The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Assessing student nurse clinical competency: will we ever get it right?
Abstract
Summary: • In 1997, a revised system was introduced at the University of Glamorgan, Wales, to assess student nurse clinical competency. This was firstly as a result of concerns that the previous system was based on limited documentary evidence, and, secondly as the Welsh National Board for Nursing and Midwifery issued new competency statements. • This article reports an evaluative research study which aimed to determine whether the revised system was an effective measure of clinical competency. • A series of focus groups were conducted with students, tutors and clinical preceptors to discuss their experiences of using the revised system. A content analysis was conducted of all evidence written by students to support the achievement of clinical competency. • The findings of the focus groups indicated that each group had some initial problems with the assessment process. The main concern for all groups was lack of consistency and uncertainty in the assessment process. Although the introduction of written evidence to support clinical competency was welcomed, many felt that too much evidence was required. • Content analysis of competency documentation aimed to compare student evidence and to determine whether there were inconsistencies in the assessment process. • There were many variations in the evidence obtained from students, in particular the amount of evidence written by each student. • The findings clearly indicate that further revisions are necessary to ensure that the system is implemented in the most effective way. • The Fitness for Practice report (UKCC, 1999) has ensured that competency‐based assessment is here to stay in the UK. Evaluative research of this type is important to ensure that we adopt the most suitable approach to assessing clinical competency.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Improvement in scoring consistency for the Creighton Simulation Evaluation Instrument©
Parsons, M. E., Hawkins, K. S., Hercinger, M., Todd, M., Manz, J. A., & Fang, X. (2012) · Clinical Simulation in Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.ecns.2012.02.008 · Cited by 25
Morrow, J., Biggs, L., Stelfox, S., Phillips, D., McKellar, L., & McLachlan, H. (2016) · Women and Birth · doi:10.1016/j.wombi.2015.09.001 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- Dolan, G.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Nursing
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-12-20
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 132-141
- ISSN
- 0962-1067 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2702
- OpenAlex
- W1994667936
- Cited by
- 173
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessing student nurse clinical competency: will we ever get it right? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2702.2003.00665.x
- The paper
- Dolan, G. (2003). Assessing student nurse clinical competency: will we ever get it right? Journal of Clinical Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2702.2003.00665.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.