Beth A. Rogers PhD, RN, CNE, CHSE , Laura A. Killam MScN, RN, PhD in Nursing Student , Robin D. Lockhart Ph.D., RN, CNE , Kelly Foltz-Ramos PhD, RN, FNP-BC, CHSE , Marian Luctkar-Flude PhD, RN , Suzanne H. Campbell PhD, RN, FCNEI, CCSNE, IBCLC , Jane Tyerman PhD, RN, CCSNE , Melissa Ehmke DNP, RN , Ashley E. Franklin PhD, RN, CNE, CHSE-A
{"title":"利用 Q 方法确定模拟指导员专业发展能力的优先次序","authors":"Beth A. Rogers PhD, RN, CNE, CHSE , Laura A. Killam MScN, RN, PhD in Nursing Student , Robin D. Lockhart Ph.D., RN, CNE , Kelly Foltz-Ramos PhD, RN, FNP-BC, CHSE , Marian Luctkar-Flude PhD, RN , Suzanne H. Campbell PhD, RN, FCNEI, CCSNE, IBCLC , Jane Tyerman PhD, RN, CCSNE , Melissa Ehmke DNP, RN , Ashley E. Franklin PhD, RN, CNE, CHSE-A","doi":"10.1016/j.ecns.2024.101527","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>High-quality simulation requires competent facilitation. The Facilitator Competency Rubric (FCR) identifies facilitator competencies; a gap exists prioritizing competency development.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Using Watts and Stenner's Q-methodology, 73 simulationists prioritized 29 statements derived from FCR from most to least meaningful. We analyzed data using Spearman correlation and centroid factor analysis with varimax rotation and described viewpoint differences using qualitative analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Two main viewpoints explained 41.5% of variance. Simulationists across both viewpoints agreed creating psychologically-safe environments was most important whereas administrative tasks were least. The two distinct viewpoints emphasized facilitating metacognition during simulation and debriefing verses structuring debriefing.</p></div><div><h3>Implications</h3><p>This paper provides professional development design recommendations.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48753,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Simulation in Nursing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prioritizing Simulation Facilitators’ Competencies for Professional Development Using Q-Methodology\",\"authors\":\"Beth A. Rogers PhD, RN, CNE, CHSE , Laura A. Killam MScN, RN, PhD in Nursing Student , Robin D. Lockhart Ph.D., RN, CNE , Kelly Foltz-Ramos PhD, RN, FNP-BC, CHSE , Marian Luctkar-Flude PhD, RN , Suzanne H. Campbell PhD, RN, FCNEI, CCSNE, IBCLC , Jane Tyerman PhD, RN, CCSNE , Melissa Ehmke DNP, RN , Ashley E. Franklin PhD, RN, CNE, CHSE-A\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ecns.2024.101527\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>High-quality simulation requires competent facilitation. The Facilitator Competency Rubric (FCR) identifies facilitator competencies; a gap exists prioritizing competency development.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Using Watts and Stenner's Q-methodology, 73 simulationists prioritized 29 statements derived from FCR from most to least meaningful. We analyzed data using Spearman correlation and centroid factor analysis with varimax rotation and described viewpoint differences using qualitative analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Two main viewpoints explained 41.5% of variance. Simulationists across both viewpoints agreed creating psychologically-safe environments was most important whereas administrative tasks were least. The two distinct viewpoints emphasized facilitating metacognition during simulation and debriefing verses structuring debriefing.</p></div><div><h3>Implications</h3><p>This paper provides professional development design recommendations.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48753,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Simulation in Nursing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Simulation in Nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876139924000197\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"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":"Clinical Simulation in Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876139924000197","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Prioritizing Simulation Facilitators’ Competencies for Professional Development Using Q-Methodology
Background
High-quality simulation requires competent facilitation. The Facilitator Competency Rubric (FCR) identifies facilitator competencies; a gap exists prioritizing competency development.
Methods
Using Watts and Stenner's Q-methodology, 73 simulationists prioritized 29 statements derived from FCR from most to least meaningful. We analyzed data using Spearman correlation and centroid factor analysis with varimax rotation and described viewpoint differences using qualitative analysis.
Results
Two main viewpoints explained 41.5% of variance. Simulationists across both viewpoints agreed creating psychologically-safe environments was most important whereas administrative tasks were least. The two distinct viewpoints emphasized facilitating metacognition during simulation and debriefing verses structuring debriefing.
Implications
This paper provides professional development design recommendations.
期刊介绍：
Clinical Simulation in Nursing is an international, peer reviewed journal published online monthly. Clinical Simulation in Nursing is the official journal of the International Nursing Association for Clinical Simulation & Learning (INACSL) and reflects its mission to advance the science of healthcare simulation.
We will review and accept articles from other health provider disciplines, if they are determined to be of interest to our readership. The journal accepts manuscripts meeting one or more of the following criteria:
Research articles and literature reviews (e.g. systematic, scoping, umbrella, integrative, etc.) about simulation
Innovative teaching/learning strategies using simulation
Articles updating guidelines, regulations, and legislative policies that impact simulation
Leadership for simulation
Simulation operations
Clinical and academic uses of simulation.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
