Annual Congress on Medicine November 05-06, 2018 Bangkok, Thailand

Dale M. Hilty, Associate Professor at the Mt. Carmel College of Nursing. He received his PhD in counseling psychology from the Department of Psychology at The Ohio State University. He has published studies in the areas of psychology, sociology, and religion. Between April 2017 and April 2018, his ten research teams published 55 posters at local, state, regional, national, and international nursing conferences.

The purpose of this educational intervention was to examine the effects of stress and stressors experienced by first semester Bachelor of Science of Nursing undergraduate students. One-hundred and eighty-four questionnaires were completed by the participants. The questionnaire consisted of two sections. First, the Brief College Student Hassle Scale (BCSHC) measured stressors (Ward & Hay, 2015) where participants rated their school and personal stress levels.rnrnHypothesis 1: Determine whether the stress was a multidimensional construct for BSN students. Using SPSS 25, exploratory factor analysis principle axis (EFAPE) was used to select underlying factors and items (loadings >.50). Hypothesis 2: Determine if the coefficient alpha reliability coefficients for the EFAPE common factors had estimates greater than .70. Hypothesis 3: Determine the difference between participant ratings on questions measuring School Stress Level and Personal Stress Level. Using SPSS 25, the independent t-test would be to determine significant differences between the two groups. Hypothesis 4: Determine whether a mean difference in the answers measuring stress relieving techniques and the effects of stress was presented for the fore-mentioned groups. Using SPSS 25, chi-square test would evaluate this hypothesis.rnrnResultsrnHypothesis 1: The EFAPE analysis found two factors (eigenvalues: 2.25, 1.71) based on the scree test accounting for 65.9% of the variance. Six of the BCSHC hassles/frustrations had factor loadings greater than .50. The common factors were named School (three questions) Personal (three questions). Hypothesis 2: Coefficient alpha estimates: School, .748 and Personal, .721. rn rnHypothesis 3: Independent t-test found significant differences for the two groups (School, p=.004; Personal, p=.000). Hypothesis 4: Chi-square test was applied to relieving stress techniques and stress effects data, resulting significant findings (p=.012-.041). rn

Dale M. Hilty, Associate Professor at the Mt. Carmel College of Nursing. He received his PhD in counseling psychology from the Department of Psychology at The Ohio State University. He has published studies in the areas of psychology, sociology, and religion. Between April 2017 and June 2018, his ten research teams published 100 posters at local, state, regional, national, and international nursing conferences.

Researchers have used self-efficacy to investigate online learning, physical therapy, diabetes type 2, work engagement, teacher education, exercise behavior, chemotherapy treatment, Alzheimer disease, counseling, clinical reasoning, and online shopping (Bradley et al., 2017; Costello et al., 2017; Lalnuntluangi, et al., 2017; Lee, 2017; Lisbona et al., 2018; Malinauskas et al., 2018; Middelkamp et al., 2017; Papadopoulou et al. 2016; Salamizadeh, et al., 2017; Ãœmmet, 2017; Venskus & Craig, 2017; & Yahong et al., 2018). \r\n\r\nMethods \r\nA second study was designed to examine self-efficacy, competitive greatness, and attachment styles. Scales used to analyze these constructs were: Generalized self-efficacy (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995), Wooden Pyramid of Success Questionnaire (WPSQ; Hilty, 2017), and Nursing Attachment Styles Questionnaire (Hilty, Bumgardner, & Taylor, 2018). Competitive greatness is defined as being the best you can be when your best is needed, continuous self-improvement, and appreciating difficult challenges. Regarding attachments styles, secure individuals offer positive descriptions and greater levels of achievement in their personal and professional relationships (Ravitz, et al., 2009). \r\n \r\nParticipants (N=78) in this educational intervention were BSN senior students. The self-efficacy scale was used to create two groups (e.g., high self-efficacy scores, moderate-low self-efficacy scores). Hypothesis 1: BSN students with high scores on self-efficacy would have high scores on competitive greatness. Hypothesis 2: Three attachment styles would be different based on self-efficacy scores (e.g., high self-efficacy scores, moderate-low self-efficacy scores). An Independent t-test would be used to test these hypotheses.\r\n \r\nResults \r\nUsing SPSS 25, independent t-test analyses were significant on competitive greatness (p=.001), meaning BSN students with high scores on self-efficacy also had high scores on competitive greatness. Secure (p=.009) and avoidant (p=.003) styles were significant (i.e., high self-efficacy and high secure scores, high self-efficacy and low avoidant scores). \r\n\r\nThe independent t-test findings revealed significant differences between self-efficacy and competitive greatness (i.e., being the best you can be when your best is needed, continuous self-improvement, appreciating difficult challenges). Significant differences were found between the high and moderate-low self-efficacy groups on the secure and avoidant common factors. \r\n

Dale M. Hilty, Associate Professor at the Mt. Carmel College of Nursing. He received his PhD in counseling psychology from the Department of Psychology at The Ohio State University. He has published studies in the areas of psychology, sociology, and religion. Between April 2017 and June 2018, his ten research teams published 100 posters at local, state, regional, national, and international nursing conferences.

Alberto & Herth (2009) provide an operational definition and an example of interprofessional educational collaboration.\r\nInterprofessional collaboration has been described as involving \"interactions of two or more disciplines involving professionals who work together, with intention, mutual respect, and commitments for the sake of a more adequate response to a human problem\" (Harbaugh, 1994, p 20). Several authors (Biggs, 1997; Chapman, 2006; Fournier, 2000; Harbaugh, 1994) have noted that in multidisciplinary collaboration disciplines are working side-by-side anchored in their own respective disciplinary perspectives ....\r\n\r\nWaterman and Hilty (2017) report an innovative, interdisciplinary, collaborative teaching strategy is the Nursing Panel (NP) intervention. In the Cultural Competence in Healthcare course, this teaching strategy was designed by social sciences professor. The NP intervention invites traditional and accelerated Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) students to ask questions of full-time Registered Nurse (RN) Faculty regarding cultural and nursing profession topics. Four RN Faculty share information and professional stories in an engaging, interactive format. A qualitative data analysis of nine questions indicated the NP was a positive educational intervention for faculty and the BSN students. \r\n\r\nDik et al. (2012) Calling and Vocation (CVQ) questionnaire was administrated as a pre- and post-test (i.e., dependent variable) in this educational intervention. The independent variable was the NP experience. It was hypothesized that CVQ post-test scores would increase significantly from the initial assessment. \r\n\r\nUsing SPSS 25, the dependent t-test analysis found significant differences (CVQ-Presence-Transcendent Summons, p=.002, CVQ-Search-Transcendent Summons, p=.001, CVQ-Presence-Purposeful Work, p=.001, CVQ-Search-Purposeful Work, \r\n \r\n\r\np=.004, CVQ-Presence-Prosocial Orientation, p=.001, CVQ-Search-Prosocial Orientation, p=.042, CVQ-Presence Total, p=.001, and CVQ-Search Total, p=.001). Significance on the CVQ Presence measures supports the qualitative effectiveness of the NP (Waterman & Hilty, 2018). The CVQ Search significant findings suggest the BSN students were exploring a nursing career specialty area. \r\n

Dale M. Hilty, Associate Professor at the Mt. Carmel College of Nursing. He received his PhD in counseling psychology from the Department of Psychology at The Ohio State University. He has published studies in the areas of psychology, sociology, and religion. Between April 2017 and June 2018, his ten research teams published 100+ posters at local, state, regional, national, and international nursing conferences.

In the academic environment, Wooden’s competitive greatness can be linked to Continuous Self-Improvement (CSI). By focusing on individual growth and development, there are endless opportunities to expand our skills and abilities. Meyer’s 10-80-10 principle estimates that 10 percent are in “… relentless pursuit of improvement” or CSI. In Figure 1*, we have an example of a CSI nursing student functioning at an exceptional level of engagement, deeper learning processing of material from textbook readings and lecture presentations. Using an intrinsic reward system, they internalize content and concepts and continuously apply them in new, unique ways. These students appear to feel the satisfaction and receive the validation they are going to be excellent nurses. Not only do they understand the scientific and theoretical aspects of nursing, but they also demonstrate the art and caring nature of an excellent and compassionate nurse. \r\n \r\nViewing performance on a continuum (4=Exceptional, 3=Exceeds Expectations, 2=Meets Expectations, 1=Improvement Needed/Unsatisfactory), Figure 2* reflects level two (i.e., meeting expectations) and Figure 3* reflects level one. A majority of nursing students (i.e., non-CSI) appear grouped in Meyer\'s 80 percent category who meet the requirements of their nursing program requirements. They obtain their BSN degree, state licensure, and are successfully employed RNs. The CSI students appear to regularly offer higher levels of patient care, demonstrate higher level of performance on their clinical paperwork (e.g., care plan, concept map, lab analysis, medical information). They more frequently demonstrate a \"big picture\" understanding by being able to reliably answer five questions: (1) What did I learn about the patient? (2) What concepts can I apply from my course’s theoretical component? (3) What connections can I find between a variety of variables? (4) What directed my care? (5) How and why did I perform the tasks? \r\n \r\nThe second author evaluated nursing students on a weekly basis regarding their clinical performance in providing patient care. Evaluations were based on seven operational behaviors. Since the medical-surgical course is a 16-week course, he was able to collect weekly intervals of how the CSI (Meyer\'s 10% estimate) and non-CSI (Meyer\'s 80% estimate) students spent their time on clinical setting objectives and behaviors. The evaluation used three criteria: on intermittent direct observation, the clinical evaluation tool, and the electronic health record. Student performance on the seven behaviors provided a weekly behavioral measurement. \r\n \r\nUsing SPSS 25 (independent t-test), a significant difference was found between the CSI and the non-CSI students (p=.001). \r\nExamples of one operational performance behavior: Non-CSI: Regarding the electronic health record (EHR), student uses the rubric to determine the type of clinical paperwork to complete as well as to guide their practice. CSI: Regarding the electronic health record (EHR), student completes clinical paperwork, consults with interdisciplinary healthcare professionals and their peers to deliver patient care. \r\n