IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/nuhsci/v18y2016i4p503-509.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Computerized test versus personal interview as admission methods for graduate nursing studies: A retrospective cohort study

Author

Listed:
  • Koren Hazut
  • Pnina Romem
  • Smadar Malkin
  • Ilana Livshiz‐Riven

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the predictive validity, economic efficiency, and faculty staff satisfaction of a computerized test versus a personal interview as admission methods for graduate nursing studies. A mixed method study was designed, including cross‐sectional and retrospective cohorts, interviews, and cost analysis. One hundred and thirty‐four students in the Master of Nursing program participated. The success of students in required core courses was similar in both admission method groups. The personal interview method was found to be a significant predictor of success, with cognitive variables the only significant contributors to the model. Higher satisfaction levels were reported with the computerized test compared with the personal interview method. The cost of the personal interview method, in annual hourly work, was 2.28 times higher than the computerized test. These findings may promote discussion regarding the cost benefit of the personal interview as an admission method for advanced academic studies in healthcare professions.

Suggested Citation

  • Koren Hazut & Pnina Romem & Smadar Malkin & Ilana Livshiz‐Riven, 2016. "Computerized test versus personal interview as admission methods for graduate nursing studies: A retrospective cohort study," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), pages 503-509, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:nuhsci:v:18:y:2016:i:4:p:503-509
    DOI: 10.1111/nhs.12309
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12309
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/nhs.12309?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
    ---><---

    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:nuhsci:v:18:y:2016:i:4:p:503-509. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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)1442-2018 .

    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.