Development of Teaching Efficacy Scale to Evaluate Clinical Nursing Instructors

Inhee Park; Yeon Ok Suh

doi:10.7475/KJAN.2018.30.1.18

Journal List > Korean J Adult Nurs > v.30(1) > 1076511

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Park and Suh: Development of Teaching Efficacy Scale to Evaluate Clinical Nursing Instructors

Original Research

Korean J Adult Nurs 2018;30(1):18-29.

Published online: 18 February 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7475/KJAN.2018.30.1.18

Development of Teaching Efficacy Scale to Evaluate Clinical Nursing Instructors

Inhee Park¹, Yeon Ok Suh^2,

^¹Department of Nursing, Shinsung University, Dangjin, Korea

^²School of Nursing, Soonchunhyang University, Cheonan, Korea

Corresponding author: Suh, Yeon Ok https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6273-6652 School of Nursing, Soonchunhyang University, 31 Soonchunhyang 6th Rd, Dongnam-gu, Cheonan 31151, Korea. Tel: +82-41-570-2497, Fax: +82-41-570-2498, E-mail: yeonok@sch.ac.kr

- This manuscript is a condensed form of the first author's doctoral dissertation from Soonchunhyang University.

- This study was supported by the Soonchunhyang University Research Fund in 2017.

Received 25 August 20176 December 2017 Accepted 5 February 2018

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 methodological study was to develop a teaching efficacy scale for clinical nursing instructors and to establish its validity and reliability.

Methods

Based on the literature review and focus group interviews, the attributes of the roles and capabilities of clinical nursing instructors were identified and a scale was developed. The content validity test and preparatory investigation were conducted to produce a total of 54 questions of the study.

Results

Factor analysis indicated six factors whose eigenvalue was 1 or greater. Cumulative dis-persion explained by the factors was the combined 67.3%. In the final analysis, forty-two questions were selected. The “ Student instruction” factor showed high loadings with 12 questions and explained 17.4% of total variance. The “ Teaching improvement” factor was loaded with 9 questions; “ Application of Teaching and Learning” 7 questions; “ Interpersonal relationship and communication,” 7 questions; “ Clinical judgement” 4 questions; “ Clinical skill instruction” 3 questions. The overall reliability of the tools measured with Cronbach's was .97.

Conclusion

All these findings confirmed that the teaching efficacy scale for clinical nursing instructors have content validity, construct validity, and criterion-related validity, and all questions are internally consistent and reliable.

Keywords: Nursing, Teaching, Students

REFERENCES

1.Nazari R., Mohammadi E. Characteristics of competent clinical instructors: a review of the experiences of nursing students and instructors. Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Sciences. 2015. 2(2):11–22. https://doi.org/10.7508/jnms.2015.02.002.

2.Benner P., Sutphen M., Leonard V., Day L. Educating nurses: a call for radical transformation. Hoboken: Jossey-Bass;2009.

3.Bae SH., Park JS. The recognition of achievement and importance of nursing program outcome among nursing students. The Journal of Korean Academic Society of Nursing Education. 2013. 19(2):203–14. https://doi.org/10.5977/jkasne.2013.19.2.203.

4.Kim HS. Problems and improvement of health nursing depart-ment practice education. Report. Seoul: Korean Council for University College Education;2013. July. Report No.p. 2013–8.

5.Khan N., Shafi S., Akhtar S. Availability of clinical nurse instructor enhance the application of theory into practice in tertiary care hospitals (LRH, KTH, HMC), KPK, Peshawar, Pakistan. International Journal of Innovative Research & Development. 2015. 4(1):293–7.

6.Tschannen-Moran M., Hoy AW. Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2001. 17(7):783–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X. (01)00036-1 ORCID Park, Inhee. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1276-1291. Suh, Yeon Ok. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6273-6652.

7.Haag GP., Schoeps NB. Development of a reliable nurse anes-thesia clinical instructor evaluation instrument. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists. 1993. 61(2):158–64.

8.Parsh B. Characteristics of effective simulated clinical experience instructors: interviews with undergraduate nursing students. Journal of Nursing Education. 2010. 49(10):569–72. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20100730-04.

9.Yamada S., Ota K. Essential roles of clinical nurse instructors in Japan: a delphi study. Nursing & Health Sciences. 2012. 14(2):229–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2018.2012.00683.x.

10.Hong SJ., Kim EH. Effects of preceptorship on nursing students' clinical competency, stress of clinical practice, and practice sat-isfaction in clinical practice. Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society. 2014. 15(10):6204–14. https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2014.15.10.6204.

11.Shin S., Yang E., Kim G., Kim Y., Jung D., Hwang E. Fundamental research for development of nursing practice education. Report. Seoul: Korean Nurses Association;2014. June. Report No.p. 2014–6.

12.Reeve MM. Development of an instrument to measure effectiveness of clinical instructors. Journal of Nursing Education. 1994. 33(1):15–20.

13.Kang M., Kim J. The development of mathematics teaching efficacy instrument. Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea. 2014. 18(3):519–37.

14.Yi C., Kwon NW. Development of teacher-efficacy scale for health education teachers. Journal of Korean Academy of Com-munity Health Nursing. 2008. 19(2):247–59.

15.Jahng S. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis for the development of the Likert-type scale. Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2015. 34(4):1079–100.

16.Tabachnick BG., Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 4th ed.New York: Allyn & Bacon;2000.

17.Hwang EY. A study on teaching efficacy perceived by faculty. Korean Journal of Educational Psychology. 2006. 20(1):73–98.

18.Bandura A. Self-efficacy: the exercise of self-control. New York: W. H. Freeman;1997.

19.Yang JJ. The influencing factors on clinical competence of nursing students. The Journal of Korean Academic Society of Nursing Education. 2009. 15(2):159–65. https://doi.org/10.5977/JKASNE.2009.15.2.159.

20.Jung MH., Koh MS. The effects of preceptor nurses' self-leadership on role recognition and job satisfaction. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration. 2012. 18(2):146–54.

21.Lee JO., Song MG. Effects of core competency and teaching style on preceptor self-efficacy among preceptors. Journal of Korean Clinical Nursing Research. 2013. 19(2):275–84.

22.Kernan WD., Wheat ME. Nursing students' perceptions of the academic impact of various health issues. Nurse Educator. 2008. 33(5):215–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NNE.0000312224.05579.b2.

23.Hsu LL., Hsieh SI., Chiu HW., Chen YL. Clinical teaching competence inventory for nursing preceptors: instrument development and testing. Contemporary Nurse. 2014. 46(2):214–24. https://doi.org/10.5172/conu.2014.46.2.214.

24.Beckman TJ., Cook DA., Mandrekar JN. Factor instability of clinical teaching assessment scores among general internists and cardiologists. Medical Education. 2006. 40(12):1209–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02632.x.

25.Phillips JM., Vinen SA. Why clinical nurse educators adopt in-novative teaching strategies: a pilot study. Nursing Education Perspectives. 2010. 31(4):226–9.

26.Moore KD. Effective instructional strategies: from theory to practice. 4th ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications;2014. p. 90–114.

27.Valiee S., Moridi G., Khaledi S., Garibi F. Nursing students' per-spectives on clinical instructors' effective teaching strategies: a descriptive study. Nurse Education in Practice. 2016. 16(1):258–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2015.09.009.

28.De Fulvio B., Stichler JF., Gallo AM. Teaching future nurses in the clinical setting: the clinical nurses' perspective. The Journal of Nursing Administration. 2015. 45(1):21–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNA.0000000000000156.

29.Park MR., Kim NC. Development of a nursing competence measurement scale according to nurse's clinical ladder in general wards. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration. 2014. 20(3):257–71. https://doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2014.20.3.257.

30.Ludin SM., Fathullah NM. Undergraduate nursing students' perceptions of the effectiveness of clinical teaching behaviours in Malaysia: a cross-sectional, correlational survey. Nurse Edu-cation Today. 2016. 44:79–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.05.007.

Table 1.

Final Component Derivation Process

Sub-range	Focus group topics	Literature review	Final sub-factor
Belief in nursing	Leadership as an educator	Leadership	Leadership as a nursing educator
Role satisfaction as a nursing educator
Clinical knowledge as a leader
Wealth of clinical education experiences	Clinical judgment ability	Clinical judgment ability	Clinical judgment ability
Ability to cope and explain clinical situations
Pride in the context of clinical judgment
Necessity of building up communication relationship between instructors of nursing school and clinical nurses	Communication ability	Communication ability	Communication ability
Lack of communication with students	Communication ability	Communication ability	Communication ability
Teaching stress	Emotional stability	Emotional stability	Emotional stability
Fear to teach
Burden of students
Clinical skill confidence	Clinical skill	Clinical skill	Clinical skill
Nursing skill capabilities
Giving yourself the opportunity to experience nursing skills
First place to learn difficulties	Adjustments to the clinical learning environment	Adjustments to the clinical learning environment	Adjustments to the clinical learning environment
Friendly environment
Education according to clinical situation
Integrated education of knowledge and practice	Teaching method	Teaching method	Teaching method development
Customized training
My own know-how
Preparing for clinical practice	Ability to use information resources	Self development
Latest medical issues
Attending workshops
Appropriate questions	Student assessment ability	Student performance evaluation
Objective assessment
Your own fair standards in evaluation
Flexibility in evaluation
Learning objective awareness	Self-control as a teacher
Using different nursing books at each school
Self-reflection after education
Preparing for clinical practice
Attitude of student guidance	Pride in role models	Pride in role models	Pride in role models
Enthusiastic teaching
Preceptor qualification
Mentor's relationship
A good impression of nursing
Ethical mind
Mind of honesty

Table 2.

General Characteristics of Participants (N=317)

Characteristics	Categories	n (%) or M± SD
Gender	Female	298 (94.0)
Gender	Male	19 (6.0)
Age (year)		35.98±7.64
	≤29	99 (31.2)
	30~39	109 (34.4)
	≥40	109 (34.4)
Organization region	Seoul	64 (20.2)
	Metropolitan	71 (22.4)
	Micropolitan	182 (57.4)
Working hospital	General hospital	95 (30.0)
Working hospital	University hospital	222 (70.0)
Educational level	Bachelor	212 (66.9)
	Master	91 (28.7)
	≥ Doctoral courses	14 (4.4)
Role	Head nurse	47 (14.8)
	Charge nurse	52 (16.4)
	Staff nurse	218 (68.8)
Months of clinical experiences	Clinical career	157.68±92.76
Months of clinical experiences	Clinical teaching career	107.61±83.74

Table 3.

Factor Analysis and Reliability (N=317)

Factor	No	Items	Factor loading
Factor	No	Items	1	2	3	4	5	6
Factor 1	1	49. I can allow students to participate actively in clinical practice.	0.71	0.11	0.21	0.23	0.02	0.34
Student instruction (Cronbach's ⍺=.95)	2	52. I can provide students with exercises consistent with clinical practice goals.	0.70	0.29	0.20	0.23	0.19	0.08
	3	45. I do not evaluate students with prejudice.	0.69	0.12	0.03	0.17	0.21	0.15
	4	51. I am clearly aware of my clinical practice goals.	0.67	0.31	0.26	0.22	0.25	0.04
	5	50. I can provide appropriate feedback on student responses.	0.66	0.26	0.16	0.29	0.19	0.21
	6	47. I can instruct students to have a positive image of the nurse.	0.65	0.22	0.09	0.34	0.19	0.25
	7	54. I can provide an intimate clinical practice environment with students.	0.65	0.20	0.06	0.39	0.14	0.16
	8	44. I can evaluate objectively by using various methods.	0.63	0.46	0.22	0.07	0.17	0.16
	9	48. I can motivate students not interested in clinical practice.	0.63	0.13	0.20	0.34	-0.09	0.30
	10	46. I can use the Q & A method when evaluating students.	0.63	0.33	0.20	0.01	0.30	0.21
	11	53. I can systematically give orientation on clinical practice.	0.59	0.41	0.36	0.11	0.18	0.11
	12	43. I can assign appropriate assignments that are suitable for the clinical situation to students.	0.54	0.39	0.28	0.13	0.32	0.05
Factor 2	13	34. I can prepare my own study materials for practice.	0.32	0.62	0.31	0.16	0.20	0.03
Teaching improvement (Cronbach's ⍺=.93)	14	39. I attend conferences and workshops to improve my teaching skill.	0.26	0.61	0.12	0.28	0.07	0.19
	15	41. I am constantly learning about the field of teaching.	0.27	0.59	0.18	0.15	0.32	0.27
	16	38. I can apply the latest medical issues to clinical practice.	0.34	0.57	0.29	0.22	0.05	0.29
	17	33. I can instruct students to respond appropriately under any clinical circumstances.	0.30	0.55	0.28	0.19	0.25	0.30
	18	40. I have enough knowledge of my major.	0.37	0.54	0.26	0.12	0.27	0.30
	19	35. I follow the instructions of the clinical practice guide.	0.37	0.53	0.31	0.22	0.33	0.04
	20	36. I can introduce my teaching method to other clinical instructors.	0.35	0.53	0.34	0.29	0.13	0.05
	21	37. I can answer unexpected students' questions.	0.41	0.46	0.31	0.19	0.24	0.37
Factor 3	22	4. I can instruct practice suitable for individual student's abilities.	0.15	0.23	0.72	0.26	0.01	0.19
Application of teaching and learning (Cronbach's ⍺=.91)	23	3. I can instruct students through integration of theory and practice.	0.23	0.18	0.72	0.15	0.29	0.19
	24	5. I know proper teaching method suitable for clinical situation.	0.10	0.36	0.70	0.24	0.05	0.14
	25	1. I have sufficient clinical experiences to guide clinical practice.	0.25	0.08	0.66	0.14	0.37	0.23
	26	2. I have my own know-how to guide clinical practice.	0.20	0.30	0.65	0.27	0.20	-0.07
	27	6. I can teach students how to analyze clinical data.	0.16	0.32	0.58	0.16	0.02	0.40
	28	7. I have clinical problem solving abilities.	0.22	0.14	0.55	0.19	0.46	0.19
Factor 4	29	12. I can keep good relationship with students.	0.24	0.19	0.10	0.72	0.09	0.20
Interpersonal relationship & communication (Cronbach's ⍺=.89)	20	9. I enthusiastically teach students.	0.28	0.16	0.22	0.66	0.11	0.21
	31	10. I teach students with patience.	0.30	-0.03	0.26	0.62	0.25	-0.04
	32	14. I check and correct missing parts after teaching.	0.22	0.34	0.28	0.57	0.21	0.01
	33	16. I discuss practice contents with clinical instructor. (ex: professor, chief nurse, nurse)	0.13	0.45	0.33	0.55	0.19	0.10
	34	15. I easily communicate with clinical instructor. (ex: professor, chief nurse, nurse)	0.18	0.48	0.29	0.54	0.18	0.18
	35	17. I can talk with patients or students about any situations.	0.24	0.23	0.27	0.50	0.22	0.28
Factor 5	36	20. I can respond immediately if a risky situation arises.	0.26	0.23	0.17	0.18	0.75	0.13
Clinical judgement (Cronbach's ⍺=.85)	37	19. I can distinguish what I can do with what I can't do.	0.20	0.27	0.21	0.33	0.65	0.13
	38	32. I can provide students with real-life clinical cases and experiences.	0.36	0.28	0.23	0.26	0.47	0.20
	39	18. I can handle any task exactly.	0.26	0.35	0.26	0.34	0.41	0.30
Factor 6	40	26. I actively instruct students's clinical skills.	0.36	0.20	0.20	0.24	0.12	0.71
Clinical skill instruction (Cronbach's ⍺=.87)	41	27. I can instruct students to experience their own clinical skill under supervision.	0.35	0.23	0.25	0.14	0.18	0.64
	42	25. I am confident in clinical skill.	0.32	0.18	0.25	0.16	0.40	0.59
		Eigenvalue	7.31	5.38	5.06	4.30	3.27	2.94
		Variance (%)	17.41	12.81	12.05	10.25	7.79	7.00
		Accumulative variance (%)	17.41	30.22	42.26	52.51	60.30	67.30
	Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)=.97; Bartlett's test of sphericity χ²=10,568.93 (p＜.001) Cronbach's=.97

Table 4.

Concurrent Validity Results (N=317)

Variables	Student instruction	Teaching improvement	Application of teaching and learning	Interpersonal relationship & communication	Clinical judgement	Clinical skill instruction
Variables	r (p)	r (p)	r (p)	r (p)	r (p)	r (p)
Confidence of major knowledge	.75	.76	.65	.67	.71	.58
Confidence of major knowledge	(＜.001)	(＜.001)	(＜.001)	(＜.001)	(＜.001)	(＜.001)
Regulation of instructive strategy	.74	.71	.57	.70	.63	.54
Regulation of instructive strategy	(＜.001)	(＜.001)	(＜.001)	(＜.001)	(＜.001)	(＜.001)
Leadership for student	.68	.61	.51	.64	.58	.48
Leadership for student	(＜.001)	(＜.001)	(＜.001)	(＜.001)	(＜.001)	(＜.001)

TOOLS

Similar articles