Please respond to each discussion post with 4 to 5 sentences with apa references for each 

During observational evaluation in clinical settings, several  barriers can hinder the accurate assessment of a student’s performance.  There exists an effect known as the Hawthorne effect that refers to the  alteration of behavior when individuals know they are being observed. To  overcome this, it is important to create an environment that fosters  trust and encourages students to act naturally (Demetriou et al, 2019).  Observer bias is another barrier where an observer’s preconceived  notions, expectations, and preferences influence their judgment.  Establishing in advance clear evaluation criteria can help mitigate  this. Also, observational evaluations have time constraints which limit  the amount of time that information can be gathered. This can sometimes  lead to important aspects of a student’s performance to be missed. For  this reason, a combination of live as well as simulation settings can  help to reduce this barrier.

When it comes to providing feedback, a combination of oral and  written formats is often beneficial. Oral feedback allows for immediate  discussion and clarification, which can enhance the student's  understanding and engagement. It also provides an opportunity for  personalized interaction, allowing the evaluator to address specific  questions or concerns. Written feedback, on the other hand, offers a  tangible record that students can refer to later, reinforcing the  learning process and helping self-reflection. Ultimately, the format of  feedback should align with the student's preferences and the nature of  the evaluation. A blended approach that combines oral and written  feedback can be effective in catering to different learning styles and  maximizing the impact of the feedback provided.

Demetriou, C., Hu, L., Smith, T., & Hing, C. (2019). Hawthorne effect on surgical studies. ANZ Journal of Surgery. 89(12) pp 1567-1576.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.15475 

 Links to an external site.

There  are many reasons why evaluation in a clinical setting is so beneficial.  But there are also some barriers with observational evaluation as well.  One of these barriers being that there could be bias, something seen as  more subjective versus objective. Another barrier would be rater drift,  which occurs when the professor redefines the performance behaviors  that are being assessed. This can mean that different educators, can  interpret the behavior in different ways even though the task at hand is  stemming from the same rubric/evaluation form (Oermann et. al., 2017).  Another barrier that can pop up is that of leniency error which occurs  when the instructor seems to rate all of the students toward the higher  end of the grading/rating scale (Oermann et. al., 2017). To avoid these  barriers, I think it would be beneficial to set a standard up front, and  maybe even create an evaluation the students are able to see and study  from prior, so they know what to expect without any surprises. I think  this feedback would be best given on a one to one basis, so this way the  instructor can thoroughly discuss their findings without embarrassing a  student on their skill set thus far.

Reference
Oermann, M. H., & Gaberson, K. B. (2017). Evaluation  and testing in nursing education (5th ed.). Springer Publishing  Company. 

PreceptorEvalStudent-Post_rev.pdf 

 Download PreceptorEvalStudent-Post_rev.pdf

The above is actually the final evaluation tool that I use for my  students. Generally I feel that the evaluation tool works decently well.  It is encompassing and touches upon all the CLO's for the class. A good  evaluation will cover student's knowledge, psychomotor skills,  professional behaviors, safety and quality competencies, leadership and  responsibility (Oermann, 2016); as this evaluation generally does. I  appreciate the fact that there is room for each section for constructive  comments for the evaluator to elaborate if need be. 

Two things that I personally feel as its weaknesses are that overall  it appears entirely subjective. Each section does not have criteria upon  what is passing and what is failing. Which makes for heavy use of the  comment section for areas for improvement. Another thing that I feel it  could benefit from is an area for the student to make their own  comments. As no two students are alike, it would be nice to see their  point of view and their rationales for passing or failing. 

Oermann, M. H., & Gaberson, K. B. (2016). Evaluation and  testing in nursing education (5th ed.). Springer Publishing Company. 

A wonderful tool I found through the QSEN website is: https://qsen.org/wp-content/uploads/formidable/Level-II-CGN6502-Clinical-Eval-Tool-A-1.pdf  

 Links to an external site.

This tool is amazing because it can help students understand what’s  required of them upfront, as well as what to expect throughout the  evaluation process so that there are no surprises. This can also help  ease some nervousness they may have as well. This tool includes  patient-centered care evaluation, teamwork and collaboration, evidence  based practice, quality improvement, safety, and informatics and  professionalism. The tool ranges from not meeting expectations to  exceeding expectations, which helps allow for a different range of skill  levels. It also states that there’s a minimum passing grade and level  on this evaluation to pass the course. This tool also allows for  additional comments towards the bottom for strengths to be noted as well  as any areas for growth. I couldn’t really find any weaknesses in this  particular tool. When getting the chance to actually utilize and apply  the tool, I'm sure I may find some weaknesses. I would definitely  consider using this tool as a future educator. 

Reference
Flores, L. (2014, April 2). Clinical evaluation tools  embodying AACN BSN essentials and 6 QSEN KSAs. Quality and Safety  Education for Nurses.  https://qsen.org/clinical-evaluation-tools-integrating-qsen-core-competencies-and-aacn-bsn-essentials/