Pediatric Nursing Practicum Case Studies

V. Discussion

1. The Creation Process of SIAPRSCCTPN We created sub-concept and a questionnaire comprising 55 items by reference to previous studies such as practical reports of nursing teachers who were in charge of Pediatric Nursing Practicum, especially the qualitative study conducted by Shiba and Yamaguchi (2012). We created two sub-concepts, “judgments on the necessity of intervention” and “educational intervention” (Figure 1) from nursing teachers' judgments and behaviors for supporting the construction of relationship between nursing students and child patients, clarified by a previous study (Shiba & Yamaguchi, 2012). Then, we made 55 question items (17 items of “judgments on the necessity of intervention” and 38 items of “educational
It took about 30 minutes to get their answers. Then, we changed the expression of two parts for making the meaning of questions simple. On the difficulty in answering questions there was a response that five question items that mentioned that objects of instructional activities were “a child patient and his/her family members” were problematic because it suggested that both must be applied. Therefore, all question items that noted “a child patient and his/her family members” were divided into a question whose object was “a child patient” and a question whose object was “his/her family members.” These five pairs of question items showed high correlation between items but we decided not to delete them because question items about instructional activities toward family members were indispensable for measuring instructional activities peculiar to pediatric
On internal consistency the alpha coefficient of the whole 42 items was .94. The alpha coefficients of Assessment on Intervention, Support of the Faciliation of Nursing Care, Support of the Faciliation of Approach Behaviors, and Support of Verbal Communication were .80 to .92. These results satisfied the standard of reliability (Oshio 2011), confirming that internal consistency of this study was high. On stability the correlation coefficient between the total scale scores of Investigation I and Investigation II (teat-retest method) was r = .82 (p < .01) , confirming the stability of scales in this study. The correlation coefficients between the total factor scores of Investigation I and Investigation II on four factors were .72 to .80, confirming the stability of subscales in this study. From these results, we judged that the reliability of SIAPRSCCTPN was