Comparative Analysis
|
Article 1– Reference citation Khatiban and Sangestani (2014). The effects of using problem-based learning in the clinical nursing education on the students’ outcomes in Iran: A quasi-experimental study. Nurse Education in Practice, 14(6), 698-703. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2014.10.002 |
Article 2 -Reference citation Cote, Gagnon, Houme, Abdeljelil, and Gagnon (2012). Using the theory of planned behaviour to predict nurses’ intention to integrate research evidence into clinical decision‐making. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 68(10), 2289-2298. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05922.x |
Article 3 – Reference citation Mulready-Shick, Flanagan, Banister, Mylott, and Curtin (2013). Evaluating dedicated education units for clinical education quality. Journal of Nursing Education, 52(11), 606-614. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20131014-07 |
Khatiban and Sangestani (2014), in a quasi-experimental study, evaluated the effects of problem-based learning [PBL] as compared with the traditional method, non-problem-based learning [NPBL], in students’ clinical nursing education. The non-equivalent group design [NEGD] most frequently and commonly used in social research was used to compare the treatment group, the group of third-year undergraduate nursing students who have been exposed to the PBL clinical course, and the comparison group, the group of third-year undergraduate nurses who did not participate in the PBL clinical course. The PBL and NPBL were considered equal as all 70 students were third-year undergraduate nursing students, registered for a one-credit clinical course of the hematologic and oncologic nursing care, who were trained on the same ward, and stayed in different dormitories; thus, ensuring the possibility of interaction was low. Khatiban and Sangestani (2014) used three different tests for three different variables: independent sample samples t-test for the between group comparison of competency self-evaluation, paired samples t-test for the between group comparison of competency self-evaluation and two-way ANOVA to analyze the differences among and between the groups to determine the simultaneous effect of the intervention on all three dependent variables.
Cote, Gagnon, Houme, Abdeljelil, and Gagnon’s (2012) study, on the other hand, used a non-experimental predictive correlational design to identify the relationships between nurses’ intention to integrate research findings into clinical decision-making to the prediction of beliefs of the moral norm, control beliefs, and normative beliefs. The Cote et al. (2012) study sample included 336 nurses working in a university hospital who were evaluated to predict a nurses’ intention to integrate research evidence into clinical decision‐making based on eight construct variables. Because all the variables were interval levels of measurement, multiple linear regression was used to determine if the model overall, and each predictor variable, was statically significant.
The purpose of the Mulready-Shick, Flanagan, Banister, Mylott, and Curtin (2013) study was to compare the clinical education quality for students educated in either the DEU innovation or traditional clinical education model. The target population included 165 first semester, junior-level nursing students. Mulready-Shick et al. (2013), as compared to Khatiban and Sangestani’s (2014) and Cote et al. (2012), used an experimental design to compare the DEU and a traditional clinical educational model. Mulready-Shick et al. (2013) used random selection command in SPSS software to assign the students to either a traditional clinical group or a DEU clinical group in order to compare the models for clinical educational quality with four independent variable clinical education experiences; those being with instructors, learning opportunities, students growth in learning, and developing professional competencies . Mulready-Shick et al.’s (2013) study, like the Khatiban and Sangestani’s (2014) study, also used a two-way ANOVA because of the dependent variables. The study was designed to determine the simultaneous effect of the intervention on the dependent variables. A multiple regression scales was used in the Mulready-Shick et al. (2013) study, as was used in the Cote et al. (2012) study, to examine the impact of multiple variables on outcomes as well as interval levels of measurement. Mulready-Shick et al.’s (2013) current article were part of a randomized, controlled, multiyear, multisite study that was conducted by the authors. The current article reports on student level findings, examining the question “in what ways, if any, does the DEU intervention enhance clinical educational quality” (Mulready-Shick et al., 2013, p. 607)?