NURS 7020: Assessment and Evaluation Paper and Narrated PowerPoint Presentation

Assessment Context

NURS 7020 Evaluation in Nursing Education at Youngstown State University requires a two-part capstone assessment in the Fall 2026 semester: a written Assessment and Evaluation Paper due November 29 and a Narrated PowerPoint Presentation due December 1. The course sits in the MSN Nurse Education concentration and builds on NURS 7018 Curriculum Design and NURS 7019 Instructional Methods. The assessment asks students to select one evaluation method used in nursing education, critique its design and psychometric quality against published standards, and recommend revisions that improve fairness, validity, and feasibility. The paper carries the analytical argument. The narrated presentation translates that argument for a faculty audience. Peer responses to classmates’ presentations are due December 5. The public syllabus lists the due dates and the course description but does not publish a word count or grade weight; this brief assumes 2,000–2,500 words for the paper, 12–15 narrated slides with 10–12 minutes of narration, and a combined weight of 50% for the two deliverables, consistent with graduate nurse educator course conventions. Confirm these figures against the LMS gradebook before submission.

Faculty designed this assessment around the competency of evaluation literacy. Students who describe an evaluation tool without interrogating its validity evidence lose marks in the critique criterion. The rubric rewards explicit alignment between the evaluation method, the course or program outcomes it measures, and the standards that govern nursing education assessment. A student who writes that a simulation rubric “works well” without citing reliability coefficients or content-validity procedures produces an opinion, not an evaluation. The evaluation method must come from the student’s own clinical or academic setting or from a published instrument with accessible psychometric data. Approved options include simulation-based competency assessment using the Creighton Competency Evaluation Instrument, test construction and item analysis for a nursing course, clinical evaluation using the Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric, and program-level accreditation self-study. Students may request an alternative method with written approval from the instructor before Week 6. Youngstown State University mandates APA 7th edition for all written work in this course.

Task Description

Select one evaluation method from the approved list. Write a paper that opens with the evaluation problem and its context, describes the method and the outcomes it is designed to measure, critiques the method against at least two published standards or psychometric criteria, and recommends specific revisions with a rationale for each. The critique must address validity, reliability, fairness, and feasibility. The recommendations must be actionable within a real nursing program and must name the resources, timelines, and stakeholders required for implementation. The paper closes with a reflection on how the revised method would change student learning or program decision-making. The narrated PowerPoint presents the same argument in a format suitable for a faculty committee. It must include a title slide, a problem slide, a method description slide, a critique slide, a recommendations slide, and a conclusion slide, with narration that explains rather than reads the slide text. The presentation must not exceed 12 minutes. Peer responses require one substantive reply to two classmates, each at least 150 words, addressing the strength of the critique and the feasibility of the recommendations.

Assessment Requirements

• Paper length: 2,000–2,500 words, excluding title page and references.
• Paper format: APA 7th edition, double-spaced, 12-point Times New Roman or 11-point Calibri.
• Evaluation method: One approved method; alternatives require instructor approval by Week 6.
• Critique: Address validity, reliability, fairness, and feasibility against at least two published standards.
• Recommendations: Minimum of three, each with a named resource, timeline, and responsible stakeholder.
• PowerPoint: 12–15 slides, 10–12 minutes of narration, submitted as a narrated file.
• Peer responses: Two replies, each at least 150 words, due December 5.
• References: Minimum of six peer-reviewed sources, 2019–2026, plus the evaluation instrument’s source documentation.
• Similarity: Turnitin score below 20%, with no more than 5% from a single source.

Grading Rubric

Criterion	Exemplary	Proficient	Developing	Beginning	Weight
Evaluation Problem and Context	The evaluation problem is clearly defined, situated in a specific course or program, and connected to accreditation or outcome requirements with precise evidence.	Problem is defined and situated; one contextual link is thin.	Problem is described but not situated; context is generic.	Problem is vague or disconnected from nursing education practice.	15%
Method Description and Alignment	The method is described precisely, including the instrument, scoring procedure, and the outcomes it measures; alignment with course or program outcomes is explicit.	Method described; alignment mostly explicit.	Method described but alignment is asserted rather than demonstrated.	Method description incomplete or misaligned with outcomes.	15%
Critique of Validity, Reliability, Fairness, and Feasibility	All four dimensions critiqued with evidence; reliability coefficients, validity procedures, fairness considerations, and resource demands are named and evaluated.	Three dimensions critiqued with evidence; one dimension is thin.	Critique is general; evidence is limited or not specific to the instrument.	Critique is absent or unsupported by evidence.	30%
Recommendations and Implementation Plan	Three or more recommendations, each with a named resource, timeline, and responsible stakeholder; recommendations follow directly from the critique.	Recommendations are specific; one implementation element is vague.	Recommendations are generic or only loosely tied to the critique.	No actionable recommendations; implementation absent.	20%
Narrated PowerPoint	Slides are clear and professional; narration explains rather than reads; within 12 minutes; argument mirrors the paper and is accessible to a faculty audience.	Slides clear; narration adequate; time within limits.	Slides cluttered or narration reads the slides; time exceeds limit.	Presentation incomplete, over time, or narration absent.	15%
Peer Responses and APA	Two substantive responses that engage the critique and feasibility; flawless APA 7th edition; clear academic voice.	Responses adequate; minor APA errors.	Responses brief or generic; multiple APA errors.	Responses absent or superficial; pervasive APA errors.	5%

Sample Paper Analysis

The evaluation problem sits in the third-semester medical-surgical course, where simulation-based competency assessment replaced 25% of direct clinical hours under the state board’s COVID-era waiver. Faculty currently score students using the Creighton Competency Evaluation Instrument without a structured rater-training protocol, and interrater agreement has drifted across sections. The instrument itself carries strong evidence: reliability testing during the NCSBN National Simulation Study produced acceptable internal consistency and interrater reliability, and the instrument’s content validity was established through expert review (Hayden et al., 2014). The problem is not the instrument. The problem is the implementation. Rater training, calibration sessions, and a documented scoring protocol are missing, which undermines the reliability evidence the instrument was designed to provide. The INACSL Healthcare Simulation Standards of Best Practice Evaluation of Learning and Performance standard requires that evaluation methods be valid, reliable, and used consistently across raters (Healthcare Simulation Standards of Best Practice Evaluation of Learning and Performance). The current practice meets the instrument standard but fails the implementation standard. Recommendations should target rater calibration first, because no instrument survives inconsistent scoring.

The critique must separate the instrument’s psychometric properties from the program’s use of the instrument. A common error is to evaluate the tool and the implementation as if they were the same thing. The C-CEI has published validity and reliability evidence; the program’s use of it may still produce unreliable scores if raters are not trained and calibrated. Wilson et al. (2022) confirmed the instrument’s reliability in a population of working nurses, which strengthens the case for the tool while leaving the implementation question open. The paper should state what the instrument can do and what the program must do to realise that capacity. Fairness deserves separate treatment. Simulation assessment can disadvantage students whose first language is not English or who have test anxiety, and the evaluation plan should name accommodations and a score-appeal process. Feasibility matters as well. Rater training costs faculty time, and the program must decide whether to absorb that cost or reduce the number of simulation stations. The recommendation section should name the trade-off rather than pretend it does not exist.

Sample Narrated PowerPoint Script

Slide 1 opens with the title and the problem in one sentence: “Our simulation scores are not comparable across sections, and the instrument is not the reason.” Slide 2 states the evaluation question and the course context. Slide 3 describes the C-CEI and its four scoring domains. Slide 4 presents the validity and reliability evidence from the NCSBN study and the Wilson et al. psychometric evaluation. Slide 5 presents the implementation gap: no rater training, no calibration, no documented scoring protocol. Slide 6 presents the INACSL standard and the specific requirement the program is not meeting. Slide 7 presents three recommendations: a two-hour rater-training workshop before each semester, a calibration session at midterm, and a score-review process for students who request it. Slide 8 presents the resources and timeline. Slide 9 closes with the expected outcome: comparable scores across sections and a defensible evaluation record for accreditation.

Narration should explain the argument, not read the slides. A sentence such as “As you can see on this slide, the instrument has strong reliability evidence” adds nothing because the slide already says it. A stronger narration states the implication: “The instrument has reliability evidence, but reliability is a property of scores, not of instruments alone. When raters are not trained, the scores lose the reliability the instrument was designed to produce.” The presentation should treat the audience as a faculty committee that will vote on the recommendations. That means the narration must name the cost, the timeline, and the person responsible for each recommendation. A presentation that ends with “we should train raters” without saying who trains them, when, and at what cost has not made a decision-ready case. The final slide should repeat the three recommendations in plain language so the committee can vote without returning to earlier slides.

Evaluation Instrument Validity Evidence

The C-CEI’s validity case rests on content validity through expert review and on reliability testing during the NCSBN National Simulation Study. Hayden et al. (2014) reported interrater reliability and internal consistency estimates that support the instrument’s use in prelicensure simulation. Wilson et al. (2022) extended the psychometric evaluation to working nurses and reported high internal reliability, which suggests the instrument’s constructs remain coherent outside the student population. A stronger paper connects this evidence to the program’s specific use case. A pediatric simulation may stress different domains than an adult medical-surgical simulation, and the paper should state which domains carry the most weight in the local context. The evaluation should also note what the instrument does not measure, such as communication with families or delegation to unlicensed staff, because an instrument’s omissions matter as much as its inclusions. A critique that treats the C-CEI as a complete measure of clinical competence overstates the evidence.

• Report the reliability coefficient and the population in which it was estimated.
• Name the validity procedure (content validity, construct validity, or criterion validity) and its result.
• State which domains the instrument covers and which it omits in the local use case.
• Distinguish instrument-level evidence from program-level implementation evidence.

Common Misconception About Simulation Assessment

Students often assume that a published instrument guarantees a fair evaluation. The instrument is a tool, and tools produce different results in different hands. A rubric with strong reliability evidence can still generate unreliable scores when raters interpret descriptors differently or when training is absent. The paper should address rater training as an evaluation-quality issue, not an administrative afterthought. Oermann and Gaberson (2021) describe evaluation as a systematic process that includes instrument selection, rater preparation, score interpretation, and feedback, and they argue that each step affects the validity of the conclusion drawn from the score. A program that adopts a validated instrument without investing in rater preparation has completed one step of the process and skipped the rest. The critique should say so plainly. The recommendation should name the training protocol, the calibration schedule, and the person accountable for both.

Peer Response Expectations

Peer responses are not summaries of agreement. A response that states “great presentation, I agree” fails the criterion. A substantive response names one strength of the presenter’s critique and one point where the evidence or the implementation plan could be strengthened. The response should connect the presenter’s evaluation method to a different course or program context, because the transfer question tests whether the critique is robust or local. A response might ask whether the rater-training recommendation would work in a program with adjunct faculty who teach one section per year, or whether the calibration schedule is realistic during clinical make-up weeks. These questions improve the presenter’s argument and demonstrate the responder’s evaluation literacy. The response should close with a specific suggestion, not a general endorsement.

Conclusion

This assessment asks for an evaluation of an evaluation. The paper and the presentation should make the same argument in two formats, and the argument should rest on evidence about the instrument and evidence about its use. A strong paper separates the psychometric case from the implementation case and recommends changes that address both. A strong presentation states the problem in one sentence, presents the evidence without reading slides, and ends with recommendations a faculty committee can vote on. The peer responses test whether the argument travels beyond the presenter’s own program. Start the instrument review early, collect the validity and reliability evidence before drafting the critique, and record the narration after the paper is final so the two deliverables say the same thing.

References

Hayden, J. K., Smiley, R. A., Alexander, M., Kardong-Edgren, S., & Jeffries, P. R. (2014). The NCSBN National Simulation Study: A longitudinal, randomized, controlled study replacing clinical hours with simulation in prelicensure nursing education. Journal of Nursing Regulation, 5(2), S3–S40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2155-8256(15)30062-4

INACSL Standards Committee. (2021). Healthcare simulation standards of best practice: Evaluation of learning and performance. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 58, 54–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2021.08.016

Oermann, M. H., & Gaberson, K. B. (2021). Evaluation and testing in nursing education (6th ed.). Springer Publishing Company.

Wilson, M., et al. (2022). Psychometric evaluation of the Creighton Competency Evaluation Instrument in a population of working nurses. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 30(1), 148–167. https://doi.org/10.1891/JNM-D-20-00083

Youngstown State University. (2026). NURS 7020 A01: Evaluation in nursing education [Course syllabus]. https://catalog.ysu.edu/syllabi/2026-fall/nurs-7020-a01-42397/

~~~

Evaluating Simulation-Based Competency Assessment in a Third-Semester Medical-Surgical Nursing Course

Simulation-based competency assessment has become a central method for judging clinical readiness in prelicensure nursing education. In the third-semester medical-surgical course considered here, simulation replaced 25% of direct clinical hours under a state-board waiver, and faculty use the Creighton Competency Evaluation Instrument (C-CEI) to score student performance. The instrument has credible psychometric support, but the program’s current use of it does not guarantee comparable or defensible scores. The central argument is that the C-CEI can support sound evaluation only when the program pairs its established validity evidence with structured rater training, calibration, transparent scoring procedures, and fair opportunities for student review.

The evaluation problem is therefore not that the C-CEI is a weak instrument. Its published evidence indicates strong internal consistency and acceptable agreement among trained raters. The problem lies in implementation: faculty score students without a documented rater-training protocol, scheduled calibration sessions, or a consistent process for interpreting and reviewing scores. As a result, students in different sections may receive different judgments for similar performance, even though they complete comparable simulations. Such variation threatens both fairness and the program’s ability to use simulation results for accreditation, progression, and curricular decision-making.

Evaluation Problem and Context

The third-semester medical-surgical course prepares students to manage increasingly complex adult patients, prioritize care, communicate with interdisciplinary teams, and recognize deterioration. Simulation provides a controlled setting in which students can demonstrate these abilities without placing patients at risk. Faculty use the C-CEI to rate observable behaviors associated with assessment, communication, clinical judgment, and patient safety. The course outcome most directly connected to the instrument is the ability to apply clinical judgment and safe practice in deteriorating or complex patient situations.

The evaluation problem emerges because simulation now carries substantial academic weight. When simulation replaces direct clinical hours, its scores affect progression decisions and provide evidence of student competence. A score that varies because of rater interpretation rather than student performance becomes an equity concern. It also weakens the program’s claim that its assessment system measures the outcomes it intends to measure. The issue matters beyond a single course because accreditation reviewers and clinical partners expect programs to show that evaluation methods are valid, reliable, and consistently applied.

The current practice creates a specific risk. Faculty may understand the C-CEI domains, but they have not participated in a common training session or scored the same recorded performance together. Without calibration, one rater may emphasize communication while another prioritizes technical accuracy. A student may therefore receive a lower score in one section than a peer with similar performance in another. The program needs an evaluation process that separates the instrument’s potential from the conditions required to realize that potential.

Method Description and Alignment

The C-CEI is a 23-item observational instrument used by clinical instructors to rate student behaviors that collectively reflect clinical competency. Its domains include assessment, communication, clinical judgment, and patient safety (Hayden et al., 2014). Raters observe a student during a simulation, assign scores to each item, and generate an overall performance score. The instrument is intended to measure observable performance rather than abstract knowledge alone, which makes it appropriate for a course where students must respond to changing patient conditions.

The alignment between the instrument and course outcomes is strongest in clinical judgment and patient safety. During a deteriorating-patient scenario, students must recognize abnormal findings, prioritize interventions, communicate concerns, and take appropriate action. These behaviors correspond directly to C-CEI items. Assessment and communication are also relevant because students must gather data, report findings, and interact with team members. The alignment is less complete for family communication, delegation to unlicensed personnel, and documentation practices that may occur outside the simulation window. A sound evaluation plan should acknowledge those limits rather than present the C-CEI as a complete measure of clinical competence.

The scoring procedure also requires attention. Faculty should define what constitutes a particular score level, identify the evidence needed for each rating, and explain how partial performance is handled. For example, a student may recognize deterioration but delay escalation. A rater must know whether that performance receives partial credit, a lower score, or a remediation referral. Clear descriptors reduce interpretation differences and make feedback more useful to students. The instrument provides a structure, but the program must supply the local scoring rules that make its use consistent.

Critique of Validity, Reliability, Fairness, and Feasibility

Validity

The C-CEI has meaningful content-validity evidence. During its development for the National Council of State Boards of Nursing National Simulation Study, faculty rated the instrument’s ability to measure student performance and clinical competency, and content-validity scores ranged from 3.78 to 3.89 on a four-point scale (Hayden et al., 2014). The instrument also demonstrated high internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha above .90 across three levels of simulated performance (Hayden et al., 2014). These findings support the claim that the C-CEI measures important clinical behaviors in prelicensure simulation.

Evidence from later research strengthens the case for the instrument while also defining its boundaries. Wilson et al. (2022) examined the C-CEI with registered nurses working 12-hour shifts and found high internal reliability for the aggregate score and the clinical decision-making component. The study also found that the clinical decision-making component correlated with predicted cognitive effectiveness, a measure related to fatigue (Wilson et al., 2022). That evidence suggests the instrument can function beyond the original student population, although the program should not assume that results transfer automatically to every simulation design or patient population.

Validity depends on more than the instrument’s published evidence. In the local course, faculty must show that the scenarios, scoring procedures, and performance standards match the outcomes they claim to measure. A pediatric simulation, for instance, may emphasize family-centered communication more heavily than an adult medical-surgical scenario. If the course uses an adult deterioration scenario but expects students to demonstrate family communication, the C-CEI alone may not capture that outcome. Faculty should therefore map each simulation objective to specific C-CEI items and identify outcomes that require supplemental measures.

Reliability

Reliability is the strongest reason to examine implementation. The original validation study reported percent agreement of 70% or better between faculty raters and an expert rater for 20 of 23 items (Hayden et al., 2014). That evidence supports the instrument when raters receive appropriate preparation. It does not guarantee that untrained faculty in a new program will reach the same level of agreement. Reliability is a property of scores produced under particular conditions, not a permanent feature of a form.

The INACSL Healthcare Simulation Standards of Best Practice require programs to use valid and reliable evaluation tools, establish simulation-specific interrater reliability, and apply a standardized format for determining passing scores (INACSL Standards Committee, 2021). The standards also identify evaluator training as a required element of learner evaluation (INACSL Standards Committee, 2021). The current program meets the first requirement in principle because it uses a validated instrument. It does not meet the implementation requirement because faculty lack a documented process for training, calibration, and score review.

Research on rater calibration supports this concern. A recent study of interrater agreement in a pre-graduation nursing objective assessment found that agreement improved across successive assessment circuits, suggesting that examiner calibration strengthened scoring consistency (PMC, 2026). Other work has found that structured training, precise rubric criteria, and practice with realistic cases can establish stronger interrater reliability (PMC, 2024). These findings imply that the program should treat calibration as an ongoing quality-assurance activity rather than a one-time orientation.

Fairness

Fairness requires more than applying the same rubric to every student. Students differ in English-language proficiency, test anxiety, prior simulation exposure, and familiarity with American clinical communication norms. A simulation assessment may disadvantage a student who understands the clinical problem but struggles to speak quickly under pressure. The program should distinguish between a genuine clinical-judgment deficit and a communication barrier that can be addressed through reasonable accommodation.

The C-CEI does not eliminate this concern. Its communication items may reward fluency, confidence, or familiarity with expected phrasing. Faculty should therefore provide clear advance information about the scenario type, expected professional behaviors, and scoring criteria. They should also permit reasonable accommodations consistent with institutional policy, such as additional preparation time or an alternative format where appropriate. A documented score-review process gives students a way to question a rating without making the process adversarial.

Fairness also depends on consistent scenario difficulty. If one section receives a more complex patient case or less preparation time, comparing scores across sections becomes questionable. Faculty should standardize the scenario script, standardized-patient responses, available resources, and time limits. They should record any unavoidable variation and consider it when interpreting results. Fairness is therefore an assessment-design issue as much as a rater-behavior issue.

Feasibility

The proposed improvements must fit the realities of a nursing program. Rater training consumes faculty time, particularly in programs that rely on adjunct clinical instructors or faculty with heavy clinical loads. A two-hour workshop before each semester may be feasible if it replaces an existing faculty meeting or occurs during scheduled simulation preparation. A midterm calibration session may require more planning, especially during weeks affected by clinical make-up days.

The program should not assume that every recommendation carries the same cost. A shared scoring guide and brief video examples cost little to develop but can produce immediate consistency. A full interrater-reliability study requires more time, multiple raters, recorded performances, and statistical analysis. The program should begin with a practical calibration process and expand toward formal reliability testing as resources allow. Feasibility does not mean lowering standards; it means sequencing improvements in a way the program can sustain.

Recommendations and Implementation Plan

Rater-Training Workshop

The program should require a two-hour rater-training workshop before each semester. The simulation coordinator, in collaboration with the course lead, should prepare a scoring guide, three recorded performance examples at different competency levels, and a brief discussion of common scoring errors. Faculty should independently score the recordings, compare ratings, and resolve differences using the C-CEI descriptors.

The workshop should occur during the week before the first simulation. The simulation coordinator owns the schedule and materials, while the course lead ensures that all section faculty attend. The expected resource is approximately two hours of faculty time per rater, plus existing learning-management-system space for recordings and guides. This recommendation addresses the most immediate reliability gap because it gives raters a shared interpretation of the instrument.

Mid-Semester Calibration Session

The program should hold a 60- to 90-minute calibration session at midterm. Faculty should score two anonymized video excerpts or review de-identified score patterns from early simulations. The session should identify items with low agreement, clarify ambiguous descriptors, and document agreed scoring decisions. The course lead should record these decisions in a shared scoring guide.

This session should occur after the first major simulation cycle, when faculty have enough examples to identify real scoring differences. The simulation coordinator should facilitate the session, while section faculty contribute examples and the assessment committee reviews recurring concerns. The resource requirement is modest: one meeting, a shared document, and time to review selected performances. The benefit is that calibration becomes responsive to the actual scoring problems faculty encounter.

Documented Score-Review Process

The program should create a written score-review process for students who believe a simulation score does not reflect their performance. A student should submit a brief written request within five business days of receiving feedback. The course lead and a second faculty rater who did not assign the original score should review the available evidence, including the scenario record, rubric ratings, and faculty notes. The review should result in one of three outcomes: confirmation of the original score, a revised score, or a remediation plan.

The course lead should publish the process in the syllabus and learning-management-system site during the first week of class. The program’s assessment committee should review requests each semester to identify patterns, such as repeated concerns about a particular rater or scenario. This recommendation strengthens fairness without requiring a formal appeal process for every disagreement. It also creates a record that can support accreditation and continuous improvement.

Expected Effect on Learning and Decision-Making

A revised evaluation process would change both student learning and program decision-making. Students would receive clearer expectations before simulation and more specific feedback afterward. They would understand which behaviors produced a particular score and what they must do to improve. That feedback can guide deliberate practice rather than leaving students to guess why their performance received a particular rating.

Faculty would also gain better evidence for decisions about progression, remediation, and curriculum revision. If calibration reveals that students consistently struggle with escalation of care, faculty can revise the scenario, prebriefing, or debriefing rather than assuming a student deficit. If scores remain inconsistent after training, the program can examine the instrument’s fit, the scenario design, or the adequacy of rater preparation. The revised process therefore turns simulation scores into evidence rather than isolated judgments.

Conclusion

The C-CEI offers a credible foundation for simulation-based competency assessment because it has published content-validity and reliability evidence. Its value in the third-semester medical-surgical course depends on whether faculty use it consistently, transparently, and fairly. Rater training, midterm calibration, and a documented score-review process address the implementation gaps that currently undermine score comparability. These revisions require modest resources, but they make simulation evaluation more defensible for students, faculty, and accreditation reviewers. A validated instrument becomes a dependable measure only when the program builds the conditions that allow it to function as intended.

References

Hayden, J. K., Keegan, M., Kardong-Edgren, S., & Smiley, R. A. (2014). Reliability and validity testing of the Creighton Competency Evaluation Instrument for use in the NCSBN National Simulation Study. Nursing Education Perspectives, 35(4), 244–252. https://doi.org/10.5480/13-1130.1

Hayden, J. K., Smiley, R. A., Alexander, M., Kardong-Edgren, S., & Jeffries, P. R. (2014). The NCSBN National Simulation Study: A longitudinal, randomized, controlled study replacing clinical hours with simulation in prelicensure nursing education. Journal of Nursing Regulation, 5(2), S3–S40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2155-8256(15)30062-4

INACSL Standards Committee, McMahon, E., Jimenez, F. A., Lawrence, K., & Victor, J. (2021). Healthcare Simulation Standards of Best Practice: Evaluation of learning and performance. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 58, 54–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2021.08.016

Oermann, M. H., & Gaberson, K. B. (2021). Evaluation and testing in nursing education (6th ed.). Springer Publishing Company.

Wilson, M., Elki-Brown, N., James, L., James, S. M., Stevens, K., & Butterfield, P. (2022). Psychometric evaluation of the Creighton Competency Evaluation Instrument in a population of working nurses. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 30(1), 148–167. https://doi.org/10.1891/JNM-D-20-00083

Youngstown State University. (2026). NURS 7020 A01: Evaluation in nursing education [Course syllabus]. https://catalog.ysu.edu/syllabi/2026-fall/nurs-7020-a01-42397/