NCLEX考生考试行为的回顾:重复测试、测试时间和纪律之间的关系

IF 4.2 4区 医学 Q1 NURSING Journal of Nursing Regulation Pub Date : 2022-07-01 DOI:10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00062-X
Nicole Kaminski-Ozturk PhD, Richard Smiley MS, Elizabeth Zhong PhD, Brendan Martin PhD
{"title":"NCLEX考生考试行为的回顾:重复测试、测试时间和纪律之间的关系","authors":"Nicole Kaminski-Ozturk PhD,&nbsp;Richard Smiley MS,&nbsp;Elizabeth Zhong PhD,&nbsp;Brendan Martin PhD","doi":"10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00062-X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Concerns about the competence of repeat NCLEX test takers have persisted, resulting in a patchwork of regulatory policies that limit the number of test attempts or the conditions under which a candidate can retest in certain U.S. jurisdictions.</p></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To examine possible corrolaries between repeat test-taker status and future practice discipline and to investigate the relationship between time-to-test and repeat testing.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Data were collected on nearly a quarter of a million registered nurse (RN) and practical nurse (PN) NCLEX candidates who passed the examination between 2013 and 2017. Multivariable generalized estimating equation models were used to assess the likelihood of discipline (0, 1) and the need for repeat testing (0, 1). Propensity score matching was employed to address initial group imbalance on all available covariates for models assessing discipline.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The rate of discipline among the RN (1.0%, <em>n</em> = 2,029) and PN (1.8%, <em>n</em> = 749) samples was low. After applying propensity score matching, repeat test-taker status was found to be weakly aligned with practice discipline for RNs (<em>p</em> = .047) but was not correlated for PNs (<em>p</em> = .13). In contrast, adjusting for sex, race, ethnicity, and age, RN candidates who delayed taking the test for 60 days were 5% more likely to need to retake the NCLEX (<em>p</em> &lt; .001). For PN candidates, a delay of 90 days was associated with a 9% increase in the likelihood of needing to retake the NCLEX (<em>p</em> &lt; .001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Empirical evidence supports the comparable safety profile of single– and multi–test-taker groups, underscoring the need to revaluate restrictions that limit the conditions under which candidates can retest. Furthermore, ongoing outreach to nursing programs to emphasize the importance of prompt NCLEX testing and the possible deleterious effects of delays, by even a few months, is important.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46153,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nursing Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Retrospective Review of NCLEX Candidates’ Testing Behavior: Examining the Relationship Between Repeat Testing, Time-to-Test, and Discipline\",\"authors\":\"Nicole Kaminski-Ozturk PhD,&nbsp;Richard Smiley MS,&nbsp;Elizabeth Zhong PhD,&nbsp;Brendan Martin PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/S2155-8256(22)00062-X\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Concerns about the competence of repeat NCLEX test takers have persisted, resulting in a patchwork of regulatory policies that limit the number of test attempts or the conditions under which a candidate can retest in certain U.S. jurisdictions.</p></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To examine possible corrolaries between repeat test-taker status and future practice discipline and to investigate the relationship between time-to-test and repeat testing.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Data were collected on nearly a quarter of a million registered nurse (RN) and practical nurse (PN) NCLEX candidates who passed the examination between 2013 and 2017. Multivariable generalized estimating equation models were used to assess the likelihood of discipline (0, 1) and the need for repeat testing (0, 1). Propensity score matching was employed to address initial group imbalance on all available covariates for models assessing discipline.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The rate of discipline among the RN (1.0%, <em>n</em> = 2,029) and PN (1.8%, <em>n</em> = 749) samples was low. After applying propensity score matching, repeat test-taker status was found to be weakly aligned with practice discipline for RNs (<em>p</em> = .047) but was not correlated for PNs (<em>p</em> = .13). In contrast, adjusting for sex, race, ethnicity, and age, RN candidates who delayed taking the test for 60 days were 5% more likely to need to retake the NCLEX (<em>p</em> &lt; .001). For PN candidates, a delay of 90 days was associated with a 9% increase in the likelihood of needing to retake the NCLEX (<em>p</em> &lt; .001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Empirical evidence supports the comparable safety profile of single– and multi–test-taker groups, underscoring the need to revaluate restrictions that limit the conditions under which candidates can retest. Furthermore, ongoing outreach to nursing programs to emphasize the importance of prompt NCLEX testing and the possible deleterious effects of delays, by even a few months, is important.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46153,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Nursing Regulation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Nursing Regulation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S215582562200062X\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Nursing Regulation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S215582562200062X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

对复读NCLEX考试考生能力的担忧一直存在,导致监管政策的拼凑,限制考试次数或考生可以在某些美国司法管辖区重新考试的条件。目的探讨复试者状态与未来执业纪律之间可能存在的相关性,并调查复试时间与复试之间的关系。方法收集2013年至2017年通过NCLEX考试的近25万注册护士(RN)和执业护士(PN)考生的数据。使用多变量广义估计方程模型来评估学科的可能性(0,1)和重复检验的必要性(0,1)。倾向得分匹配用于解决评估学科模型中所有可用协变量的初始组不平衡。结果RN (1.0%, n = 2029)和PN (1.8%, n = 749)样本的纪律性较低。应用倾向得分匹配后,发现重复考生状态与RNs的练习纪律弱相关(p = 0.047),但与PNs无关(p = 0.13)。相比之下,调整性别、种族、民族和年龄后,延迟60天参加考试的注册护士考生需要重新参加NCLEX考试的可能性增加了5% (p <措施)。对于PN考生来说,延迟90天需要重新参加NCLEX考试的可能性增加9% (p <措施)。结论:经验证据支持单考生组和多考生组的可比性安全性,强调有必要重新评估限制考生复试条件的限制。此外,不断扩大护理项目,强调及时进行NCLEX检测的重要性,以及即使延迟几个月也可能产生的有害影响,这是很重要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Retrospective Review of NCLEX Candidates’ Testing Behavior: Examining the Relationship Between Repeat Testing, Time-to-Test, and Discipline

Background

Concerns about the competence of repeat NCLEX test takers have persisted, resulting in a patchwork of regulatory policies that limit the number of test attempts or the conditions under which a candidate can retest in certain U.S. jurisdictions.

Purpose

To examine possible corrolaries between repeat test-taker status and future practice discipline and to investigate the relationship between time-to-test and repeat testing.

Methods

Data were collected on nearly a quarter of a million registered nurse (RN) and practical nurse (PN) NCLEX candidates who passed the examination between 2013 and 2017. Multivariable generalized estimating equation models were used to assess the likelihood of discipline (0, 1) and the need for repeat testing (0, 1). Propensity score matching was employed to address initial group imbalance on all available covariates for models assessing discipline.

Results

The rate of discipline among the RN (1.0%, n = 2,029) and PN (1.8%, n = 749) samples was low. After applying propensity score matching, repeat test-taker status was found to be weakly aligned with practice discipline for RNs (p = .047) but was not correlated for PNs (p = .13). In contrast, adjusting for sex, race, ethnicity, and age, RN candidates who delayed taking the test for 60 days were 5% more likely to need to retake the NCLEX (p < .001). For PN candidates, a delay of 90 days was associated with a 9% increase in the likelihood of needing to retake the NCLEX (p < .001).

Conclusion

Empirical evidence supports the comparable safety profile of single– and multi–test-taker groups, underscoring the need to revaluate restrictions that limit the conditions under which candidates can retest. Furthermore, ongoing outreach to nursing programs to emphasize the importance of prompt NCLEX testing and the possible deleterious effects of delays, by even a few months, is important.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
50
审稿时长
54 days
期刊介绍: Journal of Nursing Regulation (JNR), the official journal of the National Council of State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN®), is a quarterly, peer-reviewed, academic and professional journal. It publishes scholarly articles that advance the science of nursing regulation, promote the mission and vision of NCSBN, and enhance communication and collaboration among nurse regulators, educators, practitioners, and the scientific community. The journal supports evidence-based regulation, addresses issues related to patient safety, and highlights current nursing regulatory issues, programs, and projects in both the United States and the international community. In publishing JNR, NCSBN''s goal is to develop and share knowledge related to nursing and other healthcare regulation across continents and to promote a greater awareness of regulatory issues among all nurses.
期刊最新文献
Table of Contents Editorial Board Errata Highlights of the Nurse Licensure Compact Survey Findings: Nurses’ Needs, Experiences, and Views Ethical Decision-Making Among Nurses Participating in Social Media: A Grounded Theory Study
×
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