Skip to main content

Table 1 Factor loadings and inter-factor correlation coefficient

From: The clinical learning environment, supervision and nurse teacher scale (CLES+T): psychometric properties measured in the context of postgraduate nursing education

Items of CLES+T Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5
The content of supervisory relationship
 My supervisor showed a positive attitude towards supervision 0.741 0.153 0.062 −0.113 − 0.021
 I felt that I received individual supervision 0.842 −0.019 0.075 −0.042 −0.064
 I continuously received feedback from my supervisor 0.881 −0.069 0.109 −0.078 0.034
 Overall I am satisfied with the supervision I received 0.891 −0.094 0.096 0.045 −0.083
 The supervision was based on a relationship of equality and promoted my learning 0.833 −0.003 0.045 0.062 0.030
 There was a mutual interaction in the supervisory relationship 0.772 0.102 −0.141 0.067 0.107
 Mutual respect and approval prevailed in the supervisory relationship 0.766 0.187 −0.145 0.121 −0.048
 The supervisory relationship was characterized by a sense of trust 0.739 0.128 − 0.108 0.042 0.033
Role of the nurse teacher
 In my opinion, the nurse teacher was capable of integrating theoretical knowledge and everyday practice of nursing −0.083 0.905 −0.096 0.044 0.024
 The teacher was capable of operationalizing the learning goals of this clinical placement 0.051 0.550 −0.017 0.230 0.012
 The nurse teacher helped me to reduce the theory-practice gap 0.068 0.622 0.007 0.166 0.066
 The nurse teacher was like a member of the nursing team 0.224 0.456 0.039 0.105 0.091
 The nurse teacher was capable of giving his or her pedagogical expertise to the clinical team 0.284 0.337 −0.035 0.222 0.068
 The nurse teacher and the clinical team worked together in supporting my learning 0.261 0.510 −0.016 0.075 0.114
 The common meetings between myself, my mentor, and my nurse teacher were comfortable experiences 0.094 0.846 0.052 −0.132 − 0.050
 In our common meetings I felt that we were colleagues 0.125 0.661 0.274 −0.266 0.044
 The focus of the meetings was on my learning needs 0.021 0.666 0.331 −0.113 −0.010
Pedagogical atmosphere
 The staff members were easy to approach −0.076 0.342 0.780 −0.093 −0.252
 I felt comfortable going to the ward at the start of my shift 0.053 −0.129 0.669 −0.294 0.529
 During staff meetings (e.g., before shifts) I felt comfortable taking part in the discussions 0.105 −0.126 0.778 −0.075 0.222
 There was a positive atmosphere on the ward −0.044 0.178 0.611 0.056 0.145
 The staff members were generally interested in student supervision 0.007 0.086 0.466 0.284 0.025
 The staff learned to know the students by their personal names 0.028 −0.326 0.318 0.234 0.364
 There were sufficient meaningful learning situations on the ward −0.258 0.153 0.522 0.475 0.014
 The learning situations were multidimensional in terms of content 0.098 −0.017 0.517 0.305 0.068
 The ward can be regarded as a good learning environment 0.114 −0.013 0.673 0.331 −0.295
Nursing care on the ward
 The ward’s nursing philosophy was clearly defined 0.152 0.010 0.022 0.508 0.209
 Patients received individual nursing care −0.040 −0.012 −0.081 0.782 0.087
 There were no problems in the information flow related to patients’ care 0.111 0.015 0.032 0.820 −0.103
 Documentation of nursing (e.g., nursing plans, daily recording of nursing procedures, etc.) was clear 0.227 −0.200 0.172 0.630 −0.035
Leadership style of the ward manager
 The WM regarded the staff on her/his ward as a key resource −0.215 0.158 −0.024 0.466 0.382
 The WM was a team member −0.012 0.065 −0.121 0.036 0.943
 Feedback from the WM could easily be considered as a learning situation 0.005 0.115 −0.015 0.004 0.860
 The effort of individual employees was appreciated 0.047 0.087 0.079 0.171 0.593
 Eigenvalues 17.37 1.99 1.35 1.30 1.09
 Total percentage and cumulative addition 51.1% 5.8% 4.0% 3.8% 3.2%
  S-d1 S-d2 S-d3 S-d4 S-d5
S-d1 1.000     
S-d2 0.695 1.000    
S-d3 0.605 0.541 1.000   
S-d4 0.649 0.607 0.581 1.000  
S-d5 0.563 0.537 0.554 0.569 1.000
Cronbach’s alpha for each factor 0.946 0.925 0.893 0.834 0.883
Cronbach’s alpha on total scale 0.967
  1. The items of CLES+T scale ‘reprinted from International Journal of Nursing Studies, Vol. 45, Issue 8, Mikko Saarikoski, Hannu Isoaho, Tony Warne, Helena Leino-Kilpi, The nurse teacher in clinical practice: developing the new sub-dimension to the clinical learning environment and supervision (CLES) scale, pp. 1235–1236, Copyright (2020), with permission from Elsevier’