From: Nursing students’ satisfaction of the clinical learning environment: a research study
CLES + T items | Corr. Coefficient | p-value |
---|---|---|
Pedagogical atmosphere (PA) | ||
PA1 The staff was easy to approach | .429 | < 0.001 |
PA2 I felt comfortable going to the ward at the start of my shift | .265 | < 0.001 |
PA3 During staff meetings (e.g., before shifts) I felt comfortable taking part in the discussions | .447 | < 0.001 |
PA4 There was a positive atmosphere on the ward | .471 | < 0.001 |
PA5 The staffs were generally interested in student supervision | .368 | < 0.001 |
PA6 The staff learned to know the students by their personal names | .194 | < 0.001 |
PA7 There were sufficient meaningful learning situations on the ward | .372 | < 0.001 |
PA8 The learning situations were multi-dimensional in terms of content | .371 | < 0.001 |
PA9 The ward can be regarded as a good learning environment | .476 | < 0.001 |
Leadership style of the ward manager (WM), Premises of Nursing on the ward (NC) | ||
WM10 The WM regarded the staff on his/her ward as a key resource person* | .344 | < 0.001 |
WM11 The WM was a team member* | .279 | < 0.001 |
WM12 Feedback from the WM could easy be consider a learning situation* | .352 | < 0.001 |
WM13 The effort on individual employee was appreciated* | .302 | < 0.001 |
NC14 The ward nursing philosophy was clearly defined* | .316 | < 0.001 |
NC15 Patients received individual nursing care* | .317 | < 0.001 |
NC16 There were no problem in the information flow related to patients’ care* | .244 | < 0.001 |
NC17 Nursing Documentation (e.g., nursing plans, daily procedures etc.) was clear* | .363 | < 0.001 |
Supervisory relationship (SR) | ||
SR18 My supervisor showed a positive attitude towards supervision* | .440 | < 0.001 |
SR19 I felt that I received individual supervision * | .469 | < 0.001 |
SR20 I continuously received feedback from supervisor* | .500 | < 0.001 |
SR21 Overall I am satisfied with the supervision I received* | .568 | < 0.001 |
SR22 The supervision was based on a relationship of equality and promoted my learning* | .505 | < 0.001 |
SR23 There was a mutual interaction in the supervisory relationship* | .495 | < 0.001 |
SR24 Mutual respect and approval prevailed in the supervisory relationship* | .508 | < 0.001 |
SR25 The supervisory relationship was characterized by a sense of trust* | .509 | < 0.001 |
Role of the nurse teacher (NT) | ||
NT26 The NT was capable of integrating theoretical knowledge and everyday practice* | .333 | < 0.001 |
NT27 The NT was capable of operational sing the learning goals of this placement* | .323 | < 0.001 |
NT28 The NT helped me to reduce the theory-practice cap* | .317 | < 0.001 |
NT29 The NT was like a member of the nursing team* | .309 | < 0.001 |
NT30 The NT was able to give his or her expertise to the clinical team* | .352 | < 0.001 |
NT31 The NT and the clinical team worked in supporting my learning* | .362 | < 0.001 |
NT32 The meetings between myself mentor and NT were comfortable experience* | .418 | < 0.001 |
NT33 In our common meetings I felt that we are colleagues* | .416 | < 0.001 |
NT34 Focus on meetings was in my learning needs* | .349 | < 0.001 |