Nurses' Perception of the Importance of Evaluating Continuing Education Programs

Mi Young Jho

doi:10.7475/KJAN.2013.25.1.1

Journal List > Korean J Adult Nurs > v.25(1) > 1076171

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Jho: Nurses' Perception of the Importance of Evaluating Continuing Education Programs

Original Research

Korean J Adult Nurs 2013;25(1):1-12.

Published online: 18 February 2013

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7475/KJAN.2013.25.1.1

Nurses' Perception of the Importance of Evaluating Continuing Education Programs

Mi Young Jho

Department of Nursing, Dongnam Health College, Suwon, Korea

Corresponding author: Jho, Mi Young Department of Nursing, Dongnam Health College, 50 Cheoncheon-ro 74-gil, Jangan-gu, Suwon 440-714, Korea. Tel: +82-31-249-6656, Fax: +82-31-249-6480, E-mail: myjho2001@dongnam.ac.kr

Received 17 August 201210 October 2012 Accepted 5 February 2013

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to explore the nurses‘perception of the importance of evaluating continuing nursing education programs.

Methods

Subjects were 465 nurses enrolled in continuing nursing education programs at five university hospitals in Seoul and Gyeonggi-do. Data were collected from September 20, 2011 to October 13, 2011. The instrument was developed by the author through a literature review. Content validity was established from a panel of six experts. Data were analyzed using SPSS/WIN 18.0 program.

Results

The purpose of the program was rated as the most important domain by the subjects. Interestingly, ‘program outcome’ and ‘effectiveness of program’ were ranked below the mean (M=3.64±0.75). These two domains were influenced by the district of work and the type of institution. The position of the participants at their institutions made the significant differences on their perception of ‘program purpose.’

Conclusion

The results of this study might aid us to have better understanding for what nurses perceive the importance of evaluating continuing nursing education programs. This information might be able to be used for improving programs. Further studies are needed to explore the validity of the instruments to evaluate continuing nursing education programs.

Keywords: Nursing, Continuing education, Program evaluation

REFERENCES

Alexander G. R.., Chadwick C.., Slay M.., Petersen D. J.., Pass M. A.2002. Maternal and child health graduate and continuing education needs: A national assessment. Maternal and Child Health Journal. 6(3):141–149.

American Nurses Association. 2011, September. Scope and standards of practice for nursing professional development. Retrieved September 9, 2011, from the ANA Web site:. http://www.nursingworld.org/MainMenuCategories/ThePracticeofProfessionalNursing/NursingStandards/Scope-and-Standards-CE-Module.html.

American Nurses Credentialing Center. 2011, August. Accreditation. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from the ANCC Web site:. http://www.nursecredentialing.org/Accreditation/Primary-Accreditation.aspx.

Bell D. F.., Pestka E.., Forsyth D.2007. Outcome evaluation: Does continuing education make a difference? The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing. 38(4):185–190.

Bibb S. C.., Malebranche M.., Crowell D.., Altman C.., Lyon S.., Carlson A., et al. 2003. Professional development needs of registered nurses practicing at a military community hospital. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing. 34(1):39–45.

Carter L.., Rukholm E.2008. A study of critical thinking, teacher-student interaction, and discipline-specific writing in an online educational setting for registered nurses. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing. 39(3):133–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20080301-03.

Chang K. S.2007. Evaluation of intensive in-service English teacher training programs. Foreign Languages Education. 14(3):257–282.

DeSilets L. D.2007. Needs assessments: An array of possibilities. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing. 38(3):107–112.

Donabedian A.1980. The definition of quality and approaches to its assessment in exploration in quality assessment and monitoring. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Adminstration Press.

Edwards H.., Walsh A.., Courtney M.., Monaghan S.., Wilson J.., Young J.2007. Improving paediatric nurses' knowledge and attitudes in childhood fever management. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 57(3):257–269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.04077.x.

Francke A. L.., Garssen B.., Abu-Saad H. H.1995. Determinants of changes in nurses' behaviour after continuing education: A literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 21:371–377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1995.tb02536.x.

Green R.., Gorzka P. G.., Kodish S.2005. Achieving excellence in practice: A model for continuing education for nurse practitioners. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners. 17(11):452–459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-7599.2005.00075.x.

Griscti O.., Jacono J.2006. Effectiveness of continuing education programmes in nursing: Literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 55(4):449–456. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03940.x.

Han S. M.., Lee H. S.2010. Nurses' reasons for participation in continuing nursing education. The Journal of Vocational Education Research. 29(2):189–204.

Hawkins V. E.., Sherwood G. D.1999. The pyramid model: An integrated approach for evaluating continuing education programs and outcomes. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing. 30(5):203–212.

Hayajneh F.2009. Attitudes of professional Jordanian nurses toward continuing education. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing. 40(1):43–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20090101-07.

Johnson-Crowley N.2004. An alternative framework for teacher preparation in nursing. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing. 35(1):34–43.

Kim J. A.2001. The development and effectiveness of web-based continuing nurse education program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ewha Womans University, Seoul.

Kim J. G.2002. Program evaluation method. Seoul: Hakjisa Publisher.

Korean Nurses Association. 2011. The actual conditions and regulation of the Continuing Nursing Education. Unpublished raw data.

Menix K. D.2007. Evaluation of learning and program effectiveness. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing. 38(5):201–208.

Nalle M. A.., Wyatt T. H.., Myers C. R.2010. Continuing education needs of nurses in a voluntary continuing nursing education state. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing. 41(3):107–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20100224-03.

Oh Y. A.2007. Development of evaluation indicator on industrial safety and health education program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ewha Womans University, Seoul.

Richards L.., Potgleter E.2010. Perceptions of registered nurses in four state health institutions on continuing formal education. Curationis. 33(2):41–50.

Russell S.2006. An overview of adult-learning processes. Urologic Nursing. 26(5):349–352.

Schweitzer D. J.., Krassa T. J.2010. Deterrents to nurses' participation in continuing professional development: An integrative literature review. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing. 41(10):441–447. http://dx.doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20101001-04.

Whitehead T. D.., Lacey-Haun L.2008. Evolution of accreditation in continuing nursing education in America. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing. 39(11):493–499. http://dx.doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20081101-04.

Willcox A.2005. How to succeed as a lifelong learner. Primary Health Care. 15(10):43–49.

Wysong P. R.., Driver E.2009. Patients' perceptions of nurses' skill. Critical Care Nurse. 29(4):24–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.4037/ccn2009241.

Yoder-Wise P. S.2003. Environmental management: Creating a learning ambiance. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing. 34(5):199–200.

Table 1.

General Characteristics of Participants (N=431)

Characteristics	Categories	n (%) or M±SD
Age (year)	20~＜30	242 (56.1)
	30~＜40	134 (31.1)
	≥40	55 (12.8)
Gender	Male	3 (0.7)
Gender	Female	428 (99.3)
Education	Junior college	227 (53.5)
	University	164 (38.7)
	Master	33 (7.8)
Clinical career (year)	＜2	82 (19.0)
	2~＜4	98 (22.7)
	4~＜6	59 (13.7)
	≥6	192 (44.6)
District of work	Gyeonggi-do	227 (53.0)
	Incheon	23 (5.4)
	Seoul	173 (40.4)
	Others	5 (1.2)
Type of institution	University hospi	ital & 336 (81.8)
	general hospita	al
	Hospital	70 (17.0)
	Others	5 (1.2)
Nursing unit	Special departm	ent 127 (30.2)
	General ward	222 (52.7)
	OPD	28 (6.7)
	Others	44 (10.4)
Position	Staff nurse	341 (80.4)
	Charge nurse	67 (15.8)
	Head nurse	16 (3.8)
Shift work	Yes	339 (78.7)
Shift work	No	92 (21.3)
The total number of CE completion		6.9±6.7

OPD=out patient department, CE=continuing education.

Table 2.

Perception of the Importance of Nurse on Domain of Continuing Nursing Education Evaluation (N=431)

Domain of evaluation	M±SD
Program purpose	3.71±0.61
Program design	3.65±0.54
Program performance	3.68±0.52
Program outcome	3.57±0.61
Effectiveness of program	3.51±0.67

Table 3.

Perception of the Importance of Nurse on Items of Continuing Nursing Education Evaluation (N=431)

Domain	No　 Items	M±SD
Program purpose	G1 Purpose establishment for learning necessary contents of the present nursing practice	3.83±0.75
	G2 Purpose that suitable for education object	3.79±0.68
	G3 Purpose establishment that reflect the needs of health care and nurse professional association	3.67±0.70
	G4 Purpose establishment that collected the needs of trainees	3.62±0.81
	G5 Objective establishment which based on purpose	3.66±0.70
Program design	D6 Contents construction for achievement of objective	3.70±0.75
	D7 Update of evidence based content	3.73±0.78
	D8 Consideration on the characteristics of education group	3.47±0.84
	D9 Reflection of theme and main concept	3.75±0.72
	D10 Suitable assignment to training session	3.64±0.73
	D11 Suitable teaching method	3.69±0.71
	D12 Suitable facilities for operation	3.75±0.69
	D13 Appropriate operating staff	3.66±0.70
	D14 Additive training for operating staff	3.50±0.77
	D15 Cooperation and support of the relevant station	3.61±0.69
Program performance	P16 Attendance of trainees who coincident with plan	3.60±0.77
	P17 Contents that trainees want to be educate	3.65±0.88
	P18 Effective public relations	3.33±0.82
	P19 Suitable number of trainee	3.57±0.74
	P20 Contents that effectuate an interest and learning motive	3.67±0.85
	P21 Suitable contents for trainee's level	3.70±0.78
	P22 Contact to expert lecturer in contents	3.81±0.80
	P23 Substantial operation as its education design	3.75±0.69
	P24 Contents that match the purpose and objective	3.78±0.71
	P25 Compliance of the training session by trainees	3.67±0.76
	P26 Effective teaching competency and strategy of lecturer	3.75±0.77
	P27 Composition and storage of the related education record	3.67±0.66
	P28 Precise completion of education work	3.77±0.67
	P29 Convenience of registration process	3.81±0.69
	P30 Convenience of transportation	3.77±0.74
	P31 Registration fee as a actual level	3.70±0.79
	P32 Active interaction of lecturer and trainee	3.48±0.78
Program outcome	O33 Intelligibility measurement of trainees	3.42±0.78
	O34 Improvement of nursing knowledge and skill	3.60±0.77
	O35 Change in trainees's attitude	3.57±0.75
	O36 Rise in the patient's satisfaction	3.50±0.76
	O37 Stimulation on the growth and development of the professional	3.64±0.75
	O38 Execution on satisfaction evaluation of trainees	3.68±0.77
	O39 Reflect the program evaluation results	3.61±0.76
Effectiveness of program	E40 Carry out for cost-effectiveness analysis	3.36±0.77
	E41 Smooth cooperation of the relevant station	3.55±0.76
	E42 Existence of standardized manual	3.52±0.77
	E43 Performance using standardized manual	3.54±0.77
	E44 Concentration of program development and management work	3.59±0.77

Table 4.

Differences in Perception on Domain of Continuing Nursing Education Evaluation according to Nurses‘General Characteristics (N=431

Characteristics	Categories	Program purpose			Program design			Program performance			Program outcome			Effectiveness of program
Characteristics	Categories	M±SD	t or F	p	M±SD	t or F	p	M±SD	t or F	p	M±SD	t or F	p	M±SD	t or F	p
Age (year)	20~＜30	3.69±0.59	1.81	.166	3.67±0.52	0.79	.455	3.71±0.53	1.60	.203	3.61±0.63	1.34	.262	3.56±0.66	2.80	.062
	30~＜40	3.70±0.61			3.60±0.55			3.61±0.52			3.50±0.57			3.40±0.67
	≥40	3.86±0.65			3.67±0.59			3.70±0.51			3.61±0.63			3.59±0.71
Gender	Male	3.67±1.17	-0.14	.891	3.80±1.06	0.25	.826	3.45±1.21	-0.32	.777	3.24±0.68	-0.95	.344	3.33±1.53	-0.20	.858
Gender	Female	3.71±0.60			3.65±0.53			3.68±0.52			3.57±0.61			3.51±0.67
Education	Junior college	3.68±0.60	2.13	.120	3.62±0.52	0.38	.685	3.66±0.55	0.93	.396	3.59±0.61	0.25	.776	3.51±0.68	0.14	.868
	University	3.71±0.58			3.67±0.50			3.68±0.50			3.55±0.60			3.49±0.64
	Master	3.91±0.72			3.66±0.73			3.79±0.48			3.54±0.63			3.56±0.77
Clinical career (year)	＜2	3.78±0.56	1.56	.199	3.78±0.46	2.42	.066	3.79±0.47	2.03	.109	3.71±0.55	1.68	.170	3.66±0.60	1.81	.145
	2~＜4	3.61±0.62			3.57±0.55			3.60±0.53			3.55±0.61			3.46±0.68
	4~＜6	3.69±0.63			3.62±0.52			3.67±0.60			3.55±0.69			3.52±0.64
	≥6	3.75±0.61			3.65±0.56			3.67±0.51			3.53±0.61			3.47±0.70
District of work	Gyeonggi^a	3.66±0.62	1.85	.137	3.62±0.56	1.64	.180	3.65±0.53	1.78	.150	3.53±0.60	2.97	.032	3.46±0.65	3.65	.013
	Incheon^b	3.63±0.55			3.49±0.48			3.49±0.54			3.33±0.65			3.20±0.79		b＜c
	Seoul^c	3.79±0.59			3.71±0.52			3.73±0.51			3.67±0.62			3.62±0.67
	Others^d	3.56±0.65			3.70±0.33			3.60±0.48			3.63±0.40			3.56±0.52
Type of institution	University hospital & general hospital^a	3.71±0.61	0.99	.372	3.66±0.53	1.54	.215	3.69±0.52	2.00	.137	3.58±0.60	3.28	.039	3.53±0.66	3.42	.034
													a, b＜c			b＜c
	Hospital^b	3.74±0.60			3.61±0.59			3.64±0.55			3.53±0.66			3.42±0.68
	Others^c	4.08±0.58			4.04±0.71			4.12±0.59			4.26±0.65			4.20±1.10
Nursing Unit	Special department	3.74±0.65	0.63	.594	3.68±0.57	1.00	.392	3.69±0.53	0.49	.687	3.56±0.62	0.26	.855	3.50±0.71	0.72	.539
	General ward	3.69±0.58			3.65±0.53			3.68±0.52			3.57±0.62			3.51±0.66
	OPD	3.84±0.59			3.70±0.47			3.76±0.50			3.66±0.49			3.62±0.60
	Others	3.68±0.56			3.52±0.51			3.61±0.53			3.59±0.68			3.40±0.68
Position	Staff nurse^a	3.70±0.61	4.37	.013	3.65±0.54	1.68	.188	3.68±0.54	1.95	.144	3.57±0.61	1.88	.154	3.51±0.68	0.97	.381
	Charge nurse^b	3.69±0.54		a, b＜c	3.59±0.53			3.62±0.47			3.52±0.54			3.45±0.64
	Head nurse^c	4.15±0.53			3.86±0.48			3.91±0.35			3.85±0.69			3.71±0.70
Shift work	Yes	3.70±0.59	-1.04	.298	3.65±0.52	0.11	.911	3.66±0.52	-0.99	.323	3.56±0.61	-1.01	.313	3.48±0.67	-1.58	.114
Shift work	No	3.77±0.67			3.64±0.60			3.72±0.54			3.63±0.64			3.61±0.68

TOOLS

Similar articles