IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v28y2019i23-24p4379-4388.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Construction of an index system for qualitative evaluation of undergraduate nursing students innovative ability: A Delphi study

Author

Listed:
  • Fengling Dai
  • Kunyan Wei
  • Yanhua Chen
  • Mei Ju

Abstract

Aim and objective To establish an index system for the evaluation of undergraduate nursing student innovation ability. Background An index system for evaluation of undergraduate nursing student innovation ability has not been established. Design A three‐round Delphi survey sought opinions from experts about the index system for evaluation of undergraduate nursing student innovation ability. Methods A Delphi survey was used for the study of 19 experts from nursing education, clinical nursing and health management. The consistency of consultation results formed the basis for determining the rounds of consultation. With the importance of consulting experts in the last round, we established the judgement matrix using yaahp7.5 software and the analytic hierarchy process and determined the weight coefficient of each index. A modified recommendation for the Conducting and Reporting of Delphi studies (CREDES) was used to guide this study. Results Nineteen experts from 10 nursing colleges and nine third‐level first‐class hospitals in seven domestic provinces/municipalities were included in this study. The index system was divided into primary, secondary and tertiary levels. Consensus was reached on three primary indicators (‘spirit’, ‘ability’ and ‘achievement’), nine secondary indicators and 28 tertiary indicators. Conclusions A unified and hierarchical quality assessment index framework for nursing undergraduate creative ability was established. The framework should be further tested and improved in practice. Relevance to clinical practice Nursing students are the main force behind clinical nursing in the future. An innovative approach to skill acquisition and application could enhance the student nurse experience. The innovative ability of nursing students is important for identification of education strategies that be implemented to better support those individuals. Furthermore, the construction of the index system is helpful for evaluation of the innovation ability of nursing students that are required to better meet the needs of clinical nursing work in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Fengling Dai & Kunyan Wei & Yanhua Chen & Mei Ju, 2019. "Construction of an index system for qualitative evaluation of undergraduate nursing students innovative ability: A Delphi study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(23-24), pages 4379-4388, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:28:y:2019:i:23-24:p:4379-4388
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15020
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.15020?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grupp, Hariolf & Mogee, Mary Ellen, 2004. "Indicators for national science and technology policy: how robust are composite indicators?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1373-1384, November.
    2. Jeroen de Jong & Ron Kemp & Cisca Snel, 2001. "Determinants of innovative ability," Scales Research Reports H200010, EIM Business and Policy Research.
    3. Natalie M. Scala & Jayant Rajgopal & Luis G. Vargas & Kim LaScola Needy, 2016. "Group Decision Making with Dispersion in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 355-372, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Edquist , Charles & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia , Jon Mikel, 2015. "The Innovation Union Scoreboard is flawed: The Case of Sweden – not the innovation leader of the EU – updated version," Papers in Innovation Studies 2015/27, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    2. Khatab Alqararah, 2023. "Assessing the robustness of composite indicators: the case of the Global Innovation Index," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-22, December.
    3. Carayannis, Elias G. & Goletsis, Yorgos & Grigoroudis, Evangelos, 2018. "Composite innovation metrics: MCDA and the Quadruple Innovation Helix framework," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 4-17.
    4. Antonio Andrés & Simplice Asongu & Voxi Amavilah, 2015. "The Impact of Formal Institutions on Knowledge Economy," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 6(4), pages 1034-1062, December.
    5. Chan-Yuan Wong & Hon-Ngen Fung, 2017. "Science-technology-industry correlative indicators for policy targeting on emerging technologies: exploring the core competencies and promising industries of aspirant economies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 841-867, May.
    6. Proksch, Dorian & Haberstroh, Marcus Max & Pinkwart, Andreas, 2017. "Increasing the national innovative capacity: Identifying the pathways to success using a comparative method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 256-270.
    7. Zofio, Jose Luis & Aparicio, Juan & Barbero, Javier & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, Jon Mikel, 2023. "The influence of bottlenecks on innovation systems performance: Put the slowest climber first," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    8. Chun-rong Zhao & Bo Zhou & Xin Su, 2014. "Evaluation of Urban Eco-Security—A Case Study of Mianyang City, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-19, April.
    9. Paweł Karczmarek & Witold Pedrycz & Adam Kiersztyn, 2021. "Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process in a Graphical Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 463-481, April.
    10. Paredes-Frigolett, Harold & Pyka, Andreas & Leoneti, Alexandre Bevilacqua, 2021. "On the performance and strategy of innovation systems: A multicriteria group decision analysis approach," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    11. K. R. Jayasimha & Rajendra Nargundkar & V. Murugaiah, 2007. "New Service Development (NSD): Role of Customer Contact Executives," Vision, , vol. 11(2), pages 1-6, April.
    12. Shapira, Philip & Youtie, Jan & Yogeesvaran, K. & Jaafar, Zakiah, 2006. "Knowledge economy measurement: Methods, results and insights from the Malaysian Knowledge Content Study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1522-1537, December.
    13. Slavo Radosevic & Esin Yoruk, 2016. "A New Metrics Of Technology Upgrading: The Central And East European Countries In A Comparative Perspective," UCL SSEES Economics and Business working paper series 2016-2, UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies (SSEES).
    14. Salvatore Greco & Alessio Ishizaka & Menelaos Tasiou & Gianpiero Torrisi, 2019. "On the Methodological Framework of Composite Indices: A Review of the Issues of Weighting, Aggregation, and Robustness," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 141(1), pages 61-94, January.
    15. Barbero, Javier & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, Jon Mikel & Zofío, José L., 2021. "Is more always better? On the relevance of decreasing returns to scale on innovation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    16. Albarrán, Pedro & Crespo, Juan A. & Ortuño, Ignacio & Ruiz-Castillo, Javier, 2009. "A comparison of the scientific performance of the U. S. and the European Union at the turn of the XXI century," UC3M Working papers. Economics we095534, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
    17. Helfer, Helena, 2015. "Social market economy: Towards a comprehensive composite index," CIW Discussion Papers 6/2015, University of Münster, Center for Interdisciplinary Economics (CIW).
    18. Dominik Enste, 2010. "Shadow Economy - The Impact of Regulation in OECD-countries," International Economic Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(4), pages 555-571.
    19. Shiu-Wan Hung & Chao-Liang Chang & Shu Ming Liu, 2019. "Innovation System Assessment Model for Sustainability Planning in Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-24, December.
    20. Reggi, Luigi & Arduini, Davide & Biagetti, Marco & Zanfei, Antonello, 2014. "How advanced are Italian regions in terms of public e-services? The construction of a composite indicator to analyze patterns of innovation diffusion in the public sector," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 514-529.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:28:y:2019:i:23-24:p:4379-4388. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.