Chinese Journal of Medical Education ›› 2019, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (5): 397-400.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-677X.2019.05.018

Previous Articles    

Comparison of three evaluation methods in comprehensive experimental examination among nursing students(major field in emergency and intensive care)

Wang Hui1, Zhao Peizhong2, Xu Rui3   

  1. 1Department of Maternal Newborn and Pediatric Nursing,School of Nursing, Binzhou Medical University, Binzhou 256600, China;
    2Department of Lacrimal Duct Disease, Binzhou HuBin Aier Eye Hospital, Binzhou 256600, China;
    3Department of Adult Nursing,School of Nursing, Binzhou Medical University, Binzhou 256600, China
  • Received:2018-06-25 Published:2020-12-11
  • Contact: Wang Hui, Email: gongzuozaixian25@163.com, Tel: 0086-543-3256220
  • Supported by:
    Chinese Medical Association Medical Education Branch and China Higher Education Society Medical Education Specialized Committee 2016 Medical Education Research Project(2016B-HL061)

Abstract: Objective To identify the differences of various evaluation methods for comprehensive experimental assessment of nursing students (major field in emergency and intensive care). Methods Fifty-five nursing students (major in emergency and intensive care) from Binzhou Medical College, Grade 2015 were enrolled by cluster sampling, The students' self evaluation, mutual evaluation and teacher evaluation were used to evaluate,and the results were compared with Tukey's multiple comparisons by one-way ANOVA, and the satisfaction was evaluated. Results The total scores of students' self evaluation, students' mutual evaluation and teachers' evaluation were(77.13±3.16、 80.05±3.66、 78.36±2.56) respectively.There were statistically significant differences among the total score of the three evaluation methods (F=3.452,P<0.05).In the comparison of students' self evaluation and teachers' evaluation, students' self score of critical thinking ability was (12.33±1.19), teachers' score was (13.76±1.68); students' score of scientific research ability was (9.82±0.96) and teachers' score was (10.73±1.38); the differences were statistically significant (all P<0.05). In the comparison of students' mutual evaluation and teachers' evaluation, students' mutual score of critical thinking ability was (12.69±1.07), teachers' score was (13.76±1.68); students' score of scientific research ability was (9.78±1.08) and teachers' score was (10.73±1.38); the differences were statistically significant (all P<0.05). In the comparison of students' self evaluation and mutual evaluation, students' self evaluation of interpersonal relationship ability was (8.38±0.65) and students' mutual evaluation was (8.12±0.86). The difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). The results of satisfaction questionnaire showed that 100%(55/55) students were very satisfied with the comprehensive experimental. Conclusions There are differences in different evaluation methods of comprehensive experiment for nursing students (major field in emergency and intensive care), but students can be evaluated from different angles, and make clear the direction of their efforts,which is in favor of the overall development of students.

Key words: Comprehensive experiment, Nursing major, Evaluation, Emergency and intensive care

CLC Number: