CAJ | 학술논문

目的：了解护生及专业教师对高职护理专业《健康评估》教材适用情况的评价意见,为教材建设和选用提供依据。方法设计《健康评估》教材适用性评价表,分别对14名健康评估理论及实训课教师、300名实习后返校护生及298名实习前护生进行调查,了解其对教材的评价意见。结果教师组、实习后组及实习前组对32个观测点的中位数得分为0.96,0.94,0.90,多组秩和检验显示,三组得分差异有统计学意义(Z=51.192,P<0.001)。校正检验水准进行两两比较,实习前组与教师组、实习前组与实习后组之间差异有统计学意义(P<0.0167),实习前组中位数得分低于教师组与实习后组。教师组与实习后组之间差异无统计学意义(P>0.0167)。三组对教材适用性的总评分分别为91.60,95.8,91．80分,多组秩和检验显示,三组得分差异有统计学意义(Z=24.48,P<0.001)；校正检验水准进行两两比较,实习后组与教师组、实习后组与实习前组之间差异有统计学意义(P<0.0167),实习后组总评分高于教师组和实习前组,教师组与实习前组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.0167)。结论教师、实习后护生及实习前护生对《健康评估》教材质量的32个观测点及适用性总评分的评价等级均为“很好”,但实习后护生对教材获益更多,对教材更为认同。高职护理专业《健康评估》教材适用性评价表能用于对教材质量进行评价。在高职护理教材适用性评价中,应引入学生作为评价主体,使评价更为全面、客观、公正。
목적：료해호생급전업교사대고직호리전업《건강평고》교재괄용정황적평개의견,위교재건설화선용제공의거。방법설계《건강평고》교재괄용성평개표,분별대14명건강평고이론급실훈과교사、300명실습후반교호생급298명실습전호생진행조사,료해기대교재적평개의견。결과교사조、실습후조급실습전조대32개관측점적중위수득분위0.96,0.94,0.90,다조질화검험현시,삼조득분차이유통계학의의(Z=51.192,P<0.001)。교정검험수준진행량량비교,실습전조여교사조、실습전조여실습후조지간차이유통계학의의(P<0.0167),실습전조중위수득분저우교사조여실습후조。교사조여실습후조지간차이무통계학의의(P>0.0167)。삼조대교재괄용성적총평분분별위91.60,95.8,91．80분,다조질화검험현시,삼조득분차이유통계학의의(Z=24.48,P<0.001)；교정검험수준진행량량비교,실습후조여교사조、실습후조여실습전조지간차이유통계학의의(P<0.0167),실습후조총평분고우교사조화실습전조,교사조여실습전조간차이무통계학의의(P>0.0167)。결론교사、실습후호생급실습전호생대《건강평고》교재질량적32개관측점급괄용성총평분적평개등급균위“흔호”,단실습후호생대교재획익경다,대교재경위인동。고직호리전업《건강평고》교재괄용성평개표능용우대교재질량진행평개。재고직호리교재괄용성평개중,응인입학생작위평개주체,사평개경위전면、객관、공정。
Objective To evaluate the nursing students′and faculty′s views on the textbook of‘Health assessment’ for vocational nursing students as well as to provide a reference for the development and selection of textbooks. Methods The questionnaires were designed and delivered to 14 nursing lecturers and tutors, 300 nursing students after clinical practice and 298 nursing students before clinical practice respectively to gather their points on the textbook of‘Health assessment’ . Results The average scores on the 32 observation points of the faculty group, post-practice group and the pre-practice group were 0. 96,0. 94 and 0. 90 respectively. Krusal-Wallis showed a statistically significant difference exists among three groups (Z=51. 192,P<0. 01). Calibration of inspection standard were conducted and significant difference between pre-practice and faculty group and between pre-practice and post-practice group were observed (P<0. 016 7). The average score of pre-practice group was lower than that of faculty group and post-practice group while no significant difference observed between faculty group and post-practice group. The total scores of three groups were 91. 60,95. 80 and 91. 80 respectively, and Krusal-Wallis represented a significant difference among three total scores (Z=24. 48, P<0. 01). Calibration of inspection standard was conducted and significant difference were observed between post-practice and faculty group and between post-practice and pre-practice group respectively (P<0. 016 7). The total score of post-practice group was higher than that of faculty and pre-practice group and there was no significant difference between the faculty group and the post-practice group (P>0. 016 7). Conclusions The total score of three groups on the 32 observation points are very excellent, but there are significant differences between the groups. As a result, students after clinical practice acquired more benefits, and are identify the textbooks. The applicability assessment scale can evaluate the textbook quality of ‘Health assessment ’ for vocational nursing speciality, and at assessment of vocational textbooks the student should be the majority leading to a all-around, objective and judicial assessment.