The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reliability and Validity Testing of the Creighton Competency Evaluation Instrument for Use in the NCSBN National Simulation Study
Abstract
AIM: The Creighton Competency Evaluation Instrument (CCEI) was modified from an existing instrument, the Creighton Simulation Evaluation Instrument, for use in the National Council of States Boards of Nursing National Simulation Study (NCSBN NSS). BACKGROUND: The CCEI was developed for the NCSBN NSS for use as the evaluation instrument for both simulation and traditional clinical experiences in associate and baccalaureate nursing programs. METHOD: Five nursing programs assisted with reliability and validity testing of the CCEI. Using a standardized validation questionnaire, faculty rated the CCEI on its ability to accurately measure student performance and clinical competency. Videos scripted at three levels of performance were used to test reliability. RESULTS: Content validity ranged from 3.78 to 3.89 on a four-point Likert-like scale. Cronbach's alpha was > .90 when used to score three different levels of simulation performance. CONCLUSION: The CCEI is useful for evaluating both the simulation and traditional clinical environments.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Citations
Cites
Adamson, K. A., Gubrud-Howe, P., Sideras, S. A., & Lasater, K. (2011) · Journal of Nursing Education · doi:10.3928/01484834-20111130-03 · Cited by 155
Cited by
Liaw, S. Y., Rashasegaran, A., Wong, L. F., Deneen, C. C., Cooper, S., Levett-Jones, T., Goh, H. S., & Ignacio, J. (2018) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2017.12.009 · Cited by 65
AI-Powered Simulation for Nursing Education: Mixed Methods Systematic Review
Jiang, H., Wang, Z., Shen, W., Meng, M., Yang, D., Li, X., & Hao, Y. (2026) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/95167 · Cited by 4
“Simulation-based learning in nursing has evolved significantly over the past 2 decades, progressing from simple task trainers to sophisticated high-fidelity manikin-based simulations [6].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Hayden, J., Keegan, M., Kardong-Edgren, S., & Smiley, R. A.
- Affiliations
- Boise State University (US)
- ORCID
- Smiley, Richard A.
- Venue
- Nursing Education Perspectives
- Published
- 2014
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 244-252
- ISSN
- 1536-5026 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2078747840
- Cited by
- 142
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 6.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Nursing Education Perspectives (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- ScholarWorks (Boise State University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Health Education and Validation
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
- Keywords
- simulation-based training, clinical competency assessment, nursing education, instrument validation, content validity, inter-rater reliability, nursing students, National Council of State Boards of Nursing, clinical performance assessment
- MeSH terms
- Education, Nursing, Associate, Education, Nursing, Baccalaureate, Educational Measurement, Faculty, Nursing, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, 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
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.
