Understanding the processes, practices and influences of calibration on feedback literacy in higher education marking: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: In the University setting, striving for consistency and reliability of assessment evaluation is essential to reducing the impact of marking variations. Marking processes such as consensus calibration have the potential to reduce issues which arise from the influence of markers professional knowledge and experience, as well as fixed and acquired marking habits. Furthermore, the influence of marker feedback which supports learning development is associated with the feedback literacy of both the teacher and the student. A gap is currently present in the literature as these practices are not discussed together. OBJECTIVES: To explore how nursing academics perceive and understand calibration practices and associated feedback literacy. DESIGN: Theoretical underpinnings in participatory and person-centred research methodology supported the critical ontological perspective of this study where the intent of the research was to explore the reality that exists within the context where the research was conducted. SETTING: A single School of Nursing in an Australian University with six campuses spanning metropolitan, regional and rural sites. PARTICIPANTS: Nursing academics and casual tutors with various levels of experience in assessment marking and feedback. METHODS: Semi-structured group interviews that were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four overarching themes were identified; rubrics, calibration, feedback and justice. CONCLUSION: Calibration improves staff cohesion, fosters better practices and consistency, and permits nuanced interpretation of assessments while maintaining uniformity. Enhanced feedback literacy that integrates principles of equity, justice, and learner-centeredness is required. Fundamentally calibration guides educators toward holistic approaches that foster consistency, equity, and thorough feedback practices.

Delirium assessment tools among hospitalized older adults: A systematic review and metaanalysis of diagnostic accuracy.

Delirium is a common neuropsychiatric syndrome that is often overlooked in clinical settings. The most accurate instrument for screening delirium has not been established. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the 4 'A's Test (4AT), Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (Nu-DESC), and Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) in detecting delirium among older adults in clinical settings. These assessment tools feature concise item sets and straightforward administration procedures. Five electronic databases were systematically searched from their inception to September 7, 2022. Studies evaluating the sensitivity and specificity of the 4AT, Nu-DESC, and CAM against the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or International Classification of Diseases as the reference standard were included. Bivariate random effects model was used to summarize the sensitivity and specificity results. A total of 38 studies involving 7378 patients were included. The 4AT, Nu-DESC, and CAM had comparable sensitivity in detecting delirium (0.76, 0.78, and 0.80, respectively). However, the specificity of the CAM was higher than that of the 4AT (0.98 vs 0.89, P = .01) and Nu-DESC 0.99 vs 0.90, P = .003). Diagnostic accuracy was moderated by the percentage of women, acute care setting, sample size, and assessors. The three tools exhibit comparable sensitivity, and the CAM has the highest specificity. Based on the feasibility of the tools, nurses and clinical staffs could employ the Nu-DESC and the 4AT on screening out positive delirium cases and integrate these tools into daily practice. Further investigations are warranted to verify our findings.