Nursing Research - Health Care, Hospital Staff, Professional Care

Nursing Research Today is a free monthly online journal that collates and summarizes the latest research about Nursing, including details on health care, hospital staff, professional care.


Nursing Research Today

Home

View Latest Issue

Information About Nursing

Books on Nursing

Advertising in Research Today

View Other Research Today Publications



The development of a questionnaire for evaluating process-oriented group supervision during nursing education.

Arvidsson B, Skärsäter I, Baigi A, Fridlund B

School of Social and Health Sciences, Halmstad University, P.O. Box 823, SE 301 18 Halmstad, Sweden. barbro.arvidsson@hos.hh.se

The benefits of process-oriented group supervision are difficult to evaluate, as the validity and reliability of the existing instruments have been questioned. The aim was to develop and test the psychometric properties of a questionnaire in order to evaluate the effects of process-oriented group supervision on nursing students during their three-year nursing education. A 55-item Process-oriented Group Supervision Questionnaire (PGSQ) with a developmental design was formulated on the basis of a literature review and the expectations of nursing students who participated in a three-year nursing education programme (N=176). Construct validity and internal consistency reliability were tested at the end of each study year: year 1 (T1), year 2 (T2), and year 3 (T3) by means of exploratory factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha coefficient. An adequate explorative factor analysis (principal component analysis, varimax rotation) with an Eigenvalue >1.0 and factor loadings >0.40, reduced the questionnaire to 18 items comprising three factors labelled educative, supportive and developmental, which explained 60.2% at T1, 71.8% at T2, and 69.3% at T3 of the total cumulative variance. The corresponding Cronbach's alpha coefficient figures were 0.89 (T1), 0.94 (T2) and 0.93 (T3). The 18-item PGSQ is considered to be a short and useful tool due to its satisfactory validity and reliability figures.

Published 22 February 2008 in Nurse Educ Pract, 8(2): 88-93.
Full-text of this article is available online (may require subscription).

Place a permanent text-link or advertisement here for just US$15.

© 2005-2008 Nursing Research Today. All Rights Reserved.



Nursing Research Today Archive:

Volume 1 (2005)
  Issue 1 (September)
  Issue 2 (October)
  Issue 3 (November)
  Issue 4 (December)

Volume 2 (2006)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)
  Issue 6 (June)
  Issue 7 (July)
  Issue 8 (August)
  Issue 9 (September)
  Issue 10 (October)
  Issue 11 (November)
  Issue 12 (December)

Volume 3 (2007)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)
  Issue 6 (June)
  Issue 7 (July)
  Issue 8 (August)
  Issue 9 (September)
  Issue 10 (October)
  Issue 11 (November)
  Issue 12 (December)

Volume 4 (2008)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)



Nursing Books

Physicians Desk Reference 2008: Hospital/Library Version (Physicians' Desk Reference (Pdr))

Physicians Desk Reference 2008: Hospital/Library Version (Physicians' Desk Reference (Pdr))