Learning environment

Undergraduate and Graduate Nursing Student Perceptions of the Acute Care Clinical Learning Environment – A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study Using the CLES + T Scale

This article was originally published here

Nurse Educ Today. November 10, 2021; 108: 105211. doi: 10.1016 / j.nedt.2021.105211. Online ahead of print.


BACKGROUND: Research has shown that the clinical learning environment can both facilitate and hinder student learning. Students’ perceptions should be assessed, preferably using nationally and internationally validated instruments. In Sweden, there is a lack of research on the assessment of students in acute care facilities and from the perspective of different levels of students.

Objectives: The objective was to explore and compare the perceptions of the clinical learning environment of undergraduate and graduate nursing students in an acute care setting using the Clinical scale. Learning Environment, Supervision and Nurse Teacher (CLES + T).

DESIGN: Design involves cross-sectional data collection with comparisons between groups.

BACKGROUND AND PARTICIPANTS: Data was collected from a convenience sample of undergraduate and graduate students at the end of their clinical placement in an acute care facility at a teaching hospital.

METHODS: A paper version and a web version of the culturally appropriate version of CLES + T were completed by the students. An independent t test was used to explore the differences between CLES + T scores and distribution methods and education level. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha.

RESULTS: Overall, students (N = 179) were satisfied with the clinical learning environment. There was no significant difference in the total score (m = 4.31, SD = 0.63) between undergraduate and graduate students, with the exception of the ‘Nursing settings’ subscale. in the department ”and individual items“ The nursing philosophy of the department was clearly defined ”and“ Patients received individual nursing care ”, showing that undergraduates were more satisfied than graduate students. The scale demonstrated high internal consistency (α = 0.97 vs. 0.96) for the paper survey and the online survey, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide initial support for the CLES + T as a useful instrument to assess the clinical learning environment at different educational levels and in different settings, regardless of the delivery method.

PMID:34784564 | DO I:10.1016 / j.nedt.2021.105211