Morse B. Student perceptions of clinical instructor characteristics affecting clinical experiences. Nurs Educ Perspect 2018;39:4-9.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Gemuhay HM, Kalolo A, Mirisho R, Chipwaza B, Nyangena E. Factors affecting performance in clinical practice among preservice diploma nursing students in Northern Tanzania. Nurs Res Pract 2019;2019:3453085.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Tuomikoski AM, Ruotsalainen H, Mikkonen K, Miettunen J, Kääriäinen M. The competence of nurse mentors in mentoring students in clinical practice-A cross-sectional study. Nurse Educ Today 2018;71:78-83.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Elliott KM, Shin D. Student satisfaction: An alternative approach to assessing this important concept. Journal of Higher EducatioPolicy and Management 2002;24:197-209.  Back to cited text no. 34
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed65    
    Printed2    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded22    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal