Nursing students’ perception: Escape Room use in teaching leadership skills <span class="so-article-trans-title" dir="auto"> Translated title: Percepción de estudiantes de enfermería: uso del Escape Room en la enseñanza de habilidades de liderazgo </span>

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

ABSTRACT

Objectives:

to understand nursing students’ perception regarding Escape Room use to develop leadership skills.

Methods:

a qualitative exploratory-descriptive study, with 97 nursing students. Escape Room game sessions were held, totaling ten. Subsequently, a debriefing and analysis was carried out using the Discourse of the Collective Subject method, through the focus group technique. Ethical procedures were respected.

Results:

students’ perceptions about using this methodology to develop leadership skills were positive and significant. The effectiveness of the game in teaching and developing these skills in nursing practice stands out.

Final Considerations:

the game was an effective active methodology in approaching the proposed content, promoting satisfaction and easy assimilation.

RESUMEN

Objetivos:

comprender la percepción de estudiantes de enfermería sobre el uso del Escape Room para desarrollar habilidades de liderazgo.

Métodos:

estudio cualitativo exploratorio-descriptivo, con 97 estudiantes de enfermería. Se realizaron sesiones de juegos de Escape Room, en total diez. Posteriormente, se realizó un debriefing y análisis mediante el método del Discurso del Sujeto Colectivo, mediante la técnica del grupo focal. Se respetaron los procedimientos éticos.

Resultados:

las percepciones de los estudiantes sobre el uso de esta metodología para desarrollar habilidades de liderazgo fueron positivas y significativas. Se destaca la efectividad del juego en la enseñanza y el desarrollo de estas habilidades en la práctica de enfermería.

Consideraciones Finales:

el juego resultó una metodología activa eficaz en el abordaje de los contenidos propuestos, promoviendo satisfacción y fácil asimilación.

Related collections

Most cited references 37

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

A Tong, P SAINSBURY, J. Craig (2007)

Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (in depth interviews and focus groups). We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.

0 comments Cited 8452 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations.

Denise Polit, Cheryl Beck (2006)

Scale developers often provide evidence of content validity by computing a content validity index (CVI), using ratings of item relevance by content experts. We analyzed how nurse researchers have defined and calculated the CVI, and found considerable consistency for item-level CVIs (I-CVIs). However, there are two alternative, but unacknowledged, methods of computing the scale-level index (S-CVI). One method requires universal agreement among experts, but a less conservative method averages the item-level CVIs. Using backward inference with a purposive sample of scale development studies, we found that both methods are being used by nurse researchers, although it was not always possible to infer the calculation method. The two approaches can lead to different values, making it risky to draw conclusions about content validity. Scale developers should indicate which method was used to provide readers with interpretable content validity information. (c) 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

0 comments Cited 839 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes

Adrián Coutín Domínguez, Joseba Saenz-de-Navarrete, Luis de-Marcos … (2013)

0 comments Cited 205 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Chennyfer Dobbins Abi Rached:

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4499-3716

Role: conception or design of the study/researchRole: analysis and/or interpretation of dataRole: final review with criticalRole: intellectual participation in the manuscript

Emili Amani Alves da Cruz:

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0007-2708-3247