Chinese version of the clinical learning environment comparison survey: Assessment of reliability and validity.

来自 PUBMED

作者:

Gu YHXiong LBai JBHu JTan XD

展开

摘要:

Simulation is recommended as a substitute for clinical practice among nursing students. No current guidelines exist regarding the accurate percentage of simulation hours versus clinical practice hours. Comparing simulation with clinical practice is needed so that both strategies can be optimally combined in nursing education. The 29-item Clinical Learning Environment Comparison Survey (CLECS) is validated to compare the traditional and simulated clinical environment in meeting nursing students' learning needs. This type of tool is not available in China. This study aimed to translate and test the psychometric properties of CLECS for Chinese undergraduate nursing students. This is a cross-sectional study. Two nursing schools in Central and East China. A total of 179 undergraduate nursing students who had participated in both traditional and high fidelity simulated clinical practice were recruited. A standard procedure with forward translation, back translation, cultural adaptation and pilot testing was followed to test the CLECS (Chinese version). An exploratory factor analysis was used to establish a modified factor structure of CLECS (Chinese version); a confirmatory factor analysis verified its construct validity. Reliability of the CLECS (Chinese version) was estimated using the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Cronbach's alpha coefficients. The exploratory factor analyses explained 61.43% and 60.11% of the total variances in traditional and simulated clinical environment. The proposed factor solution of the CLECS (Chinese version) obtained satisfactory model fit and nesting model between two nursing schools. In the proposed model, ICCs were 0.61 and 0.93, and Cronbach's alpha coefficients were 0.75 and 0.95 in the traditional and simulated clinical environment. The CLECS (Chinese version) showed satisfactory reliability and validity among Chinese undergraduate nursing students. Further validation of the CLECS (Chinese version) is needed in a more representative and larger sample. The CLECS (Chinese version) should be further tested as an effective tool to compare the traditional and simulated clinical practice among Chinese nursing schools.

收起

展开

DOI:

10.1016/j.nedt.2018.09.026

被引量:

8

年份:

1970

SCI-Hub (全网免费下载) 发表链接

通过 文献互助 平台发起求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。

查看求助

求助方法1:

知识发现用户

每天可免费求助50篇

求助

求助方法1:

关注微信公众号

每天可免费求助2篇

求助方法2:

求助需要支付5个财富值

您现在财富值不足

您可以通过 应助全文 获取财富值

求助方法2:

完成求助需要支付5财富值

您目前有 1000 财富值

求助

我们已与文献出版商建立了直接购买合作。

你可以通过身份认证进行实名认证,认证成功后本次下载的费用将由您所在的图书馆支付

您可以直接购买此文献,1~5分钟即可下载全文,部分资源由于网络原因可能需要更长时间,请您耐心等待哦~

身份认证 全文购买

相似文献(1057)

参考文献(0)

引证文献(8)

来源期刊

-

影响因子:暂无数据

JCR分区: 暂无

中科院分区:暂无

研究点推荐

关于我们

zlive学术集成海量学术资源,融合人工智能、深度学习、大数据分析等技术,为科研工作者提供全面快捷的学术服务。在这里我们不忘初心,砥砺前行。

友情链接

联系我们

合作与服务

©2024 zlive学术声明使用前必读