1. Comparison of Nurse Mentor and Instructor
Evaluation of Clinical Performance
Kathleen M. Seurynck, DNP, RN Carrie L. Abele, Ph.D., RN Marisa A. Ferrari, DNP, RN Susan L. Murphy, ScD, OTR
University of Michigan School of Nursing, Oakland University, University of Michigan Department of PMR
BACKGROUND & SIGNIFICANCE
Evaluating a student in the clinical setting has been difficult in nursing schools. The ever-changing environment, instructor subjectivity, and lack of training in evaluation techniques are all challenges of clinical evaluation. Partnerships in hospitals and schools of nursing have been on the rise and many schools are having bedside nurse mentors take a greater role in educating and evaluating students.
DATA ANALYSES
RESULTS
PASW software was used for the analysis.
To assess the level of agreement between the groups a general kappa statistic was used which allowed the comparison of independent groups rather than simply a pair of raters.
To further understand how nurse educators and mentors are rating students, an independent sample t – test was performed to compare means on each question of the survey.
Table 1 Level of Agreement between Educators and Mentors in Evaluation of Nursing Students .
Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations of Evaluation Questions
Questions from Evaluation
Mentor Scores
Mean (SD)
Educator Scores Mean (SD)
t value
P value
Professionalism: Shared Accountability
3.8 (0.4)
3.5 (0.6)
3.72
0.00
Professionalism: Evaluates Performance
3.3 (0.6)
6.24
Communication: Written Documentation
3.6 (0.6)
3.52
0.44
Nursing Process: Assessment
3.6 (0.5)
3.4 (0.6)
2.04
0.04
Nursing Process: Diagnosis
3.3 (0.5)
3.2 (0.5)
1.25
0.36
Nursing Process: Planning
3.4 (0.5)
3.1 (0.5)
2.66
0.02
Nursing Process: Implementation
3.1 (0.6)
3.45
Patient Education: Evaluates Effectiveness of Education
2.9 (0.6)
5.58
0.01
Evidence Based Practice – Appraises Quality Evidence
2.9 (0.8)
4.93
0.06
Evidence Based Practice: Applies Best Evidence
3.5 (0.5)
3.0 (0.7)
4.51
0.84
Question on Evaluation
Kappa
Number of participants with completed data
Professionalism: Shared Accountability
.089 71
Professionalism: Evaluates Performance
.064 57
Nursing Process: Assessment
.099 72
Nursing Process: Diagnosis
-.064 66
Nursing Process: Planning
-.061
Nursing Process: Implementation
.072 70
Patient Education: Evaluates Effectiveness of Education
.134 43
PURPOSE
To compare the level of agreement between nursing instructors and mentors in the evaluation of student clinical performance in a new model of clinical education at the University of Michigan Health System (UMHS).
CONCLUSIONS
Results showed there was poor to slight agreement on all measures.
Group means were calculated on all ten questions to further understand the low level of agreement between mentors and instructors.
It was found that nurse mentors rated student nurses higher than nurse instructors on all questions from the evaluation tool.
METHODS
The sample included staff nurse mentors (N = 81) and nursing instructors (N =20) at UMHS hospital involved in the Initiative for Excellence in Clinical Education, Practice, and Scholarship
All undergraduate nursing students for winter semester being evaluated by both a nurse mentor and nursing instructor in Week 8 of the term were included in the study (N = 81).
As institutions rely more on mentor evaluation of students, research need to be done to find out why the instructors and mentors are not in better agreement in evaluating the students and the reasons mentors are rating higher than instructors.