Dale Hilty
Mt. Carmel College of Nursing, USA
Title: Evaluation of the affective domain questionnaire to assess changes in learning across four timed measurements
Biography
Biography: Dale Hilty
Abstract
Introduction & Aim: While completing a senior level course emphasizing the importance of interprofessional communication among health care professionals, Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) Students academic learning was assessed across four time periods.
Method: 1st assessment: Pre-test regarding the role and function of 10 health care professionals (Advance Practice Nurses, Chaplains, Ethicists, Interpreters, Occupational & Physical Therapists, Pharmacists, Registered Dietitians, Respiratory Therapists, Social Workers and Physicians); intervention 1: six or seven students formed small groups and selected one of the ten health care professionals. Students wrote a paper focusing the historical basis, education, training, legislative concerns, holistic specialization and license/certification. Students presented the paper to the class prior to submitting it for a grade. 2nd assessment: intervention 2: a guest speaker from each of the 10 professional disciplines visited the class and shared the scope of practice, unique contributions, working relationships with Registered Nurses and holistic recommendations. 3rd assessment: intervention 3: students assumed the role of a Registered Nurse in an interprofessional simulation including the patient, family and the 10 licensed professionals. 4th assessment: intervention 4: in an educational intervention (Hilty Gill-Rocha, Ross, Hinze, & Clark, 2018; Hilty, Hinze, & Clark, 2018), the researchers found the Affective Domain Questionnaire (ADQ) consisted of three common factors with coefficient alpha reliability estimates ranging from 895 to 931.
Results: The first timed assessment measured changes in learning based on intervention 1. Using SPSS 25, the dependent t-test findings showed significant differences on the three ADQ common factors comparing data from Assessments 1 and 2 (questions evaluated term paper and class presentation). The second timed assessment measured changes in learning based on intervention 2. Significant differences were found comparing Assessments 1 and 3 (questions evaluated guest speaker presentations). The second timed assessment measured changes in learning based on intervention 3. Significant differences were found comparing Assessments 1 and 4 (questions evaluated the interprofessional simulation). All differences were significant at p=.001. Coefficient alpha reliability estimates are presented in a table.
