Gender Differences and Similarities in Accelerated Nursing Education Programs: Evidence of Success From the New Careers in Nursing Program.

AIM: The aim of the study was to examine the profile of male students in accelerated nursing education programs (ANEPs) focusing on key demographic, educational, and outcome variables and compare male and female students on these variables. BACKGROUND: Though ANEPs have proliferated over the last two decades, there has been little study of students enrolled in these programs and, consequently, the role ANEPs could play in enhancing nursing workforce diversity. METHOD: This study is a secondary analysis of data collected from 3,502 students who participated in the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation New Careers in Nursing Program from 2008 to 2016. RESULTS: ANEP completion and NCLEX-RN success rates were strong overall. Male and female ANEP students differed on several dimensions often associated with academic success, differences that have relevance for purposes of teaching, research, and program planning. CONCLUSION: ANEPs could be an effective mechanism for increasing the gender, racial, and ethnic diversity of the nursing workforce.

What's in a Name? Revisiting Pilot Studies in Nursing Education Research.

Pilot studies are a commonly described type of study in the nursing education literature. Although nursing education researchers continue to label small, single-site, hypothesis-driven studies as pilot studies, the consensus in other fields as to what constitutes a pilot study has changed over time to focus more narrowly on issues of feasibility and acceptability of study interventions and interactions. Nursing education researchers are encouraged to adopt more modern definitions of pilot studies that substantially reduce (or eliminate) the focus on inferential statistical testing while increasing the focus on practical and procedural aspects of study design and implementation. This article highlights the historical evolution of the term pilot study and provides researchers with suggestions about the purpose and focus of pilot studies that support development of the science of nursing education. [J Nurs Educ. 2018;57(8):457-459.].

Statistical Power in Nursing Education Research.

Nursing researchers have been encouraged for decades to address the validity of their statistical conclusions in part by accumulating evidence from studies that are capable of correctly identifying relationships between variables when those relationships are truly present. However, it has been noted that only a fraction of nursing studies appear to have undertaken power analyses to help mitigate the risk of Type II statistical conclusion errors. This Methodology Corner article reviews some of the major aspects of power analysis procedures and reiterates recommendations that researchers who plan to use inferential statistical analyses also conduct a power analysis to guide decision making about target sample sizes to increase the validity of study findings. [J Nurs Educ. 2018;57(5):262-264.].

The Single-Group, Pre- and Posttest Design in Nursing Education Research: It's Time to Move on.

Studying the effectiveness of educational interventions is centrally important to building the science of nursing education. Yet, the design most commonly used in the study of nursing education interventions-the single-group, preand posttest design-provides limited evidence to support claims of intervention effectiveness. In this Methodology Corner installment, the limitations of the single-group, preand posttest design are outlined and a review of the requirements for establishing stronger arguments for causality is presented. To overcome the limitations of single-group, preand posttest designs, nursing education researchers are encouraged to employ study designs and procedures that can significantly strengthen researchers' claims of intervention effectiveness. [J Nurs Educ. 2018;57(2):69-71.].

Measurement Matters: Improving Measurement Practices in Nursing Education Research.

Measurement is a fundamental but often overlooked component of research design and scientific inquiry. In quantitative study designs, the data that are collected, the statistical analyses conducted, and the conclusions drawn from those analyses all hinge on the validity, reliability, and appropriateness of measurements taken during the investigation. Missteps in the measurement process can undermine the validity of a study's findings and in doing so, efforts to advance the science of nursing education will fall short. This month's Methodology Corner article highlights several important measurement-related considerations for nursing education researchers seeking to build the evidence base-the body of knowledge about nursing education-on which instructional, curricular, policy, and planning decisions are made. [J Nurs Educ. 2017;56(5):257-259.].

Using United States Medical Licensing Examination(®) (USMLE) examination results to predict later in-training examination performance among general surgery residents.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between and predictive nature of United States Medical Licensing Examination(®) (USMLE) Step 1, Step 2, and American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination (ABSITE) postgraduate year (PGY) 1-5 scores from 2 general surgery programs from 1999-2009, with a goal of discerning how Step 1 and Step 2 scores should be used in resident selection and screening. DESIGN: A descriptive, retrospective, correlational study was conducted using data from existing program records. SETTING: Two accredited Midwestern community teaching hospital general surgery residency programs. PARTICIPANTS: Data were collected from the records of N = 34 residents completing the programs in the years 1999-2009. RESULTS: Although a statistically significant correlation exists between USMLE Step 1 and ABSITE PGY 3 scores, Step 2 scores were more highly correlated to ABSITE scores from all years of residency training. In both hierarchical and simple regression models, Step 2 scores were superior in predicting ABSITE PGY 1-5 scores, with the strongest predictability for PGY 3 and PGY 5 scores. CONCLUSIONS: USMLE Step 1 scores showed limited utility in predicting later ABSITE scores whereas Step 2 scores were more predictive of all years of ABSITE scores. These findings should prompt additional research into the relationship between examination performances at different points along the general surgery education continuum. In the mean time, general surgery program directors and faculty might do well to examine the relationships between Step 1 and Step 2 scores and ABSITE scores in their own programs to evaluate the usefulness of considering either score when ranking potential residents for selection into a program.

A study of the usefulness of the HESI Exit Exam in predicting NCLEX-RN failure.

Schools of nursing across the country are implementing progression policies that prohibit students from graduating or from taking the nursing licensure examination, sometimes based solely on a single predictive test score. In addition, little empirical evidence exists that supports progression policies as effective in increasing a school's NCLEX-RN pass rates. This article reports on a study conducted when one school did not achieve the results they expected after implementing a progression policy. With use of logistic regression, diagnostic indexes, and other methods, reasons for the disparity between expected and observed NCLEX-RN pass rates were examined. Results revealed that the Health Education Systems, Inc. (HESI) Exit Exam was not able to accurately predict NCLEX-RN outcomes for graduates and, further, that progression policies that allow retest after retest so as to achieve a minimum score on the HESI Exit Exam are not supported empirically. Conclusions and suggestions for schools using or considering progression policies are provided.

Establishing progression policies with the HESI exit examination: a review of the evidence.

Schools of nursing across the United States are seeking ways to ensure their pass rates on the National Council Licensure Examination for Registered Nurses (NCLEX-RN) remain above acceptable levels. One way schools of nursing have been seeking to ensure adequate pass rates is by implementing progression policies. These policies prevent students from taking the NCLEX-RN by either preventing student graduation or withholding permission by the school for the student to take the examination. Many of these policies rely heavily, and sometimes solely, on the Health Education Systems, Incorporated (HESI) Exit Examination as a primary predictor of students' NCLEX-RN outcomes. While the HESI Exit Examination can be a useful tool as part of a school's assessment program, it is not able to accurately predict NCLEX-RN failure; therefore, educators are cautioned in using it as the sole predictor of NCLEX-RN outcomes. Schools would be well served by considering more of the evidence available on predictors of student NCLEX-RN outcomes when considering implementation of progression policies.