The validity and reliability of methods to assess the competence to practise of pre-registration nursing and midwifery students

Norman, Ian J., Watson, Roger, Murrells, Trevor, Calman, Lynn and Redfern, Sally (2002) The validity and reliability of methods to assess the competence to practise of pre-registration nursing and midwifery students. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 39 (2), 133-145. (doi:10.1016/S0020-7489(01)00028-1). (PMID:11755444)

Abstract

This paper reports findings from a study funded by the National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland to test selected nursing and midwifery clinical competence assessment tools for reliability and validity.

The study, which took place over two years from July 1997, involved comparing items in the selected tools with statutory competencies for nurses and midwives, collecting assessment data from a sample of 257 nursing and 43 midwifery students in four educational institutions and administering additional assessment measures (the Nursing Competencies Questionnaire (NCQ) (Bartlett et al., An evaluation of pre-registration nursing education: a literature review and comparative study of graduate outcomes, Oxford Centre for Health Care Research & Development, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, 1998) and the Key Areas Assessment Instrument—KAAI) to the total student sample (and to their lecturers and practice assessors) at two time points which were six months apart. Our focus was the programme-specific clinical competence assessment tools but by testing these tools we also provide evidence on the validity of other methods of competence assessment.

Validity of the methods was assessed, primarily, by calculating multivariate and univariate correlation coefficients between them. The NCQ and KAAI were analysed for internal consistency.

The NCQ and the versions of KAAI for lecturers and practice assessors were found to have good internal consistency. The version of the KAAI tool developed for students showed reasonable internal consistency for nursing students, but less consistency for midwifery students. Correlational analysis of data collected on students showed that there is little or no relationship between most of the clinical competence assessment methods in current use, or between these methods and those introduced by the research team. This finding supports previous research, particularly in medical education and confirms that the different methods address different abilities.

A clear finding from this study is that no single method is appropriate for assessing clinical competence. A multi-method UK-wide strategy for clinical competence assessment for nursing and midwifery is needed if we are to be sure that assessment reveals whether or not students have achieved the complex repertoire of knowledge, skills and attitudes required for competent practice

This record has no associated files available for download.

Contributors

Author: Lynn Calman

Download statistics