2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/148366
Type:
Presentation
Title:
Validity of the HESI Exit Exam: A Three-Year Comparative Study
Abstract:
Validity of the HESI Exit Exam: A Three-Year Comparative Study
Conference Sponsor:Sigma Theta Tau International
Conference Year:2001
Conference Date:November 10 - 14, 2001
Author:Nibert, Ainslie
P.I. Institution Name:Houston Baptist University
Objective: A descriptive design was used to assess the accuracy of the Health Education Systems, Inc. (HESI) Exit Exam (E2) in predicting NCLEX success of graduating registered and practical nursing students, and to compare its accuracy across three academic years. Sample: The total sample consisted of 12,754 graduating RN and PN students from across the United States who took the E2 within six months of graduation, Year I (N = 2725), Year II (N = 3752), and Year III (N = 6277). Setting: RN and PN programs that administered the E2 during the 1996-97, 1997-98, and 1998-1999 academic years received questionnaires regarding NCLEX outcomes. Aggregate E2 scores and responses of school administrators to the questionnaires comprised the data. Variables: Predictive accuracy of the E2 by academic year and type of program, monitoring of E2 administration, comparison of high-scoring and low-scoring E2 students’ outcomes on the licensure exam, and use of the E2 as a benchmark for remediation were examined. Measures/Instruments: RN and PN versions of the E2 (a computerized comprehensive exam) consisted of 160 items, 10 of which were pilot items and did not count toward the student’s score. Each version of the E2 was developed from test banks containing critical thinking test items written by nurse educators and clinicians from across the United States. The E2 followed the test blueprints for the NCLEX-RN and NCLEX-PN developed by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing. The HESI Predictability Model, a proprietary mathematical model, was used to calculate students’ probability of passing the NCLEX. Findings: The E2 was found to be highly predictive of NCLEX success across all three academic years and across all types of programs tested: ADN, BSN, diploma, and PN programs. In Years I and II monitoring of E2 administration was found to be a significant factor in the predictive accuracy of the E2, whereas in Year III, it was not. Low-scoring and high-scoring E2 students’ NCELX outcomes were compared in Years II and III only, and in both years, low-scoring students were significantly (p = .001) more likely to fail the NCLEX than high-scoring students. Unlike Year II, in Year III, no significant difference was found in the pass rates of low-scoring E2 students who participated in a formal remediation program and those who did not. Conclusions: The E2 was highly accurate in predicting NCLEX success, regardless of the type of nursing program tested. In Year III, the influence of monitoring E2 administration on the predictive its accuracy was less clear than in Years II and III. However, in Year III, most schools monitored E2 administration, and this finding may have been an indication of the value placed on E2 results by both faculty and students. Contrary to Year II, in Year III, no significant difference was found in NCLEX-RN success of low-scoring E2 students who participated in a formalized remediation program and those who did not. These findings suggested that a more definitive definition of remediation should to be developed, and that future studies should focus on implementation strategies for remediation, and their relationship to NCLEX success. Implications: The E2 was determined to be a valid predictor of NCLEX success for all types of nursing programs, including baccalaureate, associate degree, diploma, and practical nursing programs, and as such can be used as an outcome measure for nursing curricula. Although the E2 was used as a benchmark for remediation by many of the participating schools of nursing, the specific strategies used to implement remediation and the NCLEX outcomes of the various implementation strategies require further investigation.
Repository Posting Date:
26-Oct-2011
Date of Publication:
10-Nov-2001
Sponsors:
Sigma Theta Tau International

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titleValidity of the HESI Exit Exam: A Three-Year Comparative Studyen_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/148366-
dc.description.abstract<table><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-title">Validity of the HESI Exit Exam: A Three-Year Comparative Study</td></tr><tr class="item-sponsor"><td class="label">Conference Sponsor:</td><td class="value">Sigma Theta Tau International</td></tr><tr class="item-year"><td class="label">Conference Year:</td><td class="value">2001</td></tr><tr class="item-conference-date"><td class="label">Conference Date:</td><td class="value">November 10 - 14, 2001</td></tr><tr class="item-author"><td class="label">Author:</td><td class="value">Nibert, Ainslie</td></tr><tr class="item-institute"><td class="label">P.I. Institution Name:</td><td class="value">Houston Baptist University</td></tr><tr class="item-email"><td class="label">Email:</td><td class="value">anibert@hbu.edu</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-abstract">Objective: A descriptive design was used to assess the accuracy of the Health Education Systems, Inc. (HESI) Exit Exam (E2) in predicting NCLEX success of graduating registered and practical nursing students, and to compare its accuracy across three academic years. Sample: The total sample consisted of 12,754 graduating RN and PN students from across the United States who took the E2 within six months of graduation, Year I (N = 2725), Year II (N = 3752), and Year III (N = 6277). Setting: RN and PN programs that administered the E2 during the 1996-97, 1997-98, and 1998-1999 academic years received questionnaires regarding NCLEX outcomes. Aggregate E2 scores and responses of school administrators to the questionnaires comprised the data. Variables: Predictive accuracy of the E2 by academic year and type of program, monitoring of E2 administration, comparison of high-scoring and low-scoring E2 students&rsquo; outcomes on the licensure exam, and use of the E2 as a benchmark for remediation were examined. Measures/Instruments: RN and PN versions of the E2 (a computerized comprehensive exam) consisted of 160 items, 10 of which were pilot items and did not count toward the student&rsquo;s score. Each version of the E2 was developed from test banks containing critical thinking test items written by nurse educators and clinicians from across the United States. The E2 followed the test blueprints for the NCLEX-RN and NCLEX-PN developed by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing. The HESI Predictability Model, a proprietary mathematical model, was used to calculate students&rsquo; probability of passing the NCLEX. Findings: The E2 was found to be highly predictive of NCLEX success across all three academic years and across all types of programs tested: ADN, BSN, diploma, and PN programs. In Years I and II monitoring of E2 administration was found to be a significant factor in the predictive accuracy of the E2, whereas in Year III, it was not. Low-scoring and high-scoring E2 students&rsquo; NCELX outcomes were compared in Years II and III only, and in both years, low-scoring students were significantly (p = .001) more likely to fail the NCLEX than high-scoring students. Unlike Year II, in Year III, no significant difference was found in the pass rates of low-scoring E2 students who participated in a formal remediation program and those who did not. Conclusions: The E2 was highly accurate in predicting NCLEX success, regardless of the type of nursing program tested. In Year III, the influence of monitoring E2 administration on the predictive its accuracy was less clear than in Years II and III. However, in Year III, most schools monitored E2 administration, and this finding may have been an indication of the value placed on E2 results by both faculty and students. Contrary to Year II, in Year III, no significant difference was found in NCLEX-RN success of low-scoring E2 students who participated in a formalized remediation program and those who did not. These findings suggested that a more definitive definition of remediation should to be developed, and that future studies should focus on implementation strategies for remediation, and their relationship to NCLEX success. Implications: The E2 was determined to be a valid predictor of NCLEX success for all types of nursing programs, including baccalaureate, associate degree, diploma, and practical nursing programs, and as such can be used as an outcome measure for nursing curricula. Although the E2 was used as a benchmark for remediation by many of the participating schools of nursing, the specific strategies used to implement remediation and the NCLEX outcomes of the various implementation strategies require further investigation.</td></tr></table>en_GB
dc.date.available2011-10-26T09:44:07Z-
dc.date.issued2001-11-10en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-26T09:44:07Z-
dc.description.sponsorshipSigma Theta Tau Internationalen_GB
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.