Hoe bepaal je de kwaliteit van een opleider? Op welke aspecten let je daarbij? Om die vraag te beantwoorden deden we een onderzoek naar oordelen van hbo-studenten over hun docenten. Een goede docent is een vakman die betrouwbaar over komt, studenten goed kan coachen en, tenslotte, hen weet te enthousiasmeren door voortdurend een goede koppeling te leggen tussen theorie en praktijk.
The aim of this study was to develop a valid instrument to measure student nurses’ perceptions of community care (SCOPE). DeVellis’ staged model for instrument development and validation was used. Scale construction of SCOPE was based on existing literature. Evaluation of its psychometric properties included exploratory factor analysis and reliability analysis. After pilot-testing, 1062 bachelor nursing students from six institutions in the Netherlands (response rate 81%) took part in the study. SCOPE is a 35-item scale containing: background variables, 11 measuring the affective component, 5 measuring community care perception as a placement, 17 as a future profession, and 2 on the reasons underlying student preference. Principal axis factoring yielded two factors in the affective component scale reflecting ‘enjoyment’ and ‘utility’, two in the placement scale reflecting ‘learning possibilities’ and ‘personal satisfaction’, and four in the profession scale: ‘professional development’, ‘collaboration’, ‘caregiving’, and ‘complexity and workload’. Cronbach’s α of the complete scale was .892 and of the subscales .862, .696, and .810 respectively. SCOPE is a psychometrically sound instrument for measuring students’ perceptions of community care. By determining these perceptions, it becomes possible to positively influence them with targeted curriculum redesign, eventually contributing to decreasing the workforce shortage in community nursing.
Background: Functional Capacity (FC) is a multidimensional construct within the activity domain of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health framework (ICF). Functional capacity evaluations (FCEs) are assessments of work-related FC. The extent to which these work-related FC tests are associated to bio-, psycho-, or social factors is unknown. The aims of this study were to test relationships between FC tests and other ICF factors in a sample of healthy workers, and to determine the amount of statistical variance in FC tests that can be explained by these factors. Methods: A cross sectional study. The sample was comprised of 403 healthy workers who completed material handling FC tests (lifting low, overhead lifting, and carrying) and static work FC tests (overhead working and standing forward bend). The explainable variables were; six muscle strength tests; aerobic capacity test; and questionnaires regarding personal factors (age, gender, body height, body weight, and education), psychological factors (mental health, vitality, and general health perceptions), and social factors (perception of work, physical workloads, sport-, leisure time-, and work-index). A priori construct validity hypotheses were formulated and analyzed by means of correlation coefficients and regression analyses. Results: Moderate correlations were detected between material handling FC tests and muscle strength, gender, body weight, and body height. As for static work FC tests; overhead working correlated fair with aerobic capacity and handgrip strength, and low with the sport-index and perception of work. For standing forward bend FC test, all hypotheses were rejected. The regression model revealed that 61% to 62% of material handling FC tests were explained by physical factors. Five to 15% of static work FC tests were explained by physical and social factors. Conclusions: The current study revealed that, in a sample of healthy workers, material handling FC tests were related to physical factors but not to the psychosocial factors measured in this study. The construct of static work FC tests remained largely unexplained.
LINK
