On October 5, 6, and 7 the 11 NAPS instruments were administered to Senior I nursing students on the Dallas campus and the complete data sets distributed to investigators on October 8, 2006. Dallas faculty members have begun initial reliability and validity analyses of these data using SAS 2.0 and SPSS 12. Because we do not have data from the Junior I interview-surveys, we are comparing our results to statistics presented in the original instrument-development publications cited in the IRB application for the NAPS study. Initial reliability analyses are included for each of the instruments under the links listed above. We will update these pages as we do other tests to assess reliability and validity of these questionnaires. If you would like to work with any of this data, please e-mail Peggy Mancuso or respond to the comments section below.
Purpose
The purpose of this methodological study was to test the methods and instruments used within the context of a larger study, Preparing the Future Nursing Workforce: A Study Examining Stressors and Nursing Student Success, that began in the fall of 2006. The reliability and validity of web-based psychological survey administration to Senior I nursing students will be compared to interview-based instrument administration through one-on-one faculty-student interviews of Junior I nursing students when that data becomes available. The larger study is examining various stressors associated with nursing student academic success. Stressors are being measured using psychological surveys and questionnaires over a period of 2 years; from entry into the generic baccalaureate nursing curriculum until graduation.
Sample
The respondents chose their own 4-number identification code, and all responses were anonymous. One student’s responses were duplicated in one of the 11 surveys. Approximately 60 students completed each survey, although not all students completed all surveys.
Setting
All instruments were administered via computers through the internet. Approximately fifty (50) students completed the surveys in the Dallas campus computer lab. Ten (10) students completed the surveys at Presbyterian hospital. One student completed the surveys at an outside computer.
Time
The general time period allotted for survey completion was slightly over 1 hour. Because these activities were interspaced with other skills lab activities, some students had less time to complete the instruments. Some students did not complete all of the instruments.
Faculty Supervision
Ten (10) students from one clinical group completed the surveys on the first day. The principal investigator supervised these students. Forty (40) students completed the surveys on the second day, with one faculty member and the principal investigator supervising students in the computer lab. The clinical faculty member supervised survey completion of ten (10) students at Presbyterian Hospital on the third day of data collection. One (1) student completed the surveys at an outside computer.
Missing Data
There were no missing data among student responses. Three items (1 item on 3 different surveys) were inadvertently deleted during editing of the web-based surveys. This problem will be corrected for future administrations of these instruments, and an additional procedure instituted to make certain all items are included on the web-based questionnaires.
Discrepancies among NAPS Instruments
We encountered the following discrepancies between the descriptions of the instruments on the IRB application for the NAPS study, the initial instrument development publication, or the digital copies of the instruments that we obtained from the NAPS Blackboard site.
1. The Perceived Faculty Support scale used in this study was a 7-item Likert scale. Shelton (2003) described a 5-item Likert scale in her original article.
2. The description of the Stress Resiliency Profile stated the scale had 18 items. The scale posted on Blackboard provided 9 items.
3. The Psychological Empowerment Instrument we obtained from Blackboard had 16 items instead of the 12 items described in the IRB narrative.
Another problem was encountered with the Verbal Abuse Scale (VAS). Only 4 students replied “Yes” to the first question of the Verbal Abuse Scale. A few students who replied “No” to this question completed other questions in the VAS.
Reliability
Cronbach’s alpha statistics for these scales were assessed by two independent researchers working from the raw data set. One researcher deleted the dual entry and the other researcher did not, resulting in slight differences in Cronbach’s alpha valudes on one scale. Initial SPSS analyses are included.
Preliminary Findings of Initial Analyses
1. Because of the nature of the faculty-student relationship, web-based instrument administration to students could produce less bias resulting in a more valid survey. Only initial analyses are presented here, but further investigation will determine if this proposition can be supported by statistical results.
2. There were no missing data among student responses.
3. One item was inadvertently deleted from three different scales. In the future, web-based instruments should be compared to hard-copies of the instruments before making the instruments available on line.
4. Three faculty members administered these 11 instruments to 60 students in approximately 3 hours.
5. Different settings (hospital, university, and home) were used for administration of these instruments.
6. The server was able to accommodate 40 participants completing questionnaires during the same time period.
7. Inspection of the data set indicated that one student’s submissions were duplicated on one scale.
8. Response data sets were exported to investigators with 24 hours of completion. These data sets were immediately available for analyses.
9. We were able to use SPSS and SAS for analyses from the above data sets.