Evaluation of group processes in the professional development of mental health nurses.

M Clinton, P Lunney, G Hart
{"title":"Evaluation of group processes in the professional development of mental health nurses.","authors":"M Clinton,&nbsp;P Lunney,&nbsp;G Hart","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The purpose of this paper is to report on group process data for 41 registered nurses endorsed as psychiatric nurses. Profile analysis was used to evaluate the flatness of ratings of group interaction by two groups of participants. Accelerated professional development participants had non-flat rating profiles for their ratings of how far group sessions helped them to clarify or validate issues, focused on the 'reasons for' and consequences of session content, achieved resolution of different points of view, or promoted consensus and group cohesiveness. The peer consultation participants had a non-flat rating profile for overall group supportiveness, demonstrating that the participants felt less supported over time.</p>","PeriodicalId":79537,"journal":{"name":"The Australian and New Zealand journal of mental health nursing","volume":"6 3","pages":"113-21"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Australian and New Zealand journal of mental health nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to report on group process data for 41 registered nurses endorsed as psychiatric nurses. Profile analysis was used to evaluate the flatness of ratings of group interaction by two groups of participants. Accelerated professional development participants had non-flat rating profiles for their ratings of how far group sessions helped them to clarify or validate issues, focused on the 'reasons for' and consequences of session content, achieved resolution of different points of view, or promoted consensus and group cohesiveness. The peer consultation participants had a non-flat rating profile for overall group supportiveness, demonstrating that the participants felt less supported over time.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
心理健康护士专业发展的群体过程评价。
本研究的目的是报告41名注册护士为精神科护士的群体过程资料。采用剖面分析来评价两组参与者对群体互动评价的平稳性。加速专业发展参与者对小组会议在多大程度上帮助他们澄清或验证问题、关注会议内容的“原因”和结果、实现不同观点的解决、或促进共识和小组凝聚力的程度进行了评分。同伴咨询的参与者对整体群体支持度的评价不一致,这表明随着时间的推移,参与者感到得到的支持越来越少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Best practice and questions of security. A patient classification system for the chronic psychiatric patient. Suicide on the Internet: a focus for nursing intervention? Operationalization of the concept of 'nursing care dependency' for use in long-term care facilities. The Round House Gaol: Western Australia's first lunatic asylum.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1