Embracing technology in a graduate nursing program: a novel use of ChatGPT
Open accessThe 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
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Assessment and evaluation emerged as the primary pattern, with faculty using GenAI to generate NCLEX-style questions and provide automated student feedback.
“Assessment and evaluation emerged as the primary pattern, with faculty using GenAI to generate NCLEX-style questions and provide automated student feedback”
From Patterns, advances, and gaps in using ChatGPT and similar technologies in nursing education: A PAGER scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as Stamm, 2024
The Assignment section describes students using ChatGPT to create patient-scenario multiple-choice practice questions. It does not describe faculty generating NCLEX-style questions, automated feedback to students, or assessment and evaluation as a primary pattern. The Student Feedback section instead reports feedback received from students about the assignment; page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The generation effect: a meta-analytic review
Bertsch, S., Pesta, B. J., Wiscott, R., & McDaniel, M. A. (2007) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03193441 · Cited by 352 · see citing works
The ChatGPT Storm and What Faculty Can Do
Sun, G. H., & Hoelscher, S. H. (2023) · Nurse Educator · doi:10.1097/nne.0000000000001390 · Cited by 263 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Amankwaa, I., Ekpor, E., Cudjoe, D., Kobiah, E., Fuseini, A.-K. J., Diebieri, M., Gyamfi, S., & Brownie, S. (2025) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2025.106822 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Large Language Models in Nursing Education: Concept Analysis
Harrington, J. E., Booth, R. G., & Jackson, K. T. (2025) · JMIR Nursing · doi:10.2196/77948 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Amankwaa, I., Ekpor, E., Cudjoe, D., Kobiah, E., Fuseini, A.-K. J., Diebieri, M., Gyamfi, S., & Brownie, S. M. (2025) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-6493164/v1
- Authors
- Stamm, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Cincinnati (US)
- Corresponding author
- Stamm, Robyn
- Venue
- Journal of Nursing Education
- Publisher
- SLACK, Inc.
- Published
- 2024-08
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 572-572
- ISSN
- 0148-4834 (ISSN-L)
- 1938-2421
- OpenAlex
- W4401460384
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3
- FWCI
- 0.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Nursing Education (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, large language models, graduate nursing education, artificial intelligence in nursing education, technology integration
- MeSH terms
- Education, Nursing, Graduate, Humans, Nursing Education Research, Nursing Evaluation Research
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
