护理学生执照考试:范围审查。

IF 2 Q1 NURSING
Flavia Pantaleo, Alessandro Stievano, Chiara Mastroianni, Giorgia Petrucci, Natascia Mazzitelli, Michela Piredda, Maria Grazia De Marinis, Anna Marchetti
{"title":"护理学生执照考试:范围审查。","authors":"Flavia Pantaleo, Alessandro Stievano, Chiara Mastroianni, Giorgia Petrucci, Natascia Mazzitelli, Michela Piredda, Maria Grazia De Marinis, Anna Marchetti","doi":"10.3390/nursrep15080299","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b>: In an increasingly globalized context marked by growing professional mobility, establishing shared standards for assessing nursing competencies is essential. The licensure examination represents a critical gateway between academic preparation and professional practice. However, significant ambiguity remains regarding what competencies are assessed and how this assessment is conducted internationally. <b>Objective</b>: This scoping review aimed to map the international literature on nursing licensure examinations by comparing frameworks and domains, performance levels, and assessment tools to identify similarities and differences in the core competencies required for entry into practice. <b>Methods</b>: The review followed Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework. Comprehensive searches were conducted across PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, ERIC, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, and OpenGrey databases. Studies addressing competency frameworks, performance levels, and assessment tools in undergraduate nursing licensure were included. <b>Results</b>: Twenty-three studies were analyzed. The most frequently cited framework was 'Client Needs'. Competency domains commonly addressed patient needs, professional roles, and healthcare settings. The dominant performance level was cognitive, typically assessed through multiple-choice questions; practical skills were often evaluated via 'bedside tests'. Despite variations in frameworks and domains, cognitive performance expectations and assessment tools showed some consistency. <b>Conclusions</b>: These findings underscore the need for a context-sensitive, internationally adaptable framework to promote fairness and support nurse mobility.</p>","PeriodicalId":40753,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Reports","volume":"15 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12388846/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Nursing Student Licensure Examination: A Scoping Review.\",\"authors\":\"Flavia Pantaleo, Alessandro Stievano, Chiara Mastroianni, Giorgia Petrucci, Natascia Mazzitelli, Michela Piredda, Maria Grazia De Marinis, Anna Marchetti\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/nursrep15080299\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background</b>: In an increasingly globalized context marked by growing professional mobility, establishing shared standards for assessing nursing competencies is essential. The licensure examination represents a critical gateway between academic preparation and professional practice. However, significant ambiguity remains regarding what competencies are assessed and how this assessment is conducted internationally. <b>Objective</b>: This scoping review aimed to map the international literature on nursing licensure examinations by comparing frameworks and domains, performance levels, and assessment tools to identify similarities and differences in the core competencies required for entry into practice. <b>Methods</b>: The review followed Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework. Comprehensive searches were conducted across PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, ERIC, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, and OpenGrey databases. Studies addressing competency frameworks, performance levels, and assessment tools in undergraduate nursing licensure were included. <b>Results</b>: Twenty-three studies were analyzed. The most frequently cited framework was 'Client Needs'. Competency domains commonly addressed patient needs, professional roles, and healthcare settings. The dominant performance level was cognitive, typically assessed through multiple-choice questions; practical skills were often evaluated via 'bedside tests'. Despite variations in frameworks and domains, cognitive performance expectations and assessment tools showed some consistency. <b>Conclusions</b>: These findings underscore the need for a context-sensitive, internationally adaptable framework to promote fairness and support nurse mobility.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":40753,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nursing Reports\",\"volume\":\"15 8\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12388846/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nursing Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep15080299\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep15080299","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在日益全球化的背景下,以日益增长的专业流动性为标志,建立评估护理能力的共同标准至关重要。执照考试代表了学术准备和专业实践之间的关键门户。然而,在评估哪些能力以及如何在国际上进行这种评估方面,仍然存在重大的模糊性。目的:本综述旨在通过比较护理执照考试的框架和领域、绩效水平和评估工具来绘制国际文献图,以确定进入实践所需的核心能力的异同。方法:采用Arksey和O'Malley的方法框架。在PubMed、CINAHL、Scopus、ERIC、Cochrane Library、ProQuest和OpenGrey数据库中进行了综合检索。研究包括了本科护理执照的能力框架、绩效水平和评估工具。结果:分析了23项研究。最常被引用的框架是“客户需求”。能力域通常涉及患者需求、专业角色和医疗保健设置。主要的表现水平是认知水平,通常通过多项选择题进行评估;实践技能通常通过“床边测试”来评估。尽管框架和领域有所不同,但认知性能期望和评估工具显示出一些一致性。结论:这些发现强调需要一个对环境敏感的、具有国际适应性的框架来促进公平和支持护士的流动性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The Nursing Student Licensure Examination: A Scoping Review.

The Nursing Student Licensure Examination: A Scoping Review.

The Nursing Student Licensure Examination: A Scoping Review.

The Nursing Student Licensure Examination: A Scoping Review.

Background: In an increasingly globalized context marked by growing professional mobility, establishing shared standards for assessing nursing competencies is essential. The licensure examination represents a critical gateway between academic preparation and professional practice. However, significant ambiguity remains regarding what competencies are assessed and how this assessment is conducted internationally. Objective: This scoping review aimed to map the international literature on nursing licensure examinations by comparing frameworks and domains, performance levels, and assessment tools to identify similarities and differences in the core competencies required for entry into practice. Methods: The review followed Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework. Comprehensive searches were conducted across PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, ERIC, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, and OpenGrey databases. Studies addressing competency frameworks, performance levels, and assessment tools in undergraduate nursing licensure were included. Results: Twenty-three studies were analyzed. The most frequently cited framework was 'Client Needs'. Competency domains commonly addressed patient needs, professional roles, and healthcare settings. The dominant performance level was cognitive, typically assessed through multiple-choice questions; practical skills were often evaluated via 'bedside tests'. Despite variations in frameworks and domains, cognitive performance expectations and assessment tools showed some consistency. Conclusions: These findings underscore the need for a context-sensitive, internationally adaptable framework to promote fairness and support nurse mobility.

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
Nursing Reports
Nursing Reports NURSING-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
4.20%
发文量
78
期刊介绍: Nursing Reports is an open access, peer-reviewed, online-only journal that aims to influence the art and science of nursing by making rigorously conducted research accessible and understood to the full spectrum of practicing nurses, academics, educators and interested members of the public. The journal represents an exhilarating opportunity to make a unique and significant contribution to nursing and the wider community by addressing topics, theories and issues that concern the whole field of Nursing Science, including research, practice, policy and education. The primary intent of the journal is to present scientifically sound and influential empirical and theoretical studies, critical reviews and open debates to the global community of nurses. Short reports, opinions and insight into the plight of nurses the world-over will provide a voice for those of all cultures, governments and perspectives. The emphasis of Nursing Reports will be on ensuring that the highest quality of evidence and contribution is made available to the greatest number of nurses. Nursing Reports aims to make original, evidence-based, peer-reviewed research available to the global community of nurses and to interested members of the public. In addition, reviews of the literature, open debates on professional issues and short reports from around the world are invited to contribute to our vibrant and dynamic journal. All published work will adhere to the most stringent ethical standards and journalistic principles of fairness, worth and credibility. Our journal publishes Editorials, Original Articles, Review articles, Critical Debates, Short Reports from Around the Globe and Letters to the Editor.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信