Model A (n = 170) Mean (SD) | Model B (n = 74) Mean (SD) | p value | Effect sizea | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Pedagogical atmosphere (alpha = 0.89) | 4.2 (0.6) | 4.0 (0.7) | 0.107 | 0.32 |
1.Staff were easy to approach | 4.3 (0.8) | 4.0 (1.0) | 0.027 | |
2. I felt comfortable going to the ward at the start of my shift | 4.3 (0.9) | 4.1 (1.0) | 0.067 | |
3. During staff meetings (e.g., before shifts), I felt comfortable taking part in the discussion | 3.6 (1.0) | 3.6 (1.0) | 0.791 | |
4. There was a positive atmosphere on the ward | 4.2 (0.9) | 4.2 (0.8) | 0.485 | |
5. Staff were generally interested in supervising students | 4.0 (0.9) | 3.7 (1.0) | 0.020 | |
6. Staff knew each student by first name | 4.0 (1.0) | 4.0 (1.1) | 0.607 | |
7. There were sufficient meaningful learning situations on the ward | 4.3 (0.8) | 4.3 (0.7) | 0.610 | |
8. The learning situations were multi-dimensional in terms of content | 4.2 (0.8) | 4.1 (0.9) | 0.725 | |
9. The ward could be regarded as a good learning environment | 4.5 (0.9) | 4.2 (0.9) | 0.003 | |
Leadership style of the ward manager (WM) (alpha = 0.85) | 3.6 (0.9) | 3.8 (0.9) | 0.418 | 0.22 |
10. The WM regarded staff on her/his ward as key resources | 4.2 (0.8) | 4.1 (0.9) | 0.924 | |
11. The WM was a team member | 3.7 (1.1) | 3.8 (1.2) | 0.216 | |
12. Getting feedback from the WM could easily be regarded as a learning situation | 3.1 (1.2) | 3.4 (1.2) | 0.126 | |
13. The efforts of individual employees were appreciated | 3.6 (1.0) | 3.7 (1.1) | 0.624 | |
Premises of nursing on the ward (alpha = 0.75) | 3.8 (0.7) | 3.9 (0.7) | 0.218 | 0.15 |
14. The ward’s nursing philosophy was clearly defined | 3.3 (1.0) | 3.5 (1.0) | 0.337 | |
15. Patients received individual nursing care | 4.2 (0.8) | 4.1 (0.9) | 0.510 | |
16. There were no problems in the information flow related to patient care | 3.9 (1.0) | 4.0 (0.9) | 0.419 | |
17. Documentation of nursing (e.g., nursing plans, daily recording of procedures) was clear | 3.9 (1.0) | 4.1 (1.0) | 0.093 | |
Supervisory relationship (alpha = 0.96) | 4.3 (0.8) | 4.3 (0.9) | 0.360 | 0.0 |
18. My preceptor showed a positive attitude towards supervision | 4.5 (0.7) | 4.3 (1.0) | 0.304 | |
19. I felt that I received individual supervision | 4.2 (0.9) | 4.4 (1.0) | 0.066 | |
20. I continuously received feedback from my preceptor | 3.9 (1.0) | 4.0 (1.2) | 0.424 | |
21. Overall, I am satisfied with the supervision I received | 4.4 (0.9) | 4.3 (1.1) | 0.735 | |
22. The supervision was based on a relationship of equality and promoted my learning | 4.2 (0.9) | 4.3 (1.1) | 0.327 | |
23. There was mutual interaction in the supervisory relationship | 4.3 (0.8) | 4.3 (1.0) | 0.384 | |
24. Mutual respect and approval prevailed in the supervisory relationship | 4.4 (0.9) | 4.4 (1.0) | 0.210 | |
25, The supervisory relationship was characterised by a sense of trust | 4.4 (0.9) | 4.4 (1.0) | 0.383 | |
The role of the nurse teacher (NT) in clinical practice (alpha = 0.87) | 3.9 (0.7) | 3.6 (0.8) | 0.003 | 0.41 |
26. In my opinion, the NT was capable of integrating theoretical knowledge with the everyday practice of nursing | 4.2 (0.7) | 4.1 (0.7) | 0.333 | |
27. The NT was capable of operationalising the learning goals of this clinical placement | 4.1 (0.8) | 4.0 (0.8) | 0.518 | |
28. The NT helped me reduce the theory-practice gap | 4.0 (1.0) | 4.0 (0.9) | 0.848 | |
29. The NT was like a member of the nursing team | 3.2 (1.4) | 2.6 (1.4) | 0.006 | |
30. The NT was able to impart his or her pedagogical expertise to the clinical team | 3.4 (1.2) | 2.9 (1.3) | 0.009 | |
31. The NT and the clinical team worked together supporting my learning | 3.9 (1.1) | 3.2 (1.4) | < 0.001 | |
32. The meetings between myself, the preceptor and the NT were a pleasant experience | 4.4 (0.8) | 4.0 (1.0) | 0.004 | |
33. The atmosphere at the meetings was congenial | 3.4 (1.1) | 2.9 (1.4) | 0.007 | |
34. The focus of the meetings was on my learning needs | 4.2 (0.9) | 4.2 (0.9) | 0.345 |