Home Development and validation of satisfaction with clinical practice questionnaire for mentors and students
Article Publicly Available

Development and validation of satisfaction with clinical practice questionnaire for mentors and students

  • Snježana Čukljek EMAIL logo , Mara Županić and Iva Takšić
Published/Copyright: April 5, 2024
Download Article (PDF)
International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship
From the journal International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship Volume 21 Issue 1

Abstract

Objectives

To develop and validate a questionnaire on satisfaction with clinical practice for mentors (QSCP-M) and a questionnaire on satisfaction with clinical practice for students (QSCP-S).

Methods

Two versions of the questionnaires were constructed: a version for mentors and a version for students. Both surveys were conducted at two time points. The first survey was completed by 252 students and 86 mentors, and the second by 291 students and 94 mentors.

Results

Several exploratory factor analyses were performed on the results obtained, and two factors were identified for the QSCP-M and one factor for the QSCP-S. The coefficients of internal reliability for both questionnaires indicated stable and reliable measuring instruments.

Conclusions

Clinical practice satisfaction questionnaires for mentors and students showed good metric characteristics. The validation shows that both questionnaires are appropriate for examining general and specific satisfaction with clinical practice.

Keywords: clinical practice; nursing students; satisfaction; questionnaire

Introduction

The duration and content of the theoretical and practical part of nursing education are regulated by the European Directive 2013/55/EU [1], in which 50 % of the total teaching load in undergraduate nursing education is focused on clinical practice. During clinical practice, students acquire clinical competencies in a clinical environment. Many factors related to students, mentors, and clinical environment can influence the satisfaction with the clinical practice. Therefore it is necessary to evaluate the satisfaction of students and mentors.

Literature review

Clinical learning environment (CLE) is defined as a complex network in which students, mentors and teachers interact within a clinical context to achieve learning outcomes [2]. CLE encompasses four elements: (a) the physical space; (b) the psychosocial and interactions factors; (c) the organizational culture; and, (d) the elements of the teaching learning process [2]. The clinical environment is a place where the theoretical components of the curriculum can be integrated with the practical aspects and transformed into professional skills and attitudes, within a safe environment [3]. Practical classes focus on the development of clinical skills as well as the implementation of theory in practice [4, 5], development of one’s professional identity [6, 7], critical thinking and teamwork [4, 7] as well as professional development [8]. When learning in a clinical setting, the role of mentors in the development of clinical skills is extremely important [9, 10], and the acquisition of the overall learning outcomes is crucially influenced by students’ experiences during their clinical practice [5]. Students highly valuated the clinical environment where they had an appointed mentor [8, 11], were able to discuss their learning goals with the mentor in a structured mentoring programme [4, 8, 11, 12] and had a final assessment of the learning outcomes [8].

Mentoring refers to support, assistance and guidance in learning new skills, adopting new behaviours and acquiring new attitudes [13]. Nurse mentors play an important role in the development of nursing competencies in students and their actions should serve as role models for students during clinical practice [9, 14]. Mentoring in nursing is a mutual relationship that requires commitment and cooperation of mentors and students during the implementation of the practical part of teaching in a clinical environment. Further, mentor-student relationship are a key factor in the clinical learning environment [15].

The mentoring role is multidimensional, and mentors themselves must have a clear perception of their mentoring capabilities because the mentor can be a teacher, protector, moderator, advisor, guide, model, coach, idea generator, and needs to be receptive to open two-way communication [16]. Nurses who feel comfortable in the role of mentors and possess sufficient professional and educational competencies can impact positively on student learning outcomes [9]. Mutual respect in the student-mentor relationship is very positively rated, but lack of time and insufficient professional skills of the mentor are challenging factors [9]. An important factor in building a successful relationship between mentors and students is the time spent face-to-face [17], as students should feel welcomed, accepted, and secure in clinical environment [18]. Students should expect to receive support and supervision from mentors and clinical staff [19]. Moreover, according to Walker et al. [7], students consider the quality of support they receive in a clinical setting to be the most crucial element in the supervisory process. Unsupportive learning environments, combined with unwelcoming clinical staff, clinical instructors’ lack of expertise, and a lack of sense of belongingness among students, are a challenging factors with negative impact on students’ learning in the CLE [20]. Subsequently, student satisfaction and a robust evaluation of clinical practice are associated with mentor involvement during practice [8, 21].

Huybrecht et al. [13] report that despite the workload, lack of time, and other negative circumstances, mentoring provides intangible advantages for nurses and these benefits outweigh the disadvantages. The development of mentoring competencies, support of the health institution in which the teaching is conducted, and the creation of a favourable learning environment are important for quality mentoring work [14]. Mentoring foster personal and professional career development and advancement in nursing [9, 22, 23], and is an effective way to strengthen nursing practice in improving the quality of patient care and treatment outcomes. Mentoring is one of the most important components of a desirable educational programme [24].

The improvement of educational processes in nursing involves good and quality cooperation between teachers and mentors at the clinical placement where practices is conducted, and this needs to be built and constantly strengthened [8]. A quality clinical environment includes satisfaction of the mentor and student. Subsequently, assessing clinical environments as learning environments is important in contemporary nursing education, as student satisfaction is a complex and multifactorial issue [11].

It is therefore necessary to strive for the clinical environment to be tailored to provide opportunities for students to independently master the performance of skills in the field of nursing. As such, student and mentors’ satisfaction with the clinical practice is important element in quality education. To do this, instruments measuring the satisfaction of students and mentors with clinical practice must be adapted to the educational and cultural environments where nursing education takes place; and therefore, the aim of this paper is to develop and validate both the Questionnaire of Satisfaction with Clinical Practice for Mentors (QSCP-M) and the Questionnaire of Satisfaction with Clinical Practice for Students (QSCP-S) which will enable insight in students and mentor satisfaction with clinical practice.

Methods

Study design

This study was conducted in three phases. Initially the questionnaire was developed (phase one), and this was followed by the second and third phases of the testing, where two psychometric tests of the questionnaire were undertaken in 2020 and 2021, respectively.

Participants

In the first phase of data collection, undergraduate nursing students from University of Applied Health Sciences in Zagreb, Croatia (n=252) and mentors of clinical practice (n=86) participated. The following phase of the research testing of the questionnaire then included participants from the same study who underwent clinical practice (n=291) and their mentors (n=94).

Participants were informed about the purpose of the research and a link to the questionnaire was sent to them electronically. Participants were asked to complete an online survey.

Instruments

The initial versions of the Questionnaire of Satisfaction with Clinical Practice for Mentors (QSCP-M) and for Students (QSCP-S) were compiled based on a comprehensive review of the literature to measure general and specific satisfaction with clinical practice. The initial versions of the questionnaire were distributed to experts (lecturers in the fields of nursing, clinical mentors, and psychologists). Based on the opinions of these experts, pre-final versions of the questionnaire were prepared. When completing the questionnaire, participants were asked to complete their degree of agreement with each statement on a scale of 1–5. The version for mentors in the final version contains 19 items, while the final version of the QSCP-S contains 23 items. The results from the individual scales were calculated using arithmetic means, with a higher score indicating a higher degree of satisfaction with the particular aspects of clinical practice.

To verify the metric characteristics of both questionnaires, surveys were conducted at two time points. Based on the results obtained from the first phase, new, improved versions of both questionnaires were constructed, and the final versions were based on the repeated analysis and led to the QSCP-M and QSCP-S. The initial version of the QSCP-M consisted of 21 items and four subscales. In the final version of QSCP-M, two particles were dropped so that QSCP-M consists of 19 items with two subscales, the first subscale being called Satisfaction with students and the organisation of clinical practice. An example of the item is: ‘Students respect the rules of conduct on the clinical site during the practice’. The second subscale is called Satisfaction with mentoring clinical practice, and an example of the particle is: ‘I am highly motivated for mentoring work’. The first version of the QSCP-S has 28 items, and four subscales were proposed. After testing the stability of the factor structure of the questionnaire, the final version consisted of 23 items, and the scale was unidimensional, measuring the general satisfaction of students in clinical practice. An example of an item is: ‘During my clinical practice, I continuously received feedback from my mentor.’

Data analysis

The results were analysed using the statistical programme IBM SPPS 25. Descriptive data processing was performed (arithmetic mean and standard deviation). The validity of both questionnaires was examined using a series of exploratory factor analyses (EFA). Given the number of items and participants in the study, the use of factor analysis was justified [25].

Ethical considerations

The ethics committee of the educational institution where the research was conducted approved its implementation. The examinees received verbal and written explanations of the purpose of the research. Thus, the examinees participated in the study voluntarily and anonymously, and completing the questionnaire implied their consent for their participation in the study.

Results

This study involved 543 students (252 in the first phase; 291 in the second phase) and 180 mentors (86 in the first phase; 94 in the second phase). The second phase of the research involved more students than the first, which can be attributed to a greater interest in evaluating clinical practice, given that it was conducted after a long break due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The demographic data of the participants are presented in Table 1.

Table 1:

Demographics characteristics of participants.

First phase Second phase Total
Mentors, n 86 94 180
Age 49.5 (SD=8.64) 47.23 (SD=8.61) 48.59 (SD=8.63)
Male 5 6 11
Female 81 88 169
Work experience 29.08 (SD=8.83) 27.05 (SD=8.96) 28.01 (SD=8.9)
Education
 Master’s degree 63 72 135
 Bachelor’s degree 23 22 45
Year of clinical practice
 First 13 12 25
 Second 25 35 60
 Third 48 47 95
Type of study
 Full time 71 83 154
 Part time 15 11 26
Students, n 252 291 543
Age 24.99 (SD=6.69) 23.01 (SD=5.24) 24 (SD=6)
 Male 26 30 56
 Female 226 261 487
Type of study
 Full time 89 244 333
 Part time 163 47 210
Year of study programme
 First 60 45 105
 Second 111 147 258
 Third 81 99 180

  1. SD, standard deviation.

Table 2 shows the descriptive data of the participants’ answers for each item, which are presented as arithmetic mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum results and the range of answers, for the QSCP-M and Table 5 for the QSCP-S.

Table 2:

Descriptive data of the final version QSCP-M questionnaire.

Item Total Min Max R M SD
QSCP-M1. Students come to the clinical practice prepared (students have a theoretical basis for clinical practice). 94 2 5 3 4.14 0.76
QSCP-M2. Learning outcomes of the course are well defined in the preparation of students for future independent work. 94 3 5 2 4.46 0.58
QSCP-M3. The allotted time for the practice is sufficient to master the skills from the learning outcomes. 94 1 5 4 2.71 1.24
QSCP-M4. Students are appropriately dressed during clinical practice. 94 3 5 2 4.80 0.48
QSCP-M5. Students show high motivation to learn during the clinical practice. 94 2 5 3 4.32 0.76
QSCP-M6. Students respect the defined time for the clinical practice (they come on time). 94 2 5 3 4.80 0.50
QSCP-M7. Students follow the rules of conduct on the job site during the clinical practice. 94 3 5 2 4.77 0.50
QSCP-M8. Students communicate professionally and respectfully with all team members. 94 3 5 2 4.82 0.44
QSCP-M9. I am well acquainted with the learning outcomes of the courses that need to be achieved during clinical practice. 94 3 5 2 4.80 0.43
QSCP-M10. I can be completely dedicated to the student during the clinical practice. 94 2 5 3 4.13 0.75
QSCP-M11. The place/department is suitable for clinical practice. 94 2 5 3 4.05 0.85
QSCP-M12. My institution (management) supports me in mentoring. 94 3 5 2 4.83 0.46
QSCP-M13. My colleagues support me in mentoring. 94 3 5 2 4.80 0.50
QSCP-M14. I am highly motivated for mentoring. 94 4 5 1 4.94 0.25
QSCP-M15. I am satisfied with the assessment criteria and evaluation of the learning outcomes in clinical practice. 94 3 5 2 4.64 0.58
QSCP-M16. I feel competent for mentoring (I have knowledge, skills and abilities). 94 4 5 1 4.87 0.34
QSCP-M17. I am satisfied with the organisation of clinical practice (schedules come on time). 94 2 5 3 4.83 0.50
QSCP-M18. The number of students in a group allows me to devote as much time as possible to each student. 94 1 5 4 2.37 1.29
QSCP-M19. I’m satisfied with the communication with the course leader. 94 4 5 1 4.96 0.20

  1. R, range; M, arithmetic mean; SD, standard deviation.

Construct validity of QSCP-M

Prior to further processing, the prerequisites for conducting the factor analysis were examined. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure was KMO=0.701, which satisfied the first condition for conducting a factor analysis. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ2=749.95; p=0.00), which shows that the correlation matrix differs significantly from the identity matrix. An EFA with oblique rotation (Oblimin) QSCP-M was performed to determine whether the obtained data corresponded to the proposed factor structure of the four subscales. The matrix of the factor structure with the corresponding factor loads is shown in Table 3, along with the reliability of the individual subscales.

Table 3:

Factor saturation matrix on QSCP-M questionnaire.

Subscale Item Factor Reliability
1 2 3 4
Satisfaction with students (k=9) QSCP-M1 0.688 −0.317 0.76
QSCP-M2 0.356 −0.405 0.302
QSCP-M3 0.745
QSCP-M4 −0.722 −0.331
QSCP-M5 0.391 −0.658
QSCP-M6 −0.815
QSCP-M7 −0.899
QSCP-M8 −0.622 0.344
QSCP-M9 −0.515 0.355
Satisfaction with working conditions during the clinical practice (k=4) QSCP-M10 0.623 0.366 0.58
QSCP-M11 0.669 0.349
QSCP-M12 0.598
QSCP-M13 0.563
Personal satisfaction with mentoring (k=4) QSCP-M14 0.620 0.405 0.40
QSCP-M15 0.369 −0.489 0.486
QSCP-M16 0.536 −0.313 0.490
QSCP-M17 0.471 0.311
Satisfaction with the organisation of clinical practice (k=4) QSCP-M18 0.627 0.24
QSCP-M19 0.770
QSCP-M20 0.822
QSCP-M21 0.617

  1. k – Number of items per subscale.

The four-factor structure, originally proposed by the authors of the questionnaire, was verified using EFA. The analysis indicated that the questionnaire items on the first factor mostly belonged to the proposed subscale. Other items that were not properly distributed on the other proposed subscales proved problematic. The total explained variance was 52.49 %, but most of the explanation of the variance was contained in the first factor (26.7 %) and the second factor (10.27 %). The remaining two factors explain less than 9 % of the variance. The reliability of the subscales ranged from α=0.76 to α=0.24. The low reliability and incorrect distribution of factor loadings on the remaining three subscales can be attributed to the small number of items per subscale. For a better solution, new factor analyses were performed to determine the most stable factor structure of QSCP-M.

By testing other conceptual models of one-, two-, and three-factor structures, the two-factor structural model proved to be the most stable. In addition, owing to the instability of some items, two items were excluded from further analysis, and the final factor structure with the corresponding reliability coefficients is shown in Table 4. The item descriptions for this version are presented in Table 2.

Table 4:

Final factor structure of QSCP-M questionnaire.

Item Factor Reliability
1 2
QSCP-M1 0.831 0.75
QSCP-M2 0.730
QSCP-M3 −0.313
QSCP-M4 0.544
QSCP-M5 0.729
QSCP-M6 0.644
QSCP-M7 0.698
QSCP-M8 0.601
QSCP-M9 0.317
QSCP-M10 0.500
QSCP-M11 0.399
QSCP-M12 −0.365
QSCP-M13 0.561 0.69
QSCP-M14 0.772
QSCP-M15 0.685
QSCP-M16 0.522
QSCP-M17 0.383 0.433
QSCP-M18 0.630
QSCP-M19 0.435

The two-factor structure of the QSCP-M was obtained by analysing the main components with oblique rotation. The reliability of the subscales was α=0.75 for the first factor and α=0.69 for the second factor. The correlation between these two factors was r=0.45, which indicates the mutual independence of the factors. The first factor was satisfaction with students and the organisation of clinical practice, and the second factor was satisfaction with mentoring clinical practice.

Table 5:

Descriptive data of the final version of the QSCP-S questionnaire.

Total Min Max R M SD
1. I’m satisfied with the expertise and attitude towards the work of my mentor. 291 1 5 4 4.52 1.10
2. In my opinion, the mentor was able to integrate our theoretical knowledge into clinical practice. 291 1 5 4 4.46 1.12
3. The mentor helped me to ‘reduce the gap’ between theory and practice. 291 1 5 4 4.39 1.18
4. My mentor showed a positive attitude towards mentoring. 291 1 5 4 4.52 1.10
5. The mentor has an individual approach to students. 291 1 5 4 4.34 1.23
6. During my clinical practice, I continuously received feedback from my mentor. 291 1 5 4 4.36 1.22
7. Mentoring was based on the attitude of equality towards all students. 291 1 5 4 4.56 1.09
8. During the clinical practice, there was a constant interaction between the mentor and me. 291 1 5 4 4.26 1.28
9. The mentoring relationship was marked by a sense of respect. 291 1 5 4 4.55 1.08
10. Overall I am satisfied with my mentor. 291 1 5 4 4.46 1.15
11. I think the place/department is a good learning environment. 291 1 5 4 4.50 1.11
12. Various useful contents from nursing care were presented at the work site. 291 1 5 4 4.36 1.23
13. The place/department provided me with the opportunity to master the necessary skills. 291 1 5 4 4.19 1.33
14. During my clinical practice, I felt comfortable participating in discussions within a group of students. 291 1 5 4 4.50 1.10
15. I am satisfied with the attitude of other team members towards me during the clinical practice. 291 1 5 4 4.48 1.14
16. I see the work site and the time spent on the work site as a good opportunity to learn. 291 1 5 4 4.47 1.14
17. I am satisfied with the organisation of clinical practice (schedules arrive on time). 291 1 5 4 3.67 1.52
18. Terms of practical teaching are harmonised with theoretical teaching. 291 1 5 4 4.13 1.22
19. The number of students in a group allows the mentor to devote as much time to each student as needed. 291 1 5 4 4.20 1.24
20. I am satisfied with the clarity of the goals and learning outcomes of clinical practice. 291 1 5 4 4.27 1.19
21. I am satisfied with mentoring and assessment of the learning outcomes of clinical practice. 291 1 5 4 4.35 1.18
22. I think that my knowledge and skills have increased during clinical practice. 291 1 5 4 4.14 1.30
23. The skills learned in clinical practice have prepared me well for independent work in the field of the subject. 291 1 5 4 4.00 1.41

  1. R, range; M, arithmetic mean; SD, standard deviation.

Construct validity of QSCP-S

Prior to further processing, the prerequisites for conducting the factor analysis were examined. The KMO measure was 0.98, which satisfied the first condition for conducting factor analysis. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ2=11,271.64; p=0.00), which shows that the correlation matrix differs significantly from the identity matrix. The factor structure matrix of the first version of the QSCP-S with the corresponding factor loads is shown in Table 6 along with the reliability of the individual subscales.

Table 6:

Factor saturation matrix on QSCP-S questionnaire.

Subscale Item Factor Reliability
1 2 3 4
Student satisfaction with a mentor in clinical practice (k=11) QSCP-S1 0.909 0.98
QSCP-S2 0.886
QSCP-S3 0.816
QSCP-S4 0.982
QSCP-S5 0.906
QSCP-S6 0.886
QSCP-S7 0.849
QSCP-S8 0.833
QSCP-S9 0.984
QSCP-S10 0.882
QSCP-S11 0.903
Satisfaction with the place/department during the clinical practice (k=7) QSCP-S12 −0.974 0.96
QSCP-S13 −0.867
QSCP-S14 −0.967
QSCP-S15 0.411 −0.479
QSCP-S16 −0.658
QSCP-S17 −0.753
QSCP-S18 −0.840
Satisfaction with the organisation of clinical practice (k=4) QSCP-S19 0.855 0.86
QSCP-S20 0.629 0.336
QSCP-S21 0.785
QSCP-S22 0.854
Satisfaction with the clarity of learning outcomes and evaluation of clinical practice (k=4) QSCP-S23 −0.633 0.94
QSCP-S24 0.384 −0.367
QSCP-S25 −0.803
QSCP-S26 0.333 −0.574

  1. k – number of items per subscale.

The four-factor structure, originally proposed by the authors of the questionnaire, was verified using EFA. Analysis of the main components revealed that four factors explained 84.76 % of the variance. However, the first factor explains as much as 71.22 % of the variance of the criteria, and the particles are meaningfully distributed on that factor; the second factor explains 6.32 %, the third explains 4.73 %, and the fourth factor explains only 2.5 % of the variance of the criterion variable. The reliability of each subscale is acceptable, but insight into the individual particles concludes that their individual correlations with the whole scale are extremely high (r=0.59–0.9). Particles that met the following two criteria were excluded: (a) their mutual correlation with other particles was high; and, (b) terminologically, they did not fit into the examination of the construct of satisfaction with clinical practice. The final version consisted of 23 items. Given the high percentage of explanation of variance only on the first factor, it was decided that the QSCP-S would be used as a unidimensional scale. The analysis of the main components, with oblique rotation, led to a one-factor structure of the QSCP-S, which refers to the measurement of general satisfaction of students in clinical practice. The reliability of the scale was α=0.981 (Table 7).

Table 7:

Final version of QSCP-S questionnaire.

Factor
Item 1
QSCP-S1 0.923
QSCP-S2 0.910
QSCP-S3 0.920
QSCP-S4 0.907
QSCP-S5 0.884
QSCP-S6 0.896
QSCP-S7 0.877
QSCP-S8 0.887
QSCP-S9 0.886
QSCP-S10 0.942
QSCP-S11 0.780
QSCP-S12 0.871
QSCP-S13 0.869
QSCP-S14 0.863
QSCP-S15 0.795
QSCP-S16 0.853
QSCP-S17 0.623
QSCP-S18 0.667
QSCP-S19 0.627
QSCP-S20 0.897
QSCP-S21 0.895
QSCP-S22 0.849
QSCP-S23 0.841

Sensitivity of QSCP-M and QSCP-S

The sensitivity was determined by the range of results obtained for the total results of the QSCP-M and QSCP-S. The range of the overall results shows whether we can use the questionnaire to distinguish small differences in satisfaction with clinical practice among mentors and students. In the sample of mentors, the results showed a tendency towards higher values on both the first (38–54) and second (30–40) subscales. In the sample of students, the total scores ranged from 23 to 115 (Table 8).

Table 8:

Sensitivity of QSCP-M and QSCP-S questionnaires.

Questionnaire Descriptives Kolmogorov-Smirnov test Distribution
M SD n p-Value Skewness Kurtosis
Complete scale QSCP-M 4.52 0.24 94 0.76 −0.85 0.26
Satisfaction with students and the organisation of clinical practice 4.35 0.3 94 0.96 −0.81 0.43
Satisfaction with mentoring clinical practice 4.74 0.26 94 0.80 −1.51 2.23
Complete scale QSCP-S 4.33 1.9 291 0.01a −1.9 2.62

  1. ap<0.01; M, mean; SD, standard deviation; n, number; P, probability.

One of the indicators of sensitivity is testing the normality of the distribution of the total results, which was examined using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. In the case of both subscales, it is evident that the distribution of results on the entire QSCP-M scale, as well as on its subscales, did not differ significantly from the normal one. The distribution of results on the QSCP-S differed significantly from the normal. All the results are negatively asymmetric, indicating a tendency towards higher results. This result is not unexpected because it is assumed that most participants, mentors, and students are satisfied with the quality of their clinical practice.

Discussion

The aim of this paper was to develop and validate the Questionnaire of Satisfaction with Clinical Practice for Mentors (QSCP-M) and the Questionnaire of Satisfaction with Clinical Practice for Students (QSCP-S). The development of instruments to assess the satisfaction of students and mentors with their clinical teaching is important in nursing education. Feedback on the quality of practical teaching provides students’ insights into the implementation of clinical practice and should lead to improvement in the implementation of practical teaching, and discussions about the acquisition of competencies in the clinical environment.

Other instruments have been developed to assess the clinical environment, mentoring, and satisfaction of mentors and students; however, the assessment often requires cultural alignment of the instruments with the environment in which the education is conducted, and alignment with the characteristics of the students, mentors and teaching methods. During their education, students spend a specified amount of time at an individual clinical site (this is related to the educational content), and during one academic year, they stay at several sites. Additionally, the number of students in a group at a clinical site is regulated by national regulations.

The results indicate that the constructed versions of the QSCP-M and QSCP-S have good psychometric characteristics, indicating the reliable use of both these versions of the questionnaire. For the QSCP-M, an analysis of the main components with 21 items was performed; after the final analysis, 19 items were retained, which are considered to be a construct that will test satisfaction with the clinical practice of the mentor. The factor analyses ultimately identified two subscales, one of which was related to satisfaction with students and the organisation of clinical practice, and the other related to satisfaction with the aspect of mentoring in clinical practice. The correlation indicated the independence of these two factors, which would mean that each factor measures a different aspect of satisfaction with clinical practice. The results obtained in this research showed that mentors were very satisfied with all aspects of clinical practice. In addition, the results on the derived coefficients of internal consistency indicate satisfactory reliability of both subscales (α=0.75 and α=0.69), which means that all items, to a greater or lesser degree, measure the same object of measurement. The sensitivity of the questionnaire was examined to ensure that the items could recognise differences in satisfaction with certain aspects of the clinical practice. The results showed that the questionnaire could detect different levels of satisfaction with mentors’ clinical practice.

Analyses of the main components of the QSCP-S were conducted, and one dimension of the questionnaire that measured general satisfaction with clinical practice was identified. The QSCP-S also showed a high degree of internal consistency (α=0.98), and it can be said with certainty that the instrument reliably measures the general satisfaction of students in clinical practice. The tested sensitivity indicated a tendency towards higher values. The results showed that the students were extremely satisfied with their clinical practice. In both measurements, the arithmetic mean was high, which can be partly attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the pandemic, all lectures, as well as clinical and other exercises, were suspended, and classes were transferred to the online environment. The study was conducted after the clinical practice was transferred to the hospital setting. In this sense, the high results are largely attributed to student satisfaction when performing the practical part of teaching in the usual way at the hospital.

Since the importance of measuring satisfaction with clinical practice has been recognised for both mentors and students who go through clinical practice as part of their education, the construction of these questionnaires and their practical application will contribute to a better understanding of mentors’ and students’ needs, which thus far could not be verified by the existing measuring instruments available in our area. Subsequently, the application of the QSCP-M and QSCP-S instruments can enable monitoring of the satisfaction of mentors and students with clinical practice.

The limitations of testing these instruments are reflected in the reduced timeframe within which this research was conducted. In addition, limitations were visible in the reduced number of mentors surveyed. Further tests are needed on a larger sample of mentors and students in order to fully check the stability of the two questionnaires and to obtain a completely clear picture of the practical use of both versions of the questionnaire. It is important to emphasise that this research was conducted on a sample of mentors and students who belong to the population for which the questionnaires are intended; therefore, it is a great advantage that the results obtained can be generalised to the population.

Conclusions

During clinical practice, students acquire clinical competencies in a clinical environment which can be extremely complex. Many factors related to students, mentors, and clinical environment can influence the satisfaction with the clinical practice. Therefore it is necessary to evaluate the satisfaction of students and mentors. To do this, we validated the two questionnaires constructed to measure general and specific satisfaction with clinical practice. Both forms of the questionnaire showed stable metric characteristics, and it can be concluded that they are suitable for use in future research to test satisfaction with clinical practice on samples of mentors and students. The construction of these Questionnaires was intended to contribute to a better quality of the implementation of clinical practice as one of the most important aspects of the nursing education.

Corresponding author: Snjezana Cukljek, RN, PhD, University of Applied Health Sciences, Mlinarska 38, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia, Phone: +385 91 45 95 911, E-mail:

Funding source: Ministarstvo znanosti i obrazovanja

Award Identifier / Grant number: UP.03.1.1.04.0002

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the organizations and participants involved in the research.

  1. Ethical Approval: The local Institutional Review Board approved implementation of the research.

  2. Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individuals included in this study.

  3. Author contributions: SČ, MŽ, IT: Conceptualization. SČ, MŽ, IT: Research design, Data collection, Literature search. IT: Analysis. SČ, MŽ, IT: Manuscript preparation. All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

  4. Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest.

  5. Research funding: The research was conducted within the project Improvement and implementation of clinical practice in the study of nursing, funded by the European Social Fund and Ministry of Science of the Republic of Croatia.

References

1. European Parliament. Directive 2013/55/EU of the European parliament and of the council of 20 November 2013 off. Off J Eur Union 2013:132–70.Search in Google Scholar

2. Flott, EA, Linden, L. The clinical learning environment in nursing education: a concept analysis. J Adv Nurs 2016;72:501–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12861.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

3. Steven, A, Magnusson, C, Smith, P, Pearson, PH. Patient safety in nursing education: contexts, tensions and feeling safe to learn. Nurse Educ Today 2014;34:277–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.04.025.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

4. Fernández-García, D, Moreno-Latorre, E, Giménez-Espert, M, Prado-Gascó, V. Satisfaction with the clinical practice among nursing students using regression models and qualitative comparative analysis. Nurse Educ Today 2021;100:104861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2021.104861.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

5. Jonsén, E, Melender, HL, Hilli, Y. Finnish and Swedish nursing students’ experiences of their first clinical practice placement – a qualitative study. Nurse Educ Today 2013;33:297–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2012.06.012.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

6. Atay, S, Kurt, FY, Aslan, GK, Saarikoski, M, Yılmaz, H, Ekinci, V. Validity and reliability of the clinical learning environment, supervision and nurse teacher (CLES+T), Turkish version 1. Rev Latino-Am Enferm 2018;26:e3037. https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.2413.3037.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

7. Walker, S, Dwyer, T, Moxham, L, Broadbent, M, Sander, T. Facilitator versus preceptor: which offers the best support to undergraduate nursing students? Nurse Educ Today 2013;33:530–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2011.12.005.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

8. Saukkoriipi, M, Tuomikoski, AM, Sivonen, P, Kärsämänoja, T, Laitinen, A, Tähtinen, T, et al.. Clustering clinical learning environment and mentoring perceptions of nursing and midwifery students: a cross‐sectional study. J Adv Nurs 2020;76:2336–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14452.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

9. Dale, B, Leland, A, Dale, JG. What factors facilitate good learning experiences in clinical studies in nursing: bachelor students’ perceptions. Int Sch Res Notices 2013. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/628679.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

10. McIntosh, A, Gidman, J, Smith, D. Mentors’ perceptions and experiences of supporting student nurses in practice. Int J Nurs Pract 2014;20:360–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijn.12163.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

11. Papastavrou, E, Dimitriadou, M, Tsangari, H, Andreou, C. Nursing students’ satisfaction of the clinical learning environment: a research study. BMC Nurs 2016;15:44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-016-0164-4.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

12. Szalmasagi, JD. Efficacy of a mentoring program on nurse retention and transition into practice. Int J Stud Nurs 2018;3:31–9. https://doi.org/10.20849/ijsn.v3i2.378.Search in Google Scholar

13. Huybrecht, S, Loeckx, W, Quaeyhaegens, Y, De Tobel, D, Mistiaen, W. Mentoring in nursing education: perceived characteristics of mentors and the consequences of mentorship. Nurse Educ Today 2011;31:274–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2010.10.022.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

14. Tuomikoski, AM, Ruotsalainen, H, Mikkonen, K, Kääriäinen, M. Nurses’ experiences of their competence at mentoring nursing students during clinical practice: a systematic review of qualitative studies. Nurse Educ Today 2020;85:104258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2019.104258.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

15. Johansson, UB, Kaila, P, Ahlner-Elmqvist, M, Leksell, J, Isoaho, H, Saarikoski, M. Clinical learning environment, supervision and nurse teacher evaluation scale: psychometric evaluation of the Swedish version. J Adv Nurs 2010;66:2085–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05370.x.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

16. Academy of Medical-Surgical Nurses. AMSN mentoring program [Internet]; 2012. Available from https://convention.amsn.org/sites/default/files/documents/professionaldevelopment/mentoring/AMSN-Mentoring-Mentee-Guide.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

17. Beecroft, PC, Santner, S, Lacy, ML, Kunzman, L, Dorey, F. New graduate nurses’ perceptions of mentoring: six-year programme evaluation. J Adv Nurs 2006;55:736–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03964.x.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

18. Tuomikoski, AM, Ruotsalainen, H, Mikkonen, K, Miettunen, J, Kääriäinen, M. The competence of nurse mentors in mentoring students in clinical practice – a cross-sectional study. Nurse Educ Today 2018;71:78–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.09.008.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

19. Dursun Ergezen, F, Akcan, A, Kol, E. Nursing students’ expectations, satisfaction, and perceptions regarding clinical learning environment: a cross-sectional, profile study from Turkey. Nurse Educ Pract 2022;61:103333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2022.103333.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

20. Panda, S, Dash, M, John, J, Rath, K, Debata, A, Swain, D, et al.. Challenges faced by student nurses and midwives in clinical learning environment – a systematic review and meta-synthesis. Nurse Educ Today 2021;101:104875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2021.104875.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

21. Cervera-Gasch, A, González-Chordá, VM, Ortiz-Mallasen, V, Andreu-Pejo, L, Mena-Tudela, D, Valero-Chilleron, MJ. Student satisfaction level, clinical learning environment, and tutor participation in primary care clinical placements: an observational study. Nurse Educ Today 2022;108:105156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2021.105156.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

22. Dawson, LE. Implementation of a nurse mentorship program. Baltimore: University of Maryland School of Nursing; 2020. Available from: https://archive.hshsl.umaryland.edu/bitstream/handle/10713/12939/Dawson_NurseMentorship_2020.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.Search in Google Scholar

23. Martin, JB, Douglas, DH. Faculty mentorship: making it work across the career continuum through development, implementation, and evaluation of a formal mentorship program. Nurs Educ Perspect 2018;39:317–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.nep.0000000000000310.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

24. Navarra, AM, Stimpfel, AW, Rodriguez, K, Lim, F, Nelson, N, Slater, LZ. Beliefs and perceptions of mentorship among nursing faculty and traditional and accelerated undergraduate nursing students. Nurse Educ Today 2018;61:20–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.10.009.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

25. Tabachnick, BG, Fidell, LS. Using multivariate statistics, International edition. Pearson; 2013.Search in Google Scholar
Received: 2022-11-09
Accepted: 2024-02-05
Published Online: 2024-04-05

© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Literature Reviews
  2. Gerontological educational interventions for student nurses: a systematic review of qualitative findings
  3. Educational interventions to improve student nurses’ knowledge, attitudes, or willingness to work with older people: a systematic review of quantitative findings
  4. Barriers to and facilitators of accelerated BSN students’ success: a scoping review with possible strategies for success
  5. Formal nursing focused academic practice partnerships for advancing nursing research and scholarship: a scoping review protocol
  6. Notetaking among nursing students
  7. Nursing students’ experiences of teaching and learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies
  8. Research Articles
  9. International experiences of implementing the Fundamentals of Care Framework in nursing curricula
  10. Relationship between tutor support, caring self-efficacy and intention to leave of nursing students: the roles of self-compassion as mediator and moderator
  11. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices toward infection control precautions among nurses in Palestinian hospitals
  12. AI-generated vs. student-crafted assignments and implications for evaluating student work in nursing: an exploratory reflection
  13. Nursing students’ experience of a transformative approach to teaching cross cultural clinical decision making
  14. Supporting nursing faculty to teach veteran’s care: a mixed method, multi-intervention study
  15. Nursing students’ evaluation of patient safety culture in three central European countries: a cross-sectional study
  16. Development of clinical decision-making among undergraduate nursing students: the effect of unfolding case-based learning
  17. Developing competency of nursing students in cardiopulmonary resuscitation using Resuscitation Quality Improvement technology
  18. Value creation in a learning community: an interprofessional partnership between nursing home care, education and students
  19. Development and validation of satisfaction with clinical practice questionnaire for mentors and students
  20. Norwegian nurse educators’ self-rating of competencies: a nationwide cross-sectional web-survey
  21. Perceptions of nursing staff and students regarding attrition: a qualitative study
  22. A nurturing and caring environment to facilitate nursing students’ professional development in Rwanda: a focused ethnographic study
  23. Comparison of the traditional and block mode of delivery on undergraduate nursing students’ perceived levels of preparedness to use evidence-based practice: a two-group experimental study
  24. Educational Process, Issue, Trend
  25. Artificial intelligence in academic writing: a detailed examination
  26. Simulation design – peer-to-peer training as preparation for full-scale scenarios
  27. Don’t interrupt me! development of a handoff education bundle to simulate the real world
  28. The effectiveness of badging systems in engaging, motivating, and incentivizing students in the mastery of nursing licensure materials
  29. The effects of using a flipped classroom pedagogy in nursing anesthesia education: a program evaluation
https://doi.org/10.1515/ijnes-2022-0124
Keywords for this article
clinical practice; nursing students; satisfaction; questionnaire

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Literature Reviews
  2. Gerontological educational interventions for student nurses: a systematic review of qualitative findings
  3. Educational interventions to improve student nurses’ knowledge, attitudes, or willingness to work with older people: a systematic review of quantitative findings
  4. Barriers to and facilitators of accelerated BSN students’ success: a scoping review with possible strategies for success
  5. Formal nursing focused academic practice partnerships for advancing nursing research and scholarship: a scoping review protocol
  6. Notetaking among nursing students
  7. Nursing students’ experiences of teaching and learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies
  8. Research Articles
  9. International experiences of implementing the Fundamentals of Care Framework in nursing curricula
  10. Relationship between tutor support, caring self-efficacy and intention to leave of nursing students: the roles of self-compassion as mediator and moderator
  11. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices toward infection control precautions among nurses in Palestinian hospitals
  12. AI-generated vs. student-crafted assignments and implications for evaluating student work in nursing: an exploratory reflection
  13. Nursing students’ experience of a transformative approach to teaching cross cultural clinical decision making
  14. Supporting nursing faculty to teach veteran’s care: a mixed method, multi-intervention study
  15. Nursing students’ evaluation of patient safety culture in three central European countries: a cross-sectional study
  16. Development of clinical decision-making among undergraduate nursing students: the effect of unfolding case-based learning
  17. Developing competency of nursing students in cardiopulmonary resuscitation using Resuscitation Quality Improvement technology
  18. Value creation in a learning community: an interprofessional partnership between nursing home care, education and students
  19. Development and validation of satisfaction with clinical practice questionnaire for mentors and students
  20. Norwegian nurse educators’ self-rating of competencies: a nationwide cross-sectional web-survey
  21. Perceptions of nursing staff and students regarding attrition: a qualitative study
  22. A nurturing and caring environment to facilitate nursing students’ professional development in Rwanda: a focused ethnographic study
  23. Comparison of the traditional and block mode of delivery on undergraduate nursing students’ perceived levels of preparedness to use evidence-based practice: a two-group experimental study
  24. Educational Process, Issue, Trend
  25. Artificial intelligence in academic writing: a detailed examination
  26. Simulation design – peer-to-peer training as preparation for full-scale scenarios
  27. Don’t interrupt me! development of a handoff education bundle to simulate the real world
  28. The effectiveness of badging systems in engaging, motivating, and incentivizing students in the mastery of nursing licensure materials
  29. The effects of using a flipped classroom pedagogy in nursing anesthesia education: a program evaluation
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 16.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/ijnes-2022-0124/html
Scroll to top button