Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Administrative structures and procedures dealing with clinical failure of students in Canadian nursing.. Orchard, Carole Anne 1991

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1991_A2 O72.pdf [ 12.58MB ]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0055906.json
JSON-LD: 1.0055906+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0055906.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0055906+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0055906+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0055906+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0055906 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0055906.txt
Citation
1.0055906.ris

Full Text

ADMINISTRATIVE CLINICAL FAILURE  S T R U C T U R E S AND PROCEDURES D E A L I N G OF S T U D E N T S I N CANADIAN N U R S I N G PROGRAMS  WITH  By C A R O L E ANNE B.S.N., M.Ed., A  The U n i v e r s i t y The U n i v e r s i t y  THESIS  ORCHARD of British of British  SUBMITTED IN P A R T I A L  THE  REQUIREMENTS DOCTOR OF  FOR  Columbia, Columbia,  FULFILLMENT  THE DEGREE  1973 1979 OF  OF  EDUCATION  in THE  F A C U L T Y OF GRADUATE  Department of :  We  Administrative, Education  STUDIES Adult  and H i g h e r  a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g to t h e r e q u i r e d standard  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  January, ®  BRITISH  COLUMBIA  1991  C a r o l e Anne O r c h a r d ,  1991  In presenting  this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced  degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may department or by  his or her  representatives.  be granted by the head of  It is understood that copying or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my permission.  Department of The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  DE-6 (2/88)  my  written  ABSTRACT There educators nursing  design  students of  a  who  these  growing  concern  potential  are  students'  using  was  assess  the  student  to  policies  clinical  student  Population  this  and  cross^sectional  appeals was  n u r s i n g programs  response  to  this  survey  of  between  related  to  and  incidence  the  faculty  diploma  and  i n Canada  was  by  performance.  procedures  survey  nurse  educators'  relationships  baccalaureate rate  with  evaluation practices  grievances for  and  a  by  litigation  clinical  survey  used  raised  for  dissatisfied  descriptive  institutional  of  been  regarding the  appraisal  A  has  86.2%  decisions.  basic  (N=94).  The  (81/94  programs).  Data  were  questionnaires prototypic Variables location role  or  obtained which  models  using  tested  derived  two  for  from  s t u d i e d i n c l u d e d the  support  their  of  literature  two reviewed.  d e c i s i o n - r m a k e r s'  (educational institution, position,  self-developed  functions,  hospital), and  their  the g u i d e l i n e s  under  which  studied  they  were  question  practices  its  of  which  using  the  from  data was  compared  written policies  adequate between  was  there  exists  when  and  five a  and  makes  a  students  lack  of  of  the  procedures.  to  than  one  of  employed  i n the  hearings  are  the  review  rarely tend  to  faculty  even  though  The  findings,  panels, of  i i  of  institutions.. these  (4)  and  (5)  being:  (3)  (1)  standards  instructor i t  (2)  in  alone  appears  serve  on  more  procedures  i n f o r m a l and  formal  grievance  professional  panel  nonsnurses.  to  considered  settings,  same m e m b e r s  alter  data  level  evaluation  clinical  written,  panels  reported  i n most  decision,  conducting  contingency  w h i c h was  in clinical a  statistics.  frequent discrepancies  faculty  clinical  i n some p r o g r a m s level  .50  the  programs  student's  using  program's  significiant  that  appeal  to  the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  procedures  evaluating students  one-rthird  nurse  the  i n mind  policies  were  evaluations. Also  descriptive  assessed  approximately  bearing  There  available  analyzed  instrument  agreement  student  decision.  were  Reliability  tables  mechanisms  the  Data  performed  members  and  judgments frequently  of are  Reliability grievances  and  chi  with  square  adequate.  of the data  appeals  were  205  reports  appeal  of  t h e e v a l u a t i v e d e c i s i o n s were I I I (appeal  decisions  were  heard  at this  grievance  and and  hearing),  student level  Guidelines process,  At Level  modified  (institutional  outcomes appeal  using  considered  modified  grievance review),  (15/135);  and a t L e v e l  seven  modified  of the  15 at  review IV  cases  (7/20).  regarding  of education  i i i  of  of the grievance  appeal),  systems.  was  I I (grievance  60  proposed  assessed  of student  (60/135),  were  were  was  correction  or  Level  hearings.  the incidence  instrument  a Yates  There  from  the  structure,  institutions'  ACKNOWLEDGMENT C o m p l e t i o n o f t h i s study c o u l d n o t have been a c c o m p l i s h e d w i t h o u t t h e s u p p o r t o f two s i g n i f i c a n t i n d i v i d u a l s who b e l i e v e d i n my a b i l i t y t o t a k e on t h i s task. I e s p e c i a l l y want t o a c k n o w l e d g e my l a t e h u s b a n d , D r . D o n a l d B. O r c h a r d and my a c a d e m i c a d v i s o r who g u i d e d me t h r o u g h t h e p r o c e s s D r . J o h n A n d r e w s . W i t h o u t t h e i r wisdom, t h o u g h t f u l p r o d d i n g s , and c o n s t r u c t i v e c r i t i c i s m s t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n would not have been completed. I a l s o w i s h t o t h a n k t h e o t h e r members o f my c o m m i t t e e , D r . M a r i l y n W i l l m a n , and Ms. K i t t y H e l l e r . Dr. Willman p r o v i d e d p r a c t i c a l i n s i g h t s i n t o t h i s study f r o m a n u r s i n g p e r s p e c t i v e , and i n s i g h t f u l e d i t i n g s u g g e s t i o n s . Ms. H e l l e r e n s u r e d t h a t t h e l e g a l interpretations w e r e a c c u r a t e and g u i d e d me i n t h e documents I s h o u l d r e v i e w t o s u p p o r t d a t a a n a l y s e s . T h e i r g u i d a n c e was i n v a l u a b l e i n c o m p l e t i n g t h i s research report. My t h a n k s a r e a l s o e x t e n d e d t o D r . Graham K e l s e y who h e l p e d me t o f o r m u l a t e my r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n and t o D r . P a t C r e h a n whose a d v i c e a n d s u p p o r t g r e a t l y f a c i l i t a t e d t h e completion o f t h i s study s p r o p o s a l . Two o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s who n e e d t o b e t h a n k e d f o r t h e i r p a t i e n c e a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f my n e e d f o r c o n c e n t r a t e d t i m e a l o n e a r e my s o n P h i l i p and my step*son David. The f o r m e r f o r t h e many o c c a s i o n s he was w i l l i n g t o s a c r i f i c e o u r t i m e t o g e t h e r t o c o m p l e t e t h i s p a p e r , a n d t h e l a t t e r f o r h i s a d v i c e on my computer programming needs d u r i n g t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s s . F i n a l l y , I w i s h t o t h a n k t h e n u r s e e d u c a t o r s who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s s t u d y a n d my n u r s i n g c o l l e a g u e s who o f f e r e d e n c o u r a g e m e n t a n d s u p p o r t t h r o u g h o u t t h i s project. iv  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  ABSTRACT  i  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS LIST  OF  TABLES  LIST  OF  FIGURES  iv v i i i xiv  CHAPTER 1.  INTRODUCTION  1  Background Statement Overview  to of  of  Definition  OF  Health  5 .  7  o f Terms  Significance REVIEW  1  the Problem the Method  Limitations  2.  the Problem  of  the  of  .8 Study  this  11  Study  12  LITERATURE Sciences  15  Literature  15  F a c t o r s A f f e c t i n g Assessment of Students' C l i n i c a l Performance......16 Foci and Higher Legal 3.  Related  to Evaluation  Review  Education  Process 28  Literature  Literature  42 54  C O N C E P T U A L FRAMEWORK Conceptual Model v  71 71  4.  A p p l i c a t i o n of the Model to Reviews of C l i n i c a l Evaluative Decisions  73  Judgment Process  80  I n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p Between the Judgment Model Components and the L e v e l s of Review  83  Data G e n e r a t i o n Model  85  RESEARCH PROCEDURES  89  Research Design  89  Population....  90  Development and T e s t i n g o f the Instruments  92  Measures f o r Data C o l l e c t i o n  ..103  Methods for Data A n a l y s i s 5.  106  RESULTS: DEMOGRAPHICS, ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES AND  PROCEDURES  112  A n a l y s i s of Demographic V a r i a b l e s  113  A n a l y s i s of E x i s t i n g A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e s and Procedures.... The P o s i t i o n ( s ) o f the  119  Decisionmaker Location  120  o f the D e c i s i o n m a k e r  128  F u n c t i o n s o f the D e c i s i o n m a k e r  132  Controls  163  on the D e c i s i o n m a k e r  Students' Route to Q u e s t i o n 6. RESULTS: RELIABILITY AND  VALIDITY  V a r i a b l e s from Golden's vi  Study  Decision.174 181 181  Prototypic  Models  Reliability 7. R E S U L T S : Rate  186  and V a l i d i t y  o f Instrument...190  I N C I D E N C E OR G R I E V A N C E S AND  APPEALS.195  o f Cases  Reliability  202  and V a l i d i t y  o f I n s t r u m e n t . . . 210  Summary 8.  SUMMARY,  213  C O N C L U S I O N S , AND RECOMMENDATIONS  Summary  ...215  Findings  217  Interpretation Implications Limitation Further BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX A.  B.  215  of Findings  220  of the Findings  232  o f t h e Study  238  Research  240 242  :  INSTRUMENT^1 TO A S S E S S A D M I N I S T R A T I V E S T R U C T U R E S AND PROCEDURES INSTRUMENTS STUDENT  TO A S S E S S FREQUENCY  253  OF  COMPLAINTS  274  C.  COVER L E T T E R  278  D.  DATA  COLLECTION  TOOL  FOR I N S T R U M E N T S  280  E.  DATA  COLLECTION  TOOL  FOR INSTRUMENT-*2  298  F.  SUMMARY  O F CONTINGENCY AGREEMENT v i i  T A B L E S OF 305  LIST  OF  TABLES  Table 1.  2.  P  Respondent Returns Follow-ups Clustering  Based  S  on U s e o f 105  o f Questions Around  Generation  a  Model  Data  Variables  3.  Number  4.  R e s p o n d e n t s t o S t u d y , by Type o f Institution Type o f I n s t i t u t i o n Responding t o Study, by P r o v i n c e  115  S t u d e n t E n r o l l m e n t i n Diploma and B a s i c B a c c a l a u r e a t e N u r s i n g Programs  117  5.  6.  7.  8.  9.  10.  o f Respondents,  107  by P r o v i n c e  Type o f N u r s i n g Program Institution  Offered,  114  by .118  A v e r a g e Age o f S t u d e n t s E n t e r i n g D i p l o m a B a s i c B a c c a l a u r e a t e N u r s i n g Programs d u r i n g t h e 1984*85 Academic Y e a r T h e Number o f I n d i v i d u a l s M a k i n g a Regarding a Student's C l i n i c a l Performance External  Program  Review  115  and 118  Decision  of Clinical  120 Evaluation  Decisions  122  11.  Provision  f o r C o n d u c t i n g a G r i e v a n c e Review.123  12. 13.  Persons Included i n Appeal Hearings Provisions f o r I n s t i t u t i o n a l Student  125 Appeal  Hearing.  126  14.  Summary  of Provisions  15.  L o c a t i o n o f Reviewers Review  for Levels a t the Four  * • •  v m  o f Review..127 Levels  of 129  e  Page  Table  16.  17.  18.  19.  L o c a t i o n of Decisionwmaker at each L e v e l of Review of Students' C l i n i c a l E v a l u a t i v e Decisions  132  Students' C l i n i c a l Performances Reviewed at L e v e l I Both I n s i d e the Nursing Program Outside of the Nursing Program  and 134  Documents A s s e s s e d Reviews  136  Individuals Review  During  Interviewed  Level II  During  the  Grievance  Grievance 137  20.  Use  o f and R o l e o f A d v i s o r s f o r S t u d e n t s and C l i n i c a l Instructors During Grievance Reviews 139  21.  Methods U t i l i z e d i n Reporting Record Grievance Reviews  22.  G r i e v a n c e Review P a n e l s ' Focus d u r i n g of C l i n i c a l E v a l u a t i o n D e c i s i o n s  23.  Individuals  Interviewed  24.  Appeal Hearing Procedures P a r t i e s Regarding the Grievance  25.  Use  Institutions  at Appeal  to 140  Review 141  Hearings..142  Used to I n t e r v i e w Student's . .144  o f and R o l e o f A d v i s o r s f o r S t u d e n t s and C l i n i c a l I n s t r u c t o r s D u r i n g Appeal Hearings  146  26.  I n d i v i d u a l s D e t e r m i n i n g W i t n e s s e s or E v i d e n c e . t o be H e a r d D u r i n g A p p e a l H e a r i n g s 148  27.  Documents A s s e s s e d  28.  Public  Access  29.  Appeal  Hearings'  at Appeal  to Appeal Focus ix  Hearings  Hearings  149 150 150  Table  Page  30.  Methods o f Documenting Appeal H e a r i n g s  152  31.  Documents A s s e s s e d a t I n s t i t u t i o n a l Appeal Hearings  153  32.  33.  Student  I n s t i t u t i o n a l Student Appeal P a n e l s ' Focus D u r i n g Review o f C l i n i c a l E v a l u a t i o n Decisions  154  A p p e a l H e a r i n g D o c u m e n t a t i o n P l a c e d on Appealing Students' F i l e s  156  34.  Summary o f I n d i v i d u a l s I n t e r v i e w e d D u r i n g G r i e v a n c e Reviews and Appeal H e a r i n g s . . . 1 5 7  35.  Documents R e v i e w e d D u r i n g L e v e l s o f R e v i e w . . 1 5 8  36.  A v a i l a b i l i t y o f A d v i s o r s t o Students and C l i n i c a l Instructors during Grievance R e v i e w s and A p p e a l H e a r i n g s  37.  Reviewers  159  Focus o f D e c i s i o n A p p r a i s a l a t 161  Three L e v e l s o f Review 38.  Form o f Documentation  39.  L e v e l I, Reviewer o f Students' C l i n i c a l Performance D e c i s i o n s 164 Decisionmaking Authority of Grievance Review P a n e l s . . . 165 P a r t i e s t o Whom Outcomes o f G r i e v a n c e R e v i e w s are Reported. .• 166  40. 41. 42. 43. 44.  o f L e v e l s o f Review...162  :  D e c i s i o n m a k i n g A u t h o r i t y o f Appeal Panels T y p e o f D e c i s i o n s Made by A p p e a l Panels  Hearing 167  Hearing 167  P a r t i e s R e s p o n s i b l e f o r R e p o r t i n g Outcome o f A p p e a l H e a r i n g s a n d t o Whom They R e p o r t Outcome 169 x  Table 45.  46.  47.  48.  49.  50.  51.  52.  Page Documentation Reviewed Student Appeals  During  170  Decisionnmaking Authority Student Appeal Panels Type  o f D e c i s i o n s Made by Student Appeal Panels  P e r s o n s R e c e i v i n g Outcome Student Appeal D e c i s i o n m a k i n g Power L e v e l s of Review  Institutional  of  Institutional 172  Institutional 172 of  Institutional 173  of Panels  at  Three 174  P e r s o n s t o Whom O u t c o m e s a r e R e p o r t e d Three L e v e l s of Reviews  for 175  Specification o f P o l i c i e s and P r o c e d u r e s G o v e r n i n g D u r a t i o n o f Time Student Has to I n i t i a t e Grievance Reviews F o l l o w i n g Receipt of C l i n i c a l Evaluation  177  Students' I n i t i a l Contact Grievance Reviews  178  to  Request  53.  Specification o f P o l i c i e s and P r o c e d u r e s G o v e r n i n g the D u r a t i o n o f Time Student Has t o I n i t i a t e A p p e a l H e a r i n g s ..178  54.  S p e c i f i c a t i o n o f P o l i c i e s and P r o c e d u r e s G o v e r n i n g the D u r a t i o n of Time a Student Has t o I n i t i a t e an I n s t i t u t i o n a l Student Appeal 179  55.  Specification o f Time I n t e r v a l s Wishing to I n i t i a t e Reviews  56.  Comparison of the Frequency of Hearings i n G o l d e n s Study as Compared w i t h t h i s Study  for Students or Appeals..180  1  57.  Comparison o f Use o f A d v i s o r s Study Versus t h i s Study xi  in  181  Golden's ...183  Table  P  a  8  e  58.  Comparison i n Use o f Evidence and Witnesses Between Golden's Study and T h i s Study...183  59.  Comparison o f Use o f R e c o r d i n g H e a r i n g Proceedings Between Golden's and the P r e s e n t Study...  185  Model Component Emphasis at Each L e v e l o f Review or H e a r i n g  187  60. 61.  Frequency of Program Respondent's R e p o r t i n g the P r o v i s i o n o f the Steps as O u t l i n e d i n the Flow Model o f Judgments or Reviews..189  62.  Summary o f Reviews or Hearings i n Institutions  63.  196  Number o f Programs P r o v i d i n g L e v e l s o f Hearings or Reviews  64.  Outcomes o f Reviews or Hearings  65.  Type o f I n s t i t u t i o n From Which  197 198 External  Appeals Arose  199  66.  Agency.Hearing Students' E x t e r n a l Appeals ... 200  67.  Students' Reasons f o r Requesting E x t e r n a l Appeal Rate o f Cases per 100 Student Enrollments i n 1978 Rate o f Cases per 100 Student Enrollments i n 1979  203  Rate o f Cases per 100 Student Enrollments i n 1980  204  Rate o f Cases per 100 Student Enrollments i n 1981  205  Rate o f Cases per 100 Student Enrollments i n 1982  206  68. 69. 70. 71. 72.  xii  201 202  Table 73. 74.  75. 76. 77. 78. 79.  Page Rate o f Cases per 100 Student i n 1983  Enrollments  Rate o f Cases per 100 Student i n 1984  Enrollments  Rate o f Cases per 100 Student i n 1985  Enrollments  Rate o f Cases per 100 Student i n U n s p e c i f i e d Years  Enrollments  Rate of.Cases per 100 Student i n A l l Years  Enrollments  207 207  208 209  S i m i l a r i t y i n Rate o f Cases Across the P r o v i n c e s by Type o f I n s t i t u t i o n  209 211  Summary of Reviews or Hearings i n a l l Types of I n s t i t u t i o n s Throughout the Provinces . 214 :  80. 81.  Heads o f N u r s i n g Programs as Members o f Hearing or Review Panels  223  Comparison o f Number o f F o c i Reviews were D i r e c t e d at f o r Three L e v e l s o f Hearings  225  xiii  LIST OF FIGURES Figure  Page  1.  Judgment Model  ,  2.  I n i t i a l Review o f D e c i s i o n  75  3.  Second L e v e l of Review  76  4.  T h i r d L e v e l o f Review  78  5.  E x t e r n a l Review of D e c i s i o n  79  6.  Flow Model o f Judgments/Reviews  81  7.  Data G e n e r a t i o n Model  87  xiv  72  1  CHAPTER  1  INTRODUCTION  Background  Nurse concern about  educators  regarding  t h e i r  showing and  an  from  unsafe  c o n f l i c t i n g develop  d e c i s i o n s  r i g h t s  r a t i o n a l i z e  each  (a)  r i g h t s  student  u s u a l l y  r i g h t s  performance;  to  and  program  standards  provide  safe  s e t to a (c)  the  the  f a i r  make  t h e i r  i n f l u e n c e s i n  are  r i g h t  to  with  maintenance to  t r i a d  judgments By  students  p u b l i c  This  f a i r  nursing  of  program  p r o t e c t i o n  of  p o t e n t i a l l y  i n s t i t u t i o n s an  attempt  to  to  r i g h t s :  evaluate and  student e q u i t a b l e  i n s t i t u t i o n a l  which  nursing  of  procedures  of  to  I n s t i t u t i o n s  p r a c t i t i o n e r s .  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  f a c u l t y  nursing  about of  heightened  performance.  awareness  r i g h t  a  r i g h t s  e v a l u a t i o n s .  the  Problem  developing legal  concerned  and  the  c l i n i c a l  i n c r e a s i n g  are  standards  t h e i r  these  reasonable  programs  are  students'"  q u e s t i o n i n g  to  assure  c a r e ' t o  a p p r a i s a l  r i g h t s  that  the  performance;  to  graduates  p u b l i c .  (b)  of  maintain can  2  Faculty  r i g h t s  nursing  e d u c a t i o n ,  a  p r a c t i c a l  to  evaluate  requirements  experience of  graduation  requirements.  c l i n i c a l  a b i l i t y  p r a c t i c a l  s e t t i n g .  e v a l u a t i o n t h a t  of  negative  p e r c e p t i o n s c h a l l e n g e d  c l i n i c a l  to  t h i s  i s  i s  one  of  t h e o r e t i c a l  knowledge  i t s  very  and  and  are  the in  a  nature, i s  so  s u b j e c t i v e  v u l n e r a b l e  thus  the  during  determine  highly  grievance  i n c l u d e  performance  experience  are  program  to  of  c l i n i c a l  In  S u c c e s s f u l  assessed  Because  u n f a i r n e s s  through  the  experience  apply  d e c i s i o n s  of  of  Student  experience  s t u d e n t ' s  performance.  component.  completion  the  that  student  to  f r e q u e n t l y  appeal  systems.  The  growing  e v a l u a t i v e f a i l  a  component. fear  that  w i l l  be  or  d e c i s i o n s  students  achieved  i n  who  in  passing This the  i s  about  c o u r t s .  q u e s t i o n i n g  in  a  judgment  of  f a c u l t y  the  standard  concern  at  student  r e s u l t i n g  p r o f e s s i o n a l  overturned  the  concern  in  i s  the  f u r t h e r judgment  higher  l e v e l s  r e l u c t a n c e  c l i n i c a l  have  of to not  experience  r e i n f o r c e d  by  a  of  the  educator  in  the  i n s t i t u t i o n  3  Student  r i g h t s  performance• and  nursing  students  s t u d e n t s . to  Columbians  n u r s i n g  students  that  they  at  Many,  school  complete  the  l e v e l  t e a c h i n g  or  are  nursing  with  an  This in  of  the  nursing  example,  the  ages  at  average  age  than  have  recent  example,  have  l e f t  l i m i t e d  own  age  r i s k  Older  b u r s a r i e s  These  a p p r a i s a l  t h e i r  programs.  y e a r s ) .  for on  r i g h t s  28  program.  and  age  C o l l e g e  more  set  range  (for  of  i n d i v i d u a l  nursing  wider  i n c r e a s i n g  have  to  on  average  Douglas  on  students.  a  was  r e t u r n  comparable  in  a p p r a i s a l  longer  of  1984  graduates.  is  no  in  school  of  can  The  be  focus  impacts  r e s u l t e d  seems  e q u i t a b l e  admission  B r i t i s h  feel  two  programs  has  nursing  had  for  l e g i s l a t i o n  and  i n c r e a s i n g  has  r e s t r i c t i o n s  of  f a i r  The  freedoms  F i r s t ,  to  of  students high  jobs  expect  performance of  to  to  students  e x p e c t a t i o n s  of  a  which  the  program.  Second,  the  a l l  i n s t i t u t i o n s  the  q u a l i t y  being  of  p u b l i c  c h a l l e n g e d programs  by  p u b l i c  as  a  whole  p r o v i d i n g  a  s e r v i c e  that  s e r v i c e .  i n s t i t u t i o n s , students  i n c l u d i n g  t e a c h i n g  demanding be  and  q u a l i t y  for  i n s t i t u t i o n s ,  i n c r e a s i n g l y  the  that  accountable  Educational  are  about  i s  of  s u p e r v i s i o n  being t h e i r provided  by  4  t h e i r  f a c u l t i e s .  greater  Such  frequency  s u b j e c t i v e students  in  d e c i s i o n s  assessment  of  those  o v e r t u r n i n g upon of  the  t h e i r  to  c o n s i s t e n c y  of  and  procedures  I n s t i t u t i o n a l  of  the  the  are  r i g h t s  to  and  implement  systems  to  p r o t e c t  of  academic  implement serve  as  in  grievances  the  seems  own  grieve  and  in  to  be  dependent the  degree  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  m a i n t a i n are  time  the  program  faced  s t r u c t u r e s  the  need  grievance  and  appeal  p r o c e d u r e s ,  of  i s  a  and  very  these  need  are  This  few  to  student  l i m i t e d  student  Therefore,  the  there  models.  f a c u l t y ,  there  area  with  standards.  with  a p p e a l s .  faced  a p p r o p r i a t e  t h e i r  judgment,  of  student  and  between  and may  If  a p p l i c a b l e .  present  are  of  with  are  success  i n s t i t u t i o n a l ,  research  a d m i n i s t r a t o r s  they  o r i g i n a l  kinds  develop  amount  e v a l u a t o r s  a p p l i c a t i o n  that  the  by  there  occur  d i s c r e p a n c i e s  d e c i s i o n s  i n s t i t u t i o n s  At  be  to  performance.  Students'  E d u c a t i o n a l  r i g h t s .  where  performances,  d e c i s i o n s .  f a i r n e s s  seems  students'  made  e v a l u a t i v e  p r o c e d u r e s , and  of  there  e v a l u a t i v e  appeal  programs  a p p r a i s a l s  p e r c e i v e  q u e s t i o n i n g  to  when  develop  g u i d e l i n e s  absence  of  and to  models  5  also  prevents  s t r u c t u r e both  of  the  accumulation  grievance  i n s t i t u t i o n a l  and  and  i n t e n t  of  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e Canadian  t h e i r for  c l i n i c a l  e f f e c t i v e n e s s  p r a c t i c e .  several 1.  of  education  In  E x p l o r a t i o n  of  s t r u c t u r e s  and  to  procedures  the  to  with  students  and  a n a l y s i s  the  for  the  the  in  respect  to  aspects  of  o v e r a l l  problem,  These  are:  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e in  Canadian  nursing  c l i n i c a l  f a i l u r e  of  s t r u c t u r e s  presence  the  recommendations  i d e n t i f i e d .  procedures  what  determine  t h i s  e x i s t i n g  d e a l i n g  address  e x i s t  with  derive  been  programs  procedures  to  study  have  which  determine  programs  then  order  sub-problems  to  a p p e a l s ,  and  systems  the  Problem  i s  and  about  r i g h t s .  the  study  s t r u c t u r e s  nursing  assessment  of  t h i s  data  appeal  student  Statement  The  of  these or  absence  of  of and  s e l e c t e d  elements. 2.  Determination  of  c l i n i c a l  f a i l u r e  o c c u r r e d  in  1984  the  and  procedures  the  frequency  grievances  Canadian  which  they  of  nursing  appeals  i n s t i t u t i o n s  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n  under  and  of  from  which 1978  s t r u c t u r e s  arose.  student have to and  I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f c a s e s w i t h known o u t c o m e s the  s t r u c t u r e s and  procedures under which  and  they  arose. D e t e r m i n a t i o n of the between:  (a)  the  s t r u c t u r e and grievances  and  grievances  and  Exploration issues  r e l a t i o n s h i p s among  elements of  procedures, appeals,  the  incidence  (c) the  substantive  and  performance w i t h  e l e m e n t s - w h i c h must be such  outcomes  of  procedural  to a d m i n i s t r a t i v e reviews  s t u d e n t c o m p l a i n t s about e v a l u a t i v e clinical  of  appeals.  of the  relating  administrative  (b)  and  and  the  of  decisions  specification  included  of  of  in guidelines  for  reviews.  D e v e l o p m e n t o f a s e t o f recommended s t r u c t u r e s p r o c e d u r e s , based upon the knowledge d e r i v e d the  data  practices  from  analyzed.  D e t e r m i n a t i o n of d i f f e r e n c e s between the conceptual  an  J u d g m e n t P r o c e s s M o d e l and i n nursing  programs.  study's  actual  7  Overview  The of  a  u n d e r l y i n g  survey  e x c e p t i o n o b t a i n  of  of  data  students the  Canadian  Quebec  in  and  to  nursing  the  and  appeal  then  Judgment  of  in  be  j u s t i c e  compared  i n s t i t u t i o n s serve  found natural  in  (or  to due  education  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g  w i l l  academic  p e r t a i n i n g  nursing  then  Process  to  with  assess  p r o v i d i n g j u s t i c e  the  when  in  Legal  of  programs.  This  with  c l i n i c a l  l e g a l  r u l e s  of  students  in  w i l l  Canadian  comparison  common with  the  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  found  students  the  d e c i s i o n s  and  of  in  for  c u r r e n t l y  adequacy  faced  and  provide  law)  academic  nursing  w i l l  a p p l i c a t i o n  programs.  nursing  w i t h i n  s t u d y ' s  l i t e r a t u r e  process  the  of  Model.  d i s m i s s a l s  p r a c t i c e s  with  the  to  and  e v a l u a t i o n  p r a c t i c e s  to  l e g a l  the  the  processes  These  compared  secondary  student  d e c i s i o n s natural  and  be  with  p r a c t i c e s  grievance  can  c o n s i s t s  q u e s t i o n n a i r e s  c l i n i c a l  e x p e r i e n c e s  area  using  the  i n s t i t u t i o n .  study  programs,  to  and  Primary  t h i s  programs'  program  conceptual  Method  of  programs,  r e l a t i o n to  the  foundation  r e l a t e d  experience  of  p r a c t i c e s  t h e i r  r i g h t  d i s m i s s a l .  to  8  D e f i n i t i o n  mean  For  the  purposes  the  f o l l o w i n g :  ADMINISTRATIVE a c t i o n ,  both  t h i s  PROCEDURES:  w r i t t e n  i n d i v i d u a l s  of  w i t h i n  and  an  of  Terms  study,  terms  p r e s c r i b e d  u n w r i t t e n ,  i n s t i t u t i o n  used  courses  designed through  w i l l  of  to  guide  frameworks  or  s t r u c t u r e s .  ADMINISTRATIVE  STRUCTURES:  an  which  i n s t i t u t i o n  the  an  a  complaint  i n j u s t i c e  W h i t e c l e g ,  d i r e c t i o n  p r i n c i p l e s to  members  i n of  a c c o r d i n g  a  .  done  legal  to  CAPRICIOUS: abruptly  to  a  by  s u p e r i o r an  court  i n f e r i o r  one  (or  t r i b u n a l )  (Mozley  and  1988).  ARBITRARY:  211)  provide  and  o r g a n i z a t i o n .  APPEAL: of  p o l i c i e s  and  reason  a  legal without  term  meaning  or  judgment"  term  meaning  apparent  "not  done  (Guralnik  "tending  reason"  or  not  1982,  to  a c t i n g 211).  change  (Guralnik  1982,  9  CLINICAL meet  c l i n i c a l  the  OF  s h a l l  s t a t u t e ,  or  or  a  standards  the  r u l e s  of  EQUITABLE  a  deprived  i s  nursing  which of  FAIR:  u n p r e j u d i c e d ,  student  may  r e s u l t  h i s / h e r  normal  to i n  or  of  GRIEVANCE  OR  gives  JUDGMENT:  any  to  r i g h t  the  mean  granted  matter i n  that  no  him  by  c h a l l e n g e d  accordance  with  a  from and  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ; j u s t  judgment  (Guralnik  made  based  1982,  on  5 0 2 ) .  the  COMPLAINT: ground  f o r  a u t h o r i t y  to  an  i n j u r y ,  complaint  compare  performance  i n j u s t i c e (Vasan,  and  a g a i n s t  make  or  wrong  1980).  d e c i s i o n s  pre-determined  s t a n d a r d s .  d e c i s i o n s  worth  performance.  i n d i v i d u a l ' s  JUDICIAL  by  j u s t i c e .  i m p a r t i a l ,  DECISION:  of  used  a d j u d i c a t e d  free  EVALUATIVE  term  u n l e s s  f i r s t  natural  AND  q u a l i t y  legal  o t h e r w i s e ,  i n d i v i d u a l  an  of  t e r m i n a t i o n  LAW:  be  the  which  f a i l u r e  sequence.  PROCESS  person  the  p r a c t i c e  i n t e r r u p t i o n  program  DUE  FAILURE:  INTERVENTION: made  by  a  review  by  the  p u b l i c l y - l e g i s l a t e d  c o u r t s  of  i n s t i t u t i o n s .  about  10  NATURAL  JUSTICE:  ( e q u i v a l e n t  NURSING  to  a  legal  term  PROGRAM:  a  "due  basic  necessary  competencies  w r i t e  nursing  the  P R O G R A M - - B A S IC  program  ( o f f e r e d  provides  requirements t h e o r e t i c a l student  to  meet  p r o v i n c i a l  program  which  a  the  nursing  law").  student  provides  to  BACCALAUREATE: i n  and  be  the  e l i g i b l e  to  examination.  a  a  nursing  u n i v e r s i t y  c r e d i t  courses  b a c c a l a u r e a t e  knowledge  Canada  i n  f o r  s u f f i c i e n t a  i n  process  g e n e r a l l y  f o r  used  r e g i s t r a t i o n  NURSING  which  term  degree  c l i n i c a l  r e g i s t r a t i o n a s s o c i a t i o n  s e t t i n g ) to  as  meet well  p r a c t i c e  f o r  requirements i n  the  as a  of  province  the  i n  q u e s t i o n .  NURSING be a  PR0GRAM--DIPL0MA:  provided student  p r o v i n c i a l  i n  to  a  v a r i e t y  meet  the  nursing  a of  nursing  program  i n s t i t u t i o n s  r e g i s t r a t i o n  a s s o c i a t i o n  i n  which  which  requirements the  province  can  prepares of  the  i n  q u e s t i o n .  PRIMARY t r i a l s  LEGAL or  LITERATURE:  actual  w r i t t e n  court  room  reports  of  t r a n s c r i p t s legal  of  d e c i s i o n s .  11  PROCEDURAL: proceeding (Black  1  l e g a l  w i t h i n  1979,  SECONDARY the  a  term  the  meaning  l e g a l  LEGAL  of  an  of o r g a n i z a t i o n "  w r i t t e n  of  l e g a l  cases  or  r e l a t i n g  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  or  a n a l y s i s  of  areas  of of  aw.  (Gurlnik  "of  as  d i s t i n g u i s h e d  1982,  This  study  which  i s  l i m i t e d  provide  e i t h e r  b a c c a l a u r e a t e Grievances p e r i o d  This  by  study  from  r i g h t s  l e g a l  and  procedures"  the  to  educational  u n t i l  respondents  be  1985  and  to  f u r t h e r  i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s  i n  the  they  are  or  w i l l  be  as  Study  i n s t i t u t i o n s  b a s i c  programs.  appeals  1978  of  w i l l  "appeal"  l e g a l  diploma  nursing  and  from  reported  to  1420).  L i m i t a t i o n s  3.  r i g h t s  LITERATURE:  s i g n i f i c a n c e  p r i n c i p l e s  2.  method  1083)  SUBSTANTIVE:  1.  "a  to  t h i s  terms  to  those  the  time  cases  study.  l i m i t e d  by  d e f i n i t i o n a l  " g r i e v a n c e "  p e r c e i v e d  i n d i f f e r e n t p r o v i n c e s .  l i m i t e d  or  used  by  and programs  12  This  4.  s t u d y ' s  l i m i t e d  5.  to  primary  found  in  Legal  d e c i s i o n s  provide in  from  v a r i a t i o n s  t h i s  between  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  p r i n c i p l e s  in  a s s i s t are  study  educators  part  of  promotion model  w i l l  any  of  a  in  developed  and  i n c r e a s e d  components  of  a  are  not  does  not  be  not  reported  reviewed  of  a p p l i c a t i o n Quebec, in  the  other  and  which  who  because  or  and  of  a  the  with  t h e o r e t i c a l the  awareness  of  common Canada.  r e g a r d i n g the  expected of  reasonable  model  to  components  S p e c i f i c a l l y , i s  a p p l i c a t i o n  Study  d e c i s i o n  study  p o t e n t i a l  provinces  the  were  of  accordance  understanding  an  judge  w i l l  law  t h i s  a  study  provide  f a c i l i t a t e  f a i r  by  programs  e v a l u a t i v e  for  j o u r n a l s .  n u r s i n g  in  student.  be  w r i t i n g s  with  S i g n i f i c a n c e  This  legal  w i l l  study.  the  law  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  law  legal  t h i s  i n f o r m a t i o n  secondary  sources  i n s t i t u t i o n s  excluded  of  and  reasons  legal for  legal  rendered  w r i t t e n  primary  Quebec  of  e d u c a t i o n a l  c o n s i d e r e d 6.  review  the  which  the  judgment to three  e v a l u a t i o n  of  13  a student.  An u n d e r s t a n d i n g  o f t h e components w i l l , i t  i s h o p e d , p r o m o t e an i n c r e a s e d k n o w l e d g e o f b o t h t h e r o l e o f and d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g  powers u n d e r t a k e n  reviewers of a student's complaint will  by t h e  at each l e v e l .  This  be o f p a r t i c u l a r s i g n i f i c a n c e t o p r o g r a m s w h i c h  have a p r a c t i c u m or c l i n i c a l A t t h e same t i m e n u r s e with a heightened administrative  component. educators w i l l  understanding  of the r o l e  law p l a y s i n r e l a t i o n t o s t u d e n t  complaints regarding c l i n i c a l S u c h an a w a r e n e s s w i l l literature pertaining T h i s study  be p r o v i d e d  evaluation  decisions.  r e s u l t from the r e v i e w o f to the t o p i c of t h i s  i s also expected  study.  t o p r o v i d e an  analysis  o f a s a m p l e o f g r i e v a n c e r e v i e w s , a p p e a l h e a r i n g s , and external  appeals.  particular their  Hence, t h i s  importance  t o nurse  outcome w i l l educators  be o f  i n relation to  p e r c e i v e d v u l n e r a b i l i t y t o l e g a l a c t i o n by  s t u d e n t s whom t h e y h a v e  failed.  A n o t h e r outcome o f t h i s guidelines  study w i l l  be a s e t o f  p e r t a i n i n g t o g r i e v a n c e and a p p e a l  hearings.  14  These  g u i d e l i n e s  i n s t i t u t i o n s procedures  Only  area.  A  for  a  attempted  framework  and  programs.  s t u d i e s  w i l l  carry  current  of  an  e x p l o r a t o r y  study  in  a  p o l i c i e s  w i l l  for  "mapping"  the  and-  and/or  provided  t h i s  i s  both  p r o v i s i o n  of  the  w i t h i n  those  w i t h i n that  of  a  present  during  performance  i n v e s t i g a t i o n  be  Canadian  used  l e v e l s  expected  can  unresearched  the  students'  subsequent  It  be  u t i l i z e d  of  nature  p r e v i o u s l y  outcome  review  d e c i s i o n s ,  educational  above.  S p e c i f i c a l l y  s e t t i n g s  nursing  by  t h e i r  p r a c t i c e s  programs.  f o r m u l a t i o n  these  the  t h i s  and  used  evaluate  s i g n i f i c a n t  s t r u c t u r e s  c l i n i c a l  be  beginning by  beginning  nursing  to  may  the in  of  reviews,  and  without  subsequent f u r t h e r .  of  15  CHAPTER  REVIEW  The areas:  l i t e r a t u r e  health  d e c i s i o n s United in  and  legal  to  These  l i t e r a t u r e  l i t e r a t u r e s i x  are  drawn  from  e d u c a t i o n ,  i n  both  i n  four  legal  Canada  presented  S c i e n c e s  from  education r e v e a l s  f a c t o r s  assessment  of  i d e n t i f i e d . to  was  and  three  the  s e c t i o n s  chapter.  nursing  area  LITERATURE  higher  w r i t i n g s  Health  The  THE  surveyed  s c i e n c e s ,  S t a t e s .  t h i s  OF  2  e v a l u a t i o n  two  appear  process  second  and  p r i m a r i l y analyzed,  areas.  In  p o t e n t i a l l y  c l i n i c a l  the  i s  When  general  which  i n  area  programs.  students' And  t h i s  L i t e r a t u r e  t h i s  the to  f i r s t a f f e c t  performance area  review  three  were  r e l a t e d  foci  the  were r e l a t e d  i d e n t i f i e d .  16 F a c t o r s  A f f e c t i n g  Assessment  of  Students'  C l i n i c a l  Performance^'  These s e l e c t e d  f a c t o r s  to  measure  r e l a t i o n s h i p c l i n i c a l  are:  (1)  the  students'"  between  the  performance  p a r t i c u l a r  performance;  complexity  e x p e c t a t i o n s  and  a p p r a i s a l s ;  e x p e c t a t i o n s  of  students''  p r o f e s s i o n a l  evaluators1'  e x p e r t i s e  in  r e l i a b i l i t y c l i n i c a l  (5) of  Each  d i s t o r t i o n s  t u r n ,  in  to  i n e q u i t a b l e  S e l e c t i o n Many which  of  w r i t e r s  charges  e v a l u a t i v e  v a r i a b l e s have  e x p e r i e n c e s .  students'  students'"  values lead of  of to  students'  D i s t o r t i o n s  in  a p p r a i s a l s  by  of  u n f a i r  students  may,  in  or  judgments.  to  measure  presented  should  can  p e r c e p t i o n s  1  L  of  of  personal  f a c t o r s  of  i n t r a - r a t e r  assessment  these  e v a l u a t o r s  v a r i a b l e s  c l i n i c a l  of  degree  s o c i a l i z a t i o n ;  assessment  (6)  the  students'"  e v a l u a t o r s  i n t e r - a n d  and  performance.  l e a d  of  e v a l u a t o r s '  performance;  e v a l u a t o r s .  c l i n i c a l  degree  (2)  the  of  performance;  (3)  of  s u b j e c t i v i t y  (4)  v a r i a b l e s  be  i n c o n s i s t e n t  a s s e s s e d  Angus  student  s t a t e s  during that:  performance. views  about  students'-  17 . . . p r o p o n e n t s behavioural assess  the  r a t i n g  (Angus  to  job  1980,  success  i s  i n  p r a c t i c e ,  a c q u i r e  as  from  nursing  ( B e v i l  and  Gross  1981,  (1977)  points  reasoning and  out  p r e o c c u p a t i o n  such  s k i l l s , s k i l l s  with  with  i n  into  the  of  a  course  context  performance but  o b j e c t i v e s  v a r i a b l e s are  which  are  should  should  also  ( F r i s b i e ,  should ( F r i s b i e ,  not  on  be  1979)  to  make  the person"  Adderly  job  s k i l l s  has  students'" assessment  c a u t i o n s s k i l l s .  s k i l l s  be  about  a  She  must  p a t i e n t not  of  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ,  (1978)  of  students'  theory  example,  p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g  i n t e g r a t e d  l a t t e r  to  p r o f e s s i o n a l  problem  Bruner  on  and  emphasis  p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g  deportment  to  For  that  v a r i a b l e s  apply  s k i l l s ,  emphasizes  above  need  behaviours  i n c l u d i n g :  s k i l l s .  hand,  the  dependent  student  preoccupation  other  developed  f a i l u r e .  l e a r n i n g ,  6 5 8 ) .  that  s k i l l s ,  t e c h n i c a l  or  psychomotor  t r a n s i t i o n  p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g  of  being  " i n t e g r a t e  a  express  terms  success  viewed  to  i n  r e c e n t l y  5)  a b i l i t i e s  r e s u l t e d  more  s c a l e s  performance  c r i t i c a l  Job  of  c a r e .  be On  r e s t r i c t e d  the to  the  i n c l u d e  appearance  1979).  However,  these  taught  aspects  graded and  as  the  o v e r a l l  and  18 competency of  t h e i r  of  c o n s i s t e n c y  1983).  A l l  should  students  be  nursing  in  a l l  v a r i a b l e s  have  in  i s  during  with  the  be  measured  performing  there  evaluated  students  should  few  a  s k i l l s  wide  the  w r i t e r s  in  what  experience agreeing  merit  in  basis  (Bondy,  d i s p a r i t y  c l i n i c a l  g r e a t e s t  on  on  for which  a s s e s s i n g  performance.  R e l a t i o n s h i p  between  e x p e c t a t i o n s  and  Assessment is  of  " m u l t i p l e  A  "complex  are  c l i n i c a l complex  r e q u i r e d  numerous  and to  s t e p s ,  students  which use  to  i s  i s  a  nursing of via  complex  which  " m u l t i p l e of  s t r a t e g i e s p a t i e n t s '  must  achieve  plan  and  to  has  some  that  61).  are  Complex  d e c i s i o n  a c t i o n  Evaluation to  students  n u r s i n g ' s  1983,  c o n s i d e r e d  t h e i r  a p p r a i s a l s .  i n c l u d i n g  courses  61).  of  goal  (Sadler  i n v o l v i n g  complex  plan  because  c r i t e r i a  1983,  performance goals  goal"  a l t e r n a t i v e  (Sadler  of  achievement  nature"  those  because  p o s s i b l e "  in  performance,  s u b j e c t i v i t y  d i f f i c u l t  r e q u i r i n g  a b s t r a c t  p o i n t s  Steps  be  of  of  performance  i n t e r l o c k i n g  s t r a t e g i e s  are  to  goals"  s t r a t e g i e s .  h i g h l y  degree  c l i n i c a l  c o n s i d e r e d  "complex  complexity  are  of  students'  r e f l e c t because c a r e ,  s p e c i f i e d implement  both students  using outcomes. these  goals  19 can  be  widely  choose often  to  divergent  s t r e s s  evolve  for  from  based  t h e i r  on  the  emphases  p a t i e n t s .  p s y c h o s o c i a l  These  aspects  of  they emphases  care  p l a n n i n g .  F i v e " c a r i n g  such  about  c o - w o r k e r s ,  goals  p a t i e n t s ,  (Gordon  f r e q u e n t l y  i d e n t i f i e d  s t u d e n t s .  But  educators  were  how  documented gaps  were  students''  when  1978, in  s a i d  be  . . . o b j e c t i v e  a  performed  and  what  performance to  Because  measurement  e x p e r i e n c e  are  s u b j e c t i v e  measurement  to  obtain  problems. good (Wood  d i f f i c u l t  i n f o r m a t i o n Thus  every  i n f o r m a t i o n . 1971,  the  26)  on  of  e f f o r t  of  nursing gap  e v a l u a t o r s  t h i s  1971).  These  nature  of  s u b j e c t i v i t y , c l i n i c a l  o f f s e t  student  of  frequent  develop.  cannot  are  e v a l u a t i o n  s u b j e c t i v e  t o o l s to  goals  (Wood,  of  are:  and  p r a c t i c e s  was  due  performance.  s u b j e c t i v e  e v a l u a t i n g  assess  with  These  there  t h e i r  to  69).  the  a s s e s s e d ,  about  must  r e s o u r c e f u l n e s s ,  the  students  e v a l u a t o r s  c o o p e r a t i v e n e s s  c o n f i d e n c e ,  d e p e n d a b i l i t y "  between  which  The the  r i s k s  n e c e s s i t y  performance  should  be  of  made  and to  get  20 This  problem  the  of  d i f f i c u l t y  S a y l o r  ( 1987  educators'" four  )  Senior  to  conducted  of  soundly  they  b e l i e v e d  a l t e r n a t i v e i n c r e a s i n g  l e s s  a c t i v i t i e s  seems  w h i l e  l e s s at  i n c r e a s e  documenting d i f f i c u l t i e s  the  s p e c i f i c may  also  as  c o l l a b o r a t i o n .  students  s k i l l s  that  r e s u l t  of  sound  they  progress  students  or  that  i n s t r u c t o r s  and  teamwork"  through have  d i f f i c u l t y  in  programs  Documentation the  of  complexity  e v a l u a t o r s  performance. to  as  t e a c h i n g ,  i n c r e a s i n g  be  these  e v a l u a t i o n s  that  d i f f i c u l t y  to  concluded  feedback  that  the  s k i l l s  Saylor  was  reported  suggested  v a l i d  r e l a t e  the  was  c o u n s e l l i n g ,  performance  p r o f i c i e n c y :  p l a n n i n g  t e c h n i c a l  nurse  are  s k i l l s  p r o v i d i n g  f o l l o w s  students  t e c h n i c a l  a  to  i d e n t i f i e d  of  programs.  s k i l l e d  It  j u n i o r  l i k e l y  as  and  and  She  b e l i e v e d  were  expect  students'-  that  they  s o l e l y  b e h a v i o u r s .  i n w h i c h of  due  and  It  nursing  be  p l a n n i n g ,  based.  of  of  l e v e l  e v a l u a t i o n  views  such  118).  to  based,  may  students'"  a  not  e v a l u a t i o n .  t e c h n i c a l  complexity  in  "students  (1987,  t h e i r  soundly  study  a c t i v i t i e s  reported  the  may  a f f e c t i v e  toward  demonstrate  l e s s  progress  a  p s y c h o s o c i a l ,  e v a l u a t i o n  be  of  students  most  measuring  a t t i t u d e s  t e c h n i c a l ,  may  of  c a t e g o r i e s  expected  the  documentation  in  in  21 a s s e s s i n g  how  students  McFadden  conducted  c l i n i c a l  d e c i s i o n s .  in  a s s e s s i n g  a  study She  students'  i n f o r m a t i o n  "about  i n f o r m a t i o n  necessary  (1986,  T h e r e f o r e ,  the  4).  goals  with  documenting  how  which  d e c i s i o n s .  with  accurate  performance. . . . i s  are  assessed (Woolley  Thus domain  and  to  a  the  part  of  to  also  from  problem  lack  of  and  process  d e c i s i o n "  deal the  may  a  use  of  problem  lack  be  of  to  in an  make  i n t e r f e r i n g  students'  c l i n i c a l  problem  judgment  whole, and  a  students  of  the  make  complexity  i s  e v a l u a t i o n  the  of  to  the  f a c t o r s  s u b j e c t i v e  students  informed  have  process  These  about  both,  from  those  that  the the  parts  must  be  314)  appears which  aspects  assessment  students'  above  how  p e r c e i v e  is  so  d e c i s i o n s .  i n t u i t i v e l y .  those  of  an  only  but  measurable,  1977,  i t  make  not  i n t e r - r e l a t e d  the  i n d i v i d u a l s  o v e r a l l  meaningfulness that  a t t r i b u t e d  measurement  The  making  assess  students  about  c l i n i c a l  to  c l i n i c a l  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g  performance  understanding  the  formulate  weaknesses,  that are may  goals  composed lead  c l i n i c a l how  in  much  to  the of  a f f e c t i v e several  d i f f i c u l t i e s performance.  weight  should  in  the  Given such  22 e v a l u a t i o n s F a c u l t y which they  should have  are  in  been  only  shown  i n  the  be  Nursing  e x p e r i e n c e s students'  as  i n t e r p r e t e r "  and  v a l i d "  the  promotion  of  e x p e c t a t i o n s  of  s o c i a l i z a t i o n  basis  o b j e c t i v e  of  r a t i n g s before  1980).  performance.  b e h a v i o r a l  " r e l i a b l e  i n s t r u c t o r s  the  promotion?  knowledge  d e t e r m i n a t i o n  p r o f e s s i o n a l  s t u d e n t s .  student  s u b j e c t i v e  to  ( M a r i e n f e l d ,  E v a l u a t o r s '  used  determining  use  used  students  the  have  i s  f r e q u e n t l y  for  t h e i r  "Even  the  dependent  ( B a r r i t t  1970,  use  t h e i r  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  own of  b e s t - d e f i n e d on  the  40).  p e r c e p t i o n  P e r c e p t i o n  of i s  b e c a u s e . . . [t]he  theory  i s  l a c k i n g  a r r i v e  at  minimum  s c o r e ,  or  how  r e f e r e n c e d  to  t e s t  t h a t  s t a n d a r d s , judge  the  would how  t e l l  to  us  set  q u a l i t y  of  a  a  how  to  c r i t e r i o n  c r i t e r i o n -  item.  ( F r i s b i e l 9 7 9 , 6 ) Thus,  no  matter  used,  there  w i l l  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n compare  which  always of  s t u d e n t s  t h e i r  own  t h e i r  students'  1  n u r s i n g -  type  of  be  problems  measurable performance. p r a c t i c e  e v a l u a t i o n in  standards  (Miksanek,  is  accurate by  Educators  experiences  performances  system  which must  to  to rely  on  a d j u d i c a t e  1980).  J u s t  as  23 i n s t r u c t o r s  use  performance,  are of  knowledge  e x p e r i e n c e ,  able  to  Educators1'  on  how  educators  any  own  are  (Curry  e d u c a t i o n a l  the to  the 1981,  "expert that  of  p r e p a r a t i o n  e x p e c t a t i o n beyond  from  accountable  i n s t i t u t i o n  p r a c t i t i o n e r  experience  a r i s e  system,  as  the  e r r o r "  nurses"  1983,  care  but  "most  that  knowledge  for  with  7).  performances  Thus,  a t t i t u d e  own  analyses  Bueno  provide  c a r e .  t h e i r  students  through  (del  to  t h e i r  "expert  students'  a b i l i t y  the  are  "theory  of  provide  a l s o  e d u c a t i o n a l  s t r o n g e s t  who  using  others'  are on  nursing  they  must  and  c l i n i c a l  ( G r i f f i t h  and  105).  C o n f l i c t s  educators  be  a  margin  1983 ,  Educators  may  U n l i k e  a c q u i r e d  without  L  guide.  demonstrate  Bakanauskas  n u r s e s  as  students''  have  competently  1980).  care  e x p e r i e n c e s "  would  assess  provide  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  based  to  a l s o  t h e i r  proven  not  s k i l l s  experience  i n s t r u c t o r s  r e f i n e  p e r s o n a l ,  students  own  students  t h e o r e t i c a l l i m i t e d  t h e i r  of  r o l e  the  to:  various  the  agency, 65).  This  the  moves  accommodate  students''  reasonable  the  employing  c o n f l i c t  i n s t r u c t o r . to  (Angus,  p a r t i e s  student,  and  nurse"  c o n f l i c t s  from  i s  the  r o l e  of  Without t h i s  p r o f e s s i o n a l  e x p e c t a t i o n  of  t r a n s i t i o n , behaviour performance  24 at  s p e c i f i c  1986,  l e v e l s  95).  a s s i s t e d e d u c a t o r ,  t h e i r  the  assessment  be  to  e x p e r t i s e  w r i t e r s  One  of  d i f f e r e n t  p h i l o s o p h i e s  Thus,  s o l e l y  system,  d i f f i c u l t y  to  are  " i n a d e q u a t e l y  s u b j e c t i v i t y  assessments" nursing  p r e p a r a t i o n  (Wood  with  of  s u b j e c t  prepared 1971, do  students  I n s t e a d . . . . " n u r s i n g other matter  and  of  new  the  has  the  for  not in  to  the  a  task  appear  e x p e r t i s e  but  both  of  these  i n e f f e c t i v e  to.  have  1980,  12).  with may  reasons  the have  c i t e d  i n s t r u c t o r s of  programs  provide  i n s t r u c t i o n . c o n t r o v e r s i a l  h i r i n g not  who  w r i t i n g  graduate  the  of  use  (Angus  and  c l i n i c a l  d i s c i p l i n e s  with  program  Most  adopted  t o o l s -  o r g a n i z a t i o n s  Other  21).  o b j e c t i v e  f a m i l i a r i t y  t o o l s , in  t h e i r  weaknesses  e v a l u a t i o n " lack  to  r o l e  assessment  s t u d e n t s . of  education of  of  d i f f e r e n t  members  e v a l u a t i n g  the  p r a c t i c e  of  been  performance.  advanced  "that  t h e i r  f a c u l t y  are  for  is  have  p r a c t i t i o n e r  with  t o o l s  reasons  systems  new  use  (Infante  educators from  c l i n i c a l  the  program  personal  i d e n t i f i e d  a p p r a i s a l  due  t h e i r  assessment  the  more  i n t e r f e r e  in  have  of  the  t r a n s i t i o n  students'  s t r u c t u r e  t o o l s .  e d u c a t i o n a l  l i k e l y  w i l l  of  E v a l u a t o r  r o l e  l e s s  e x p e c t a t i o n s  the  the  Consequently, in  Several  in  i n d i v i d u a l s teacher  25 p r e p a r a t i o n "  (Karuhije  i n s t r u c t o r s important 288). not  new;  viewed  by  t h e i r  issue  of  e x p e r t i s e  problem,  only  i f  d i f f i c u l t  to  adequately  then  the  of  c l i n i c a l  i s  educators  of  and  performance,  on  the  The  c l i n i c a l w i t h i n  d i s c u s s i o n  experience  that  t h e i r i t  of  to  most 1985,  be  a  assessment  t o o l s  educators  are  are not  performance of  students''  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , i d e n t i f y  important  not  t h e i r  f a c t o r  in  288).  r e l i a b i l i t y  q u e s t i o n  a r i s e s both  groups.  i n f l u e n c e  assumed  to  more 308).  a p p r a i s a l s  the  i s  educators  (1977,  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  could  when  students  student  e v a l u a t i o n  a d j u d i c a t i o n  i n t r a - r a t e r  a p p r a i s a l s .  r e l i a b i l i t y  open  ( D a v i d h i z a r  i n t e r - a n d  one  1985,  approaches  student  a c c u r a t e  as  various  nurse  assess  f a c t  i n s t r u c t o r  success  e a r l i e r  the  performance  c l i n i c a l  Degree  to  most  ( D a v i d h i z a r  developed"  i f  the  y e a r s . . . .  c l i n i c a l  and  as  c l i n i c a l  c l i n i c a l  the  each  was  develop  w i t h s t a n d i n g  t h e i r  drop  e f f e c t i v e  prepared  c l i n i c a l l y , c l i n i c a l  to  in  embraced  a l t e r n a t i v e  T h e r e f o r e ,  success  w r o t e , " o v e r  e n t h u s i a s t i c a l l y  Yet,  students  in  Woolley  promising  144).  f a c t o r  The  have the  are  1986,  as  of  student  to  the  between  C o n s i d e r i n g of of  that  e v a l u a t o r s  the 1  own  students1' there  i s  a  strong  26 p r o b a b i l i t y  for  i n t e r - r a t e r  r e l i a b i l i t y .  l i k e  to  b e l i e v e  Given  the  and  educator  would  l i k e  reach  the  provided  and  nursing  to  also  greater  r e l i a b i l i t y dependent assessed  on and  o b s e r v a t i o n s  of  the  e v a l u a t i o n competent  to  assume  would  a  nurse  that  any  u l t i m a t e l y  study  s u b j e c t i v e  or  They  Having  and  improve  1978,  22).  found  i n t e r  and  T h e r e f o r e , a p p r a i s a l s  c l a r i t y  of  c l i n i c a l  to  e x p e r t i s e  these  used  not  in i n t r a - r a t e r the  seems  making  o b j e c t i v e s .  i s  to  i n s t r u c t o r s  degree to  o b j e c t i v e s in  as  seemed  outcomes  C l i n i c a l  of  r e l a t e d  were  t r a i n i n g  in  t h a t ,  a p p r a i s a l s  v a l i d i t y  i n s t r u c t o r s '  the  e v a l u a t i o n s  stated  r e l i a b i l i t y .  to  of  outcomes  s u b j e c t i v e  e x p e r t i s e  s k i l l s  and  would  43)  programs.  260).  ensure  (Irby  able  out  o b j e c t i v e s  s u f f i c i e n t  r e l i a b i l i t y "  educators  the  educator  c a r r i e d  v a l i d i t y  (1973,  o b s e r v a t i o n a l  be  1987,  c r i t e r i o n , "  r e l i a b l e  "need  to  others  " s t a t e d  ranking  and  c o n c l u s i o n .  W i l h i t e  b a c c a l a u r e a t e  i n t r a -  c o n t r a s t  data,  nurse  same  and  both  o b j e c t i v e s ,  i d e n t i c a l  competent  r e l i a b i l i t y  be  course  other  and  In  of  that:  c r i t e r i a  Johnson  standards  same  (Brozenec  the  low  of  be to  be  27 I n f l u e n c e  of  personal  a p p r a i s a l s . can so  tinge can  1985;  J u s t t h e i r  can  and  lead  s t u d e n t s .  Heater  t h e i r  t h e i r  students  these  d i f f e r e n c e s  p e r s o n a l i t i e s i n f l u e n c e  t h e i r  Teachers that  of  students  i d e n t i f y  d i f f e r e n t  explore  what  i s  own  c o n f l i c t "  by  s i t u a t i o n s from  the  and  o t h e r s ,  e v a l u a t o r s  and  students  f a l l i b l e  than  more  human  those basis  1987).  beings  e f f e c t i v e l y  o t h e r s .  What  c o n f l i c t "  m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g  that  (Jenkins  i n s t r u c t o r s '  (Brozenec  -work  " p e r s o n a l i t y  i s  between  s i t u a t i o n  d i f f e r e n t l y .  (deTornyay  1985,  Consequently,  systems  of of The  f r e q u e n t l y  i n t e r a c t i o n s :  are  they  to  are  performance,  " p e r s o n a l i t y  to  c l i n i c a l  experiences  students''  Thus,  of  on  p r a c t i c e  value  need  p e r c e p t i o n s and  e v a l u a t o r s  1983).  charges  I n s t r u c t o r s  where  of  personal  to  of  e v a l u a t o r s '  assessments  e v a l u a t o r s ' Fowler  values  as  values  i s  with  most  some  commonly  u s u a l l y two  and  r e a l i z e  types  of  termed  a  a  persons  who  view  a  313)  educators  need  to  t h e i r  personal  value  e v a l u a t i o n  p r o c e s s ,  e s p e c i a l l y  be  systems in  aware can  of  have  the  impact  during  s i t u a t i o n s  where  the they  28 have  d i f f i c u l t y  students'"  Foci  performance  Related  A  to  broader  three  p r o c e s s ,  (b)  e v a l u a t i v e  to a  not  and  approaches  and  (c)  Review  l i t e r a t u r e  grievances  the  e v a l u a t i o n  c r i t i c a l He  review  cautioned  a p p r o p r i a t e students  standard  that  r e p r e s e n t i n g t o l e r a t e d "  to  and  i d e n t i f i e d  the  e v a l u a t i o n  appeals  l e g a l  of  i m p l i c a t i o n s  to  each  (1983, of  p o s i t i o n  was  the  8 ) .  of  a  also  a t t a i n  and  and  to  (1983,  the  by  and  he  nursing  low  v a l i d a t e  l e v e l  the  minimum  scores  advocated  base  t e s t s  or  [could]  Bondy,  to  programs  not  who for  student  [be]  the  approaches:  common  i n s t r u c t o r ,  381).  as  competency  supported  approaches  norm-referenced  competence  Instead  are  Thorne  several  c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d  student  s e l f - e v a l u a t e  of  n u r s i n g ,  "have must  c r i t e r i a  performance"  for  p r o c e s s .  that  i n s u f f i c i e n t  adoption  between  (a)  student  e v a l u a t i o n .  "when  :  the  p a r t i c u l a r  1983).  Process  of  of  e v a l u a t i o n s .  presented  r e q u i r e  E v a l u a t i o n  f o c i  aspects  ( C a r p e n i t o ,  d e c i s i o n s ,  Approaches  were  p o s i t i v e  a n a l y s i s  general  student  f i n d i n g  his  argued  that  d i s c u s s i o n l e a r n s  s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n s  of  to  29  Thorne mastery  (1983)  l e a r n i n g  a l s o  to  Such  students  expected  need is  to  determine  avoided.  only  l e a r n i n g  ( 1983 )  suggesting  e v a l u a t i o n .  B a r r i t t due  students''  performances.  . . . . e v e n  to  the  dependent Rather  than  should  behavior  which  been  Based which  approach  course  grades  e x i s t s . a  To  wide  a i s and  v a r i e t y  of  as  study  conducted no  c l i n i c a l t h i s of  or  not  the courses  are  not  supported  the to  such  a p p r a i s a l s  an  of  t h a t :  the  o b j e c t i v e  i s  i n t e r p r e t e r .  on  s u b j e c t i v e  what  about  the  h e r . . . . b e h a v i o r  c o n s i s t e n t  nursing  1970,  of  approaches  i n s t r u c t o r ' s  I r i o n  overcome  in  c o n c e n t r a t e  i d e n t i f i e d  )  system  behavioral  i n d i c a t e s  used,  (1983  stated  the  p r o f e s s i o n a l  and  on  They  whether  c l i n i c a l  (1970)  p e r c e p t i o n  s t u d e n t ' s  ( B a r r i t t  Bondy  I r i o n  j u s t i f y i n g  f i r s t - l e v e l  for  s u b j e c t i v i t y  the  we  has  an.d  on  Consequently,  grades  b e s t - d e f i n e d  on  v a l u e s . . . .  for  the  based  nongrading  and  approach,  i s  a p p l i c a t i o n  knowledge  outcomes.  s p e c i f i c  Thorne  w r i t e r s  the  s e l f - d i r e c t e d  a c q u i s i t i o n . meet  d i s c u s s e d  with  p r a c t i c e .  40)  by  H i l t o n ,  r e l a t i o n s h i p experience  problem,  t e s t i n g  she  no  matter  between  theory  e v a l u a t i o n s suggests  procedures  in  "a  order  need to  30 get to  a  f u l l  p i c t u r e  n u r s i n g "  A t o o l s  (1980,  f u r t h e r  to  of  meet  the  s t u d e n t s  problem  H i l t o n  provides  f a c i l i t a t e  more  L  s  r e l a t e s  examples  e f f e c t i v e  of  1983)  use  ( E g o v i l l e ,  1979),  W r i t e r s  r e l a t e d have  measuring  been  than  the  i d e n t i f i e d  more  the  permit  the  of  the  She  educator  and  and  when  performance  a p p r a i s i n g  Brozenec, that  these  M a r s h a l l , c l i n i c a l  the  three  domains  and  a f f e c t i v e .  of  Thomas,  (1979, and  c r i t e r i a  l e a r n i n g :  However,  when  f o r  of be  able as  and  course  4 3 ) .  1).  to  Strong  c r i t e r i a  was which  performance  the  Walsh  should  the  l i m i t e d  content  student as  with  been  should  1987,  c o n s i s t e n t l y "  students1'  c r i t e r i a  " c l i n i c a l  evaluate  comprehensively  with  framework  others  to  development.  c r i t i c a l  i d e n t i f i e d to  has  tool  " . . . .  conceptual  of  a p p r a i s a l  c r i t e r i a  (Brozenec  s p e c i f i c .  actual  the  developed  there  f o r  of  Although  experience  p r e o c c u p i e d  the  l e a r n i n g i n  o b j e c t i v e s "  more  These  s e l e c t i o n  t o o l s  and  c r i t e r i a  with  performance. measure  to  the  documentation  ( S t a i n t o n ,  research  to  s p e c i f i c a t i o n s .  performances t o o l s  r e l a t e d  27).  l i t e r a t u r e  of  a b i l i t i e s  L  primary  focus  Moreover (1987)  be  centered  psychomotor, a s s e s s i n g  s p e c i f i e d around  c o g n i t i v e ,  a f f e c t i v e  31 c r i t e r i a ,  " s p e c i f i c  j u s t i f y  c l i n i c a l  students'  -  to  p a t i e n t  safe  44).  i n s t r u c t o r s '  a t t i t u d e s ,  V a r i o u s  i n c l u d i n g :  means  use  o t h e r s ,  of  o b s e r v a t i o n  "complement[s] n o t a t i o n s  i s  b e h a v i o r a l  Two  and  w r i t e r s  performance to  a r e a s ,  t h a t  be  to  the  the  the  the  growth"  i s s u e  of  and  which  i n t e n t  these  a  1 -  expressed  of  of  c l i n i c a l  s e t t i n g ,  a c t i v i t i e s the  to  be  s e t t i n g  Wool l e y  needed  the  l e a r n i n g  c l i n i c a l  l e a r n i n g  6 5 8 ) .  c l i n i c a l  Gross  p o t e n t i a l  s k i l l s  of  student  actual  and  atmosphere  (1981,  notes  s e t t i n g "  " . . . s t u d e n t s  m a t e r i a l s that  B e v i l  w i t h i n  c l i n i c a l  4 5 ) .  the  l e a r n i n g  employed,  documentation  o v e r a l l  c l i n i c a l  beyond  that  The  1979,  1979,  assignments  s h o r t ,  the  r e l a t i o n  i n t e r a c t i o n s ,  w r i t t e n  to  be  student,  anecdotal  a c h i e v a b l e  necessary  conducive  of  can  through  students.  c o n s i d e r i n g  and  the  i n  to  of  E t h i n g t o n  In  looked  of  a v a i l a b l e  t h a t  i n  and  1987).  E t h i n g t o n  i d e n t i f y  o b j e c t i v e s  and  c o n t r i b u t e  p i c t u r e  (Golembiecki  of  . . . . [ e v a l u a t i o n ] . to  e s t a b l i s h e d  i n t e r e s t s  v i d e o t a p i n g  and  be  c o l l e c t i o n  o b s e r v a t i o n  (Brozenec  need  data  s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s ,  d i r e c t  and  ( G o l ernbi e c k i  of  of  must  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s  v a l u e s ,  care"  d i r e c t  s i m u l a t i o n s , student  determinants  be  ( 1977  be )  noted  assessed  32 was  a  constant  h i s t o r y  of  c l i n i c a l  presented enter  an  i n t o  the  processes  u n f a i r  by  have the  which  are  o b j e c t i v e  to  e v a l u a t i o n  process  of  which  c l i n i c a l  e v a l u a t i o n However,  as  b i a s e d  students  and  c l i n i c a l  c l i n i c a l  the  course  37).  a p p r a i s a l s ,  e v a l u a t i o n s  are  c h a l l e n g e d  t h e o r e t i c a l  grades  appeal  e v a l u a t i o n s ,  ( M i l l e r ,  more  f a c u l t y  to  and  Majorowicz,  "the  e f f e c t i v e l y course  and  f i n a l c l i n i c a l  f o l l o w s  commonly  1982).  about  performance  and  i t  W r i t e r s  ensure  c l i n i c a l  Since  force  a r t i c l e s  to  grade  the  d e c i s i o n s .  d e c i s i o n s .  a b i l i t y  A c c o r d i n g  begin  to  p r e s e n t i n g  the  students'  (1986,  s u b j e c t i v e  by  and  a  e v a l u a t i v e  e v a l u a t i v e  grades.  throughout  such  the  w r i t e r s  v a r i a b l e s  r e l i a b l e .  of  l e d  trend  students  e v a l u a t i o n . . . . " c o n t a i n  whole,  p e r c e i v e d  appeals  some  supporting  before  been  have  t h i s  between  c l i n i c a l  c o n t i n u e s  and  process  awarded  s t a r t s  have  the  u t i l i z e and  throughout  students.  review  r e a c t e d  to  On  students'"  need  to  appeared  numerous  of  the  p e r c e p t i o n s  congruence  the  and  g r i e v a n c e s  educators  of  assessment  some  above  has  e v a l u a t i o n .  e v a l u a t i o n s  Student The  which  awareness  performance  c l i n i c a l  thread  When have  a  e v a l u a t i o n s that  these  than students greater  degree  33 of  d i f f i c u l t y  assessments  i n  of  v u l n e r a b i l i t y " . . . t h e on the  the  s u p p o r t i n g  students of of  proof  student  to  show  part  of  the  1982,  3 5 ) .  readers  t h a t ,  although  i n or  r e t e n t i o n  beginning  to  address  and  programs" of  (1978,  awarded  r e p o r t s  grievance  and  "[w]hen  an  between  a  f a i r n e s s r e s o l v e (1981,  both  appeal  the 186).  a  problem  i s  of  an and  f a c u l t y appeal p r o t e c t  at  a  to  on  grade"  with  "grades  or  are  e d u c a t i o n a l d e r i v e d of  from  t h i s  the  these  q u e s t i o n i n g a  number  process  M i l l e r  e x p l a i n s  process  about i s  r i g h t s  that e x i s t s  the  needed of  of  of  d i f f e r e n c e  member  the  i s  c a u t i o n e d  presented  and  appeal  students  i r r e c o n c i l a b l e a  grade  r e l a t e d  r e s u l t have  charges  p r e o c c u p a t i o n  competencies a  the  c a p r i c i o u s n e s s  program,  q u a l i t y  As  such  a r r i v i n g  present  a  to  Despite  Sandling  h e a r i n g s .  and  grade,  or  i n  and  s t r u c t u r e  apparently  of  i n  w r i t e r s  the  student  member  the  4 3 ) .  grades,  on  p r e j u d i c e  the  expected  1986).  academic  programs  admission  programs  an  Murphy  nursing  colleagues1'  e v a l u a t o r s in  f a c u l t y  ( M i l l e r  g r i e v a n c e s  (Huston,  c l i n i c a l  burden  t h e i r  to  both"  34 Majorowicz p a r t i e s  i m p l i e s  a f f o r d i n g  are  freedom  of  r i g h t  "due  and  due  i n s t r u c t i o n ,  to  freedom  of  the  a  in  (1986,  to (c)  i n s t r u c t i o n  t h e i r  the  a f f e c t i n g  (1979,  by  and  " r i g h t  hearings  (b)  an  p r o t e c t i o n s  p r o t e c t e d  provided:  student  the  the  organized of  program  f a c u l t y  185).  They  r i g h t s f u r t h e r  that: the  student  i n s t i t u t i o n hearing] make  a  in  pursues the  provides "due  evaluate mediate academic  c i v i l data  process  academic p o t e n t i a l  Huston  for  f a c u l t y  others  reported  court the  by  l o o k i n g the  1979,  that  abuse  the  o u t s i d e  the  system,  [the  court  review  without  e v i d e n c e ; . . .  e v a l u a t i o n  and  grievance  r u l i n g "  i n s t r u c t i o n . . . [ v e r s u s ] (Logsdon  the  to  Logsdon,  that  a d m i n i s t e r  both  matters"  them  38).  r e c o u r s e ,  of  are  academic  a f f o r d i n g  without  and  r i g h t s  r i g h t s  summarized  with  r i g h t  of  i f  by  Clark  process  i n s t i t u t i o n ' s  s t a t e d  process  i n s t r u c t i o n "  student  to  that  students1'  p r o t e c t e d  L a c e f i e l d , the  that  them  f a c u l t y  (a)  i n d i c a t e d  [the of at  to  having  to  court]  can  power the  outcome  of  and  in  process  of  i n s t r u c t i o n .  185)  s t r u c t u r e  of  grievance  35 and  appeal  s p e c i f i e d the  procedures time  l i m i t s ,  g r i e v a n c e ,  hearing and  (1986,  3 0 4 ) . informal  1978).  The  with  the  r e v i e w s , the  p a r t i e s  group  of  during was on  the  Logsdon,  the  presented  process the  of  p r o c e s s .  student  was  the  c o o r d i n a t o r and  d i r e c t o r  During  of of  to  c o u r s e , the  a  conference  a not  informal  A l l  where  r e s o l v e d meeting" the  (1978,  outcome  41-2).  about  phase,  four  two  " n o n - p a r t i s a n  wrote  c l i n i c a l  into  meeting"  presented  with  the  d i v i d e d  to  were  a s s i s t a n t  program.  with  determined  meet  outcome d i s t i n c t  between  was  also  the  S a n d l i n g ,  panel  the  department:  two  f o r  p r o c e s s ,  hearing  c o l l e c t i o n  Clark  of  the  "data  evidence and  r e q u i r e d  nursing  a  reason  f a c i l i t a t e  "mediation  i s s u e s  in  and  ends  i s s u e s  the  have  to  process  hearing  L a c e f i e l d ,  i s  and  t h e i r the  the  (Murphy  a  then  the  s i m i l a r  of  being  If  steps  i n i t i a l l y  formal  f i r s t  the  process  occurs  The  where  b a s i s  formal  of  s e l e c t i o n  g e n e r a l l y  i n s t r u c t o r  p e e r s . "  t h i s  held  and  dean. the  and  c o n t a i n :  f o r  communicating  "informal  communication" and  of  Procedures  phases:  student  f o r  most  process  d e s c r i p t i o n  process  but  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n  s p e c i f i e d  p a n e l ,  the  v a r i e s  a the  d i f f e r e n t  l e v e l s  i n s t r u c t o r ,  d i r e c t o r of  these  of  program,  l e v e l s  of  36 meetings  had  to  request  a  w r i t t e n  request  formal  o c c u r r e d  before  and  a  made  t h a t :  (a)  the  the  whereby  panel  students  to  another  to  disagreement d i r e c t l y  to  summary  (b)  a  by  could  through  a  hearing the  evidence  evidence  i n d i c a t e d  v i o l a t e d  p o l i c i e s  the  during  and  f a c u l t y  the  procedures  during  the  student  was  t r e a t e d  d i s c u s s e d  a  procedure  t h e i r  the  i n i t i a l  dean.  i t  to  In  hearing  panel  was  the  panel  dean.  The  reviewed  f o r  the  192).  was  hearing  had  (1979,  d e c i s i o n dean  t h e i r  students  t h i s the  i n s t r u c t o r s i n  f a c u l t y . a n d  h e a r i n g ,  the  the  then  hearing  nursing  the  c l i n i c a l  d i s c r e p a n c i e s  formal  the  with  from  the  f a i l e d ,  forwarded  the  were  upheld  with  t h i s  F o l l o w i n g and  whether  r i g h t s  r e s o l v e  If  both  on  (c)  This  c o n s i d e r e d  Bridgewater  i n s t i t u t i o n ,  d e c i s i o n  s  were  met  request  from  which  student  i n i t i a t e d  student.  based L  was  the  189).  and  attempted  r i g h t  the  p r o c e s s ,  (1979,  p e r c e p t i o n s .  or  a  before  which  p r o c e s s ,  Robinson  body.  from  i n s t i t u t i o n  e q u i t a b l y  drawn  review  s t u d e n t  i n s t r u c t i o n a l  and  completed  d e c i s i o n  i n s t r u c t i o n a l of  be  then  e i t h e r  student  made  a  F u r t h e r appealed the the  t r a n s c r i p t absence  of  37 or  adherence  s t u d e n t ' s  to  proper  r i g h t s  to  Majorowicz procedure student  g r a d e , " and  requests  were  a l l e g a t i o n s A  hearing  a  a l l  to  request  or  were  c a s e ,  " a p p r o p r i a t e  to  matter  which  procedures  e v a l u a t i v e  d e c i s i o n s ,  d e c i s i o n s ,  the  o v e r - r i d i n g  success  of  the  appeal  assessment  had  been  p r o c e s s .  t h e i r  when  made  s t u d e n t If  L  s  the  l a t t e r  to  review  questioned  which  whether  the  accordance  for  40).  used  i s s u e  in  was  e i t h e r  (1986,  students  the  p a r t i e s .  recommendation  were  grade  reviewed  outcome  the  the  These  both  i n d i c a t i n g  a c t i o n "  was  by  s u b s t a n c e . "  stated  c o r r e c t i v e  i t s  the]  38).  who  s u p p l i e d  a  o u t l i n e d  [found  (1986,  and  37).  when  which  student  support  have  1982,  of  grievance  committee  p a r t i e s ,  "charges they  a  v i o l a t i o n  i n i t i a t e d  remedy"  conducted  evidence  charges"  why  evidence  the  formal  w r i t t e n  by  the  ( M i l l e r  was  "reason  then  " i n s u f f i c i e n t  the  a  a  or  process  r e c e i v e d  was  process  "proposed  and  communicated  No  the  submitted  u n f a i r , "  due  d e s c r i b e s  where  " d i s p u t e d  procedures  these  determined s t u d e n t ' s with  due  the  38 Legal  i m p l i c a t i o n s  of  student  to  I r b y ,  p r o c e s s ,  a c c o r d i n g  r e q u i r e s  that  the  program  w r i t i n g  ( o r  both),  or  i n  and  t h e i r  e f f e c t s  on  P o l l o k ,  P o t e e t ,  process  a p p l i e s  to  "be  informed  same  grading 6 3 8 ) .  ensure  that  In  both  1981,  f a i r  about  and  1 5 0 ) .  the  be  i n  s t a n d i n g "  be  b e l i e v e  the  rendered  reasonable"  181-2).  that  due  that  they  and  e q u a l l y  the to a l l "  above  c r i t e r i a  a l l  d e c i s i o n s  be  developed]  i n  [need  o r a l l y  performance  s t a n d a r d s ,  a p p l i e d  meet  Schwarz,  (1981,  and means  grading  to  and  student,  inadequacies  students  Due  Milam,  and Whelan  and procedures  to  (Nash,  Moore,  and  and  that  Andes  :  Toward Ozimek  of  must  order  " j u s t i c e  . . . . p o l i c i e s  " i n f o r m  the  procedure  (1977,  are  a l l of  F a n t e l ,  academic  However  must  e v a l u a t i o n s .  the  and Yura these  end  of  began  r i g h t s .  the  to  show  They  of  students  d i f f e r e n c e  to  be  o b l i t e r a t e d  i n  e d u c a t i o n a l  program  these  f a c u l t y  r i g h t  has  been  order  r i g h t s  to are i s  a  w r i t e r s  more  reported  r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s needs  7 0 ' s ,  and  supported assure  to  c o n s i s t e n t l y  " t h e  f a c u l t y rather  achieved" evaluate upheld  as  i n t e g r a t i v e  that  that  such  the  r i g h t s  d i f f e r .  goals 2 ) .  s t u d e n t s . the  and  This  than  (1977,  by  view  of One  the of  This  c o u r t s  39 (Pollok  and  also  has  with  " . . . . a  Poteet  the  statement  and  c o n s i d e r  poor  d i s m i s s a l "  Expert  e v a l u a t i o n  process  " . . . . f a c u l t y d i s m i s s a l  inform  and; and  Thus, academic  t e l l  are  P o l l o c k  when  requirements  the  1981,  d e c i s i o n  i s  a  i s  only  for are  that  0  L  of  D r i s c o l l  that  the  meaning  that  f a i l u r e  for  but  e v a l u a t i o n  and  pending  to  b a s i s  ensure  expert  reasons  such  and  d e c i s i o n s "  1890).  performances  being  have i s  to  f a i r l y , of  as Not  i m p l i e s  a p p l i e d  school  for  e x p e c t a t i o n s  (Niedringhaus  students  the  181).  "on  e v a l u a t i o n be  i f  such  students  e x p e c t a t i o n s  areas  r e q u i r e d  students1'  which  1981,  i n s t i t u t i o n  i t s  school  these  based  the  provide  provide  also  them  d i s m i s s a l  d i s m i s s a l  to  i n f o r m a t i o n "  157).  (Poteet  are  d e c i s i o n s  in  others  r e q u i r e d  o f f i c i a l s  cumulative 1983,  and  to  q u a l i t i e s  performance  (Irby  However,  r e g a r d i n g  p r o f e s s i o n a l  i n s t i t u t i o n s  d i s m i s s a l  31).  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  personal  school  1983,  to  are  c o n s i d e r e d , be  adhered  f i n a l i z e d .  such  there  to  These  that  are  before  b a s i c the  requirements  i n c l u d e , . . . . t h e  student  be  advised  of  academic  to  the  d e f i c i e n c i e s  in  comparison  standard  be  n o t i f i e d  and  that  he  e s t a b l i s h e d or  she  i s  being  40 placed  on  at  end  the  grade may  the  they  be  given  a  or  event  of  i n  m o d i f i e d  t h e i r  1  '  a  s p e c i f i e d  has  not  n o t i c e and  Andes  disagree  with  f a i l e d  into  account,  a  and  reasonable  (Irby best  and  f o r  defence i s  system  and  student  to  take  not  student  (Pollok  be  the  a r r i v e or  at  acted  overturned  Unquestionably, c h a l l e n g e s  w e l l - c o n c e i v e d  p r o c e s s "  d e c i s i o n s ,  manner  1981,182).  a g a i n s t  " f a i r ,  the  to  d i d  d e c i s i o n s  others  the  150)  f a c u l t y  reasons"  time,  d i s m i s s a l .  s i t u a t i o n l o g i c a l  of  [ i f ]  r e s o l v e d  1981,  students the  p e r i o d  been  of  p e r i o d  to  purposeful  and  Poteet  1983,  .  In c a r r y not  f o r  probationary  that  d e c i s i o n s  e v a l u a t i v e 32)  show  m a l i c i o u s  f a c u l t i e s  a  that  the  decison  for  the  Moore,  "must  f a c t s  of  d e f i c i e n c y  (Nash, In  probation  n u r s i n g  out  under  c o n t r o l . f u r t h e r essence:  t h e i r the These  programs, c l i n i c a l  students p r a c t i c e  e d u c a t i o n a l health  a d d i t i o n s  to  care  are in  r e q u i r e d  agencies  i n s t i t u t i o n ' s agencies  e d u c a t i o n a l  to  which  are  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  often  standards.  superimpose In  41 The  health  r e q u i r e the  care  a  student  program  performance care  Agreements carry  are  t h a t  of  nurse" which  i s  a  f a c u l t y  h i s  deemed  or  r i g h t  member  to  health  status  p r e j u d i c i a l  p r o v i d i n g  students  of  p r o f e s s i o n a l  to  to  leave  the  care  to  or  health  c h a l l e n g e d  educators'"  d e c i s i o n s  P r o f e s s i o n a l of  but  also  through  e d u c a t i o n a l p e t i t i o n e r s  such as  p r o f e s s i o n a l  the  standards are  a  e x p e c t a t i o n s ,  and standards.  such not  with  c l i n i c a l  s t a n d a r d s , only  the  j u d i c i a l  program  students  or  in  standard  competent  d i s s a t i s f i e d on  Since  students  p a t i e n t - c a r e  based  agencies  p a t i e n t s  i n s t i t u t i o n  d e c i s i o n s ,  students  care  same  Thus,  e v a l u a t i v e  i n s t i t u t i o n  to  the  s t a n d a r d s ,  are  health  c o n t r a c t s .  evaluate  e d u c a t i o n a l  who  in  223).  to  h e a l t h - c a r e - a g e n c y ,  i n s t i t u t i o n s ' "  reasonably  p r a c t i c e  Students  held  1975, use  into  actual  are  "average,  educators  combination  p r a c t i c e  formulated  are  the  e d u c a t i o n a l  c l i n i c a l  (Creighton  m a j o r i t y  her  the  96)  a l l o w i n g  g e n e r a l l y  a g e n c i e s ,  because  1981,  out  students  or  r e t a i n s  f a c i l i t y .  ( K e l l y  to  i n s t i t u t i o n  p l a i n t i f f s  in  have  w i t h i n  the  system. represent such  legal  the  42 cases of  ( M a t t i n g l y  students  and  using  Courts  are  such  process  have  guaranteed  r i g h t s  ( P o l l o k , Courts  been  g e n e r a l l y  and  apply in  p o s s i b l e .  r a t i o n a l e  to  review  1981,  academic  150).  r e g a r d i n g c o u r t s  Kapp the  changing i s  remote  u n f a i r l y  or  in  a  unless  biased  Higher  Higher g e n e r a l l y funded  education  through  e d u c a t i o n a l  taxes.  the only  s e t t l i n g a  v i o l a t i o n  636)  of  j u d i c i a l  a f f a i r s  a l s o  as  they  (Nash,  the  Moore,  of  as e x p e r t i s e  and  t h i s  l i k e l i h o o d  e v a l u a t i o n that  much  lack  supported  was  Andes  p o s i t i o n of  d e c i s i o n s  d e c i s i o n  the regarding  a r r i v e d  at  manner.  Education  L i t e r a t u r e  i n s t i t u t i o n s  p r o v i n c i a l l y  u s u a l l y  and  that  Thus,  c l i n i c a l  students  i s  d e c i s i o n s "  c o u r t s .  into  1977,  r u l e  s c h o l a s t i c  (1981)  success  c l e a r .  Whelan  "the  enter  for  exhausted  The  because:  to  channels  n o n - i n t e r f e r e n c e Their  rare  intervene  seems  Poteet,  i s  480).  h e s i t a n t and  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  g r i e v a n c e s  1980,  a c t i o n  g e n e r a l l y  e d u c a t i o n a l a f t e r  Gehring  l e g i s l a t e d Some  i n s t i t u t i o n s '  to  of  in  Canada  through  these  provide  are Acts  Acts appeal  and  d i r e c t procedures  43  when  students  w i t h i n  these  procedures mandated in  h i s  question a g e n c i e s .  r e l a t e d  not  only  study  of  u n i v e r s i t i e s , of  these  any  matter.  to  of  such  with  of  i n s t i t u t i o n s ;  provide  hear  any  a  c o n t r a c t  to  in  a  p o l i c i e s may  and  also  be Krivy  Canadian  in  s t a t u t o r y  student  provide  appeals  s w i f t l y  1982,  treatment  through  for  i n s t i t u t i o n s .  r i g h t s  acts  F a i l u r e  a  grievances  mechanisms  proper  by  the  an  o u t s i d e  duty  manner,  for on  for  the  w i l l  be  c o n t r o l  on  c o u r t s .  150)  Although",-, t h e r e the  o f f i c i a l s  students  the  legal  by  need  by  without  student  u n i v e r s i t y  (Krivy  the  appeals  from  the  d e a l t  to  Thus,  made  noted;  . . . . m o s t  hearing  d e c i s i o n s  i s  students secondary law.  by  higher  legal  This  l e g i s l a t e d education  c o n t r o l  c o n t r a c t  i s  i s  e x e r c i s e d  o p e r a t i o n a l  when: . . . . t h e  student  for  s e r v i c e s . . . .  and  fees  set  f o r t h  and in  completes  abide  The by  various  r e g i s t r a t i o n  student  agrees  r e g u l a t i o n s documents  to  and  provided  and pay  payment t u i t i o n  c o n d i t i o n s by  the  44  i n s t i t u t i o n . . . . for  d e s i r e d  set  f o r t h  (Beam This  i s  which of " i n  a  Hines  loco  In  While  u n i v e r s i t i e s c o n t r a c t "  student  may  bound  from  the  acts law  most  a r i s e  from  1982,  a r b i t r a r i l y  be  students  submit the  r u l e s can  and  in  the  place  a p p l i e s  to  an  expressed  41).  In  t h i s that  that of  theory  breach  to of  education i s  context,  and  r e g u l a t i o n s "  expect and  beginning  each  to  r e c e i v e  e v a l u a t i o n c l a s s .  in  1979,  a  w i l l the  r u l e s  and  proper  case,  608). imply  that:  s p e c i f i c  procedures  They  and  "[the]  student  reasonable  (Lerblance  that  i m p l i e d  the  which,  the  students  or  of  the  higher  both  sectors  d o c t r i n e  i m p l i e s  the  of  c o n t r o l s secondary  wel1-accepted  himself  requirements of  c o n d i t i o n s  e x p e l l e d , . . . . [ a n d ] . . . . t h a t  e x p e l l e d "  "Reasonable  i n s t r u c t i o n  same  l e g a l  which  r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s  for  by  i n s t i t u t i o n s ,  c o n t r a c t . . . . [ m e a n s ] . . . .  w i l l  provide  37)  p r e v a i l s ,  "the  (Krivy  r e g u l a t i o n s he  these  c o n t r a c t  and  i s  to  elementary  i n s t i t u t i o n  r i g h t s  be  1981,  the  p a r e n t i s "  i n s t i t u t i o n s ,  i m p l i e d  and  change  w i t h i n  e d u c a t i o n .  agrees  documents.  marked  occur  parent.  not  degree  in  and  e d u c a t i o n a l  the  C o l l e g e  can  course at  expect  the w r i t t e n  45 o b j e c t i v e s they  w i l l  process they  that  order  1978,  to  g u i d e l i n e s  t h e i r  e d u c a t i o n a l  such  process  1978,  i n s t r u c t o r . access  to  due  i n s t i t u t i o n  c o n t r a c t s  And  when  have  not  of  by  making  judgments  of  competent  such  . . . . t h e course using  to  are  ensure  formulated  and  purposes  i n s t i t u t i o n s  and  students  10).  accord  a p p r o p r i a t e  does  provide  educators of]  of  with  are  to  which  of  methods  of In  meet  order  three  equipment" i m p l i e s :  persons  i n s t r u c t i o n a l  are  s u p e r v i s i o n ,  i n s t r u c t i o n  competent  t h e i r  capable  n'e.ed  adequate  t e a c h i n g  negate  performance.  maintenance  Proper  not  programs  who  students''  and  assignment in  must  for  two  i n d i v i d u a l s  " [ p r o v i s i o n  1981,  provided  serve  i n s t i t u t i o n s  about  i n s t r u c t i o n ,  (Connors  processes  both  judgments,  o b l i g a t i o n s :  i s  i n s t i t u t i o n s  g u i d e l i n e s  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  taught  process  355).  P r o t e c t i o n o f f i c i a l  due  education  p r o t e c t i o n  (Alexander  proper  growing  w i t h i n  that  for  Such  t h e i r  make  the  10)  ensure  higher  f o l l o w e d .  to  have  by  met.  s t u d e n t s ,  in  f u l f i l l e d  procedures  (Barnes  t h a t  be  presumably  b e l i e v e  been  In  to  to  p o l i c i e s for  the  each and  in  46 p a r t i c u l a r (Owens Adequate  course  s u p e r v i s i o n  high  r i s k  that  the  or  of  1980 ,  15)  the  actual  p a t i e n t s  in  They  students  r e t a i n  The  t h i s  f a c u l t y  judge  student.  a l l  i n c l u d i n g  in  not  should  those  exceed  adequate  f a c t  that  c l i n i c a l  what  be  assured  high the  in  r i s k  a b i l i t y  of  s u p e r v i s i o n .  students  r e s i d e s r i g h t  with  care  The  adequate  nursing  s u p e r v i s i o n  program  f a c u l t y .  because:  uniquely  aspects  provide  s e t t i n g s .  c o n s t i t u t e s  [are]  of  q u a l i f i e d  student  demonstrated  i n t e r p e r s o n a l  i t  [ e s p e c i a l l y  .  r e f l e c t s  of  and  does  for  r i s k  these  of  a t t e n t i o n  students  areas  provide  determination of  supervisory  number  to  (Owens  to  type  r e q u i r e s :  a c t i v i t i e s ] . . . ,  a c t i v i t i e s s t a f f  and  1980,14)  . . . . q u a l i f i e d  This  content  s k i l l s ,  academic  knowledge, a t t i t u d e s  to  observe  performance  t e c h n i c a l and  and  and  p r o f e s s i o n a l  c h a r a c t e r . (Irby Thus,  and  these  others  1981,  standards  assessment  of  a p p r a i s a l s  of  are  t h e o r e t i c a l students'  105) not  r e s t r i c t e d  knowledge  a b i l i t i e s  but  only  to  the  also  to  other  ( J e n n i n g s ,  1980-81).  47  These  a d d i t i o n a l  p r e v a l e n t a b i l i t y  at i s  p r o f e s s i o n a l  seen  s u c c e s s f u l  standards  as  an  210).  c l i n i c a l  performance  " d i s c r e t i o n " e v a l u a t o r s  The  and  schools  e s s e n t i a l  completion  1980-81,  of  the  major  i n c r e a s e s  i n c r e a s i n g l y  i n d i v i d u a l i z e d  competencies, p r o f e s s o r s  u n f a i r  (LaMorte  are or  at  the  b i a s e d  to and  programs  other  procedures s o - c a l l e d and  lack gray  behavior,  vague  or  (Vernon  r i s k  53).  by  201).  "becomes  in  1979, in  evaluated  by  t h e i r  p a r t i c u l a r  209).  Thus,  terms  s c h o o l s ,  where where  between  where  This  of  r e c e i v i n g  i n :  courses  ambiguous. 1979,  Meadows  anonymity,  and  used  are  experts  p r o f e s s i o n a l  areas  of  ^students'1'  a r e a s ,  e v a l u a t i o n s and  and  be  a s s e s s i n g  degree  1979,  and  g r e a t e s t  . . . . g r a d u a t e  the  in  i n s t r u c t i o n  s p e c i a l i z e d  c o n s i d e r e d  d i s c i p l i n e " students  in  to  to  (Jennings  judgment"  s u b j e c t i v i t y  c l i n i c a l  p r e r e q u i s i t e  Meadows as  where  d i f f i c u l t y  "personal and  e s p e c i a l l y  program"  r e l a t e s  (LaMorte  "are  e v a l u a t i o n they  academic  academic  c l i n i c a l  involve  the  performance  requirements  are  " E d u c a t o r s . . . . a r e for  oral  and  (Pavela  reduce  any  t h e i r the  which  use to  standard"  may  education  (Jorgenson  e s t a b l i s h e d  from  in  f a c u l t y  an  a  in  above  performance  e v a l u a t i o n  of  may  and  q u a l i t y  t h e i r  necessary  i n e v i t a b l y  something  r e q u i r e s  more  than  of  w i t h i n  j u d i c i a l  e x p e r t i s e  (Ray in  s u b j e c t  1981,  matter  courts  may  procedural  well method  r e g a r d l e s s  invoked.  183)  p r o f e s s i o n a l  experience  and  because:  f a i r n e s s  the  to  academic  the  of  of  i n s t i t u t i o n s  [determine  squarely  and  standards  academic  l i e s  74).  e d u c a t i o n a l  s t r a i g h t - f o r w a r d that]  1978,  r e g u l a t i o n s ,  and  work  to  have  (Pavela  t h e i r  i s  w r i t t e n  Adherence  educators  The  have  e s t a b l i s h e d  procedures,  i n t e r f e r e n c e  students"  minimal  357).  r e s p o n s i b l e  f o l l o w e d  students process  1979,  p r o t e c t i n g  . . . . c l i n i c a l  should  " s t a t u t e s ,  ensure  to  c a r e f u l l y  e s t a b l i s h  also  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g .  Thus  are  of  p o l i c i e s ,  j u d i c i a l  given  I n s t i t u t i o n s  e v a l u a t i o n  testimony  a s s i s t s  i n c r e a s i n g l y  misunderstandings  a d d i t i o n ,  expert  held  assurances  74).  p o l i c i e s  regarding In  w r i t t e n  1978,  academic  being  component,  programs f a c u l t y  with  a  members1'  c l i n i c a l r i g h t s  may  well  49 have of  a  higher  l i k e l i h o o d  s t u d e n t s .  d i r e c t when  This  r e s u l t  s e t t i n g  e d u c a t i o n  of  l i m i t e d  the  p r o v i d e d .  to An  c r i t i c i s m  e v a l u a t i o n  p r a c t i c e s  to  and  used  e d u c a t i o n a l l y  i n  sound  the of  concern  the over  a  of i s :  student  that  the  a  c a r e f u l  p o l i c i e s  e v a l u a t i o n  thereby  i s  above  necessary  and  those  encounter  q u a l i t y  make  student  than  p r o t e c t i o n  educators  outcome  ensure  p r o t e c t e d  student  judge  procedures  examination  being  d i f f i c u l t y  standards  Increased  of  and  are  give  students  f a i r  treatment. (LaMorte LaMorte  and  performance degree  of  In the  Meadows i s  some  an  systems  to  when  program.  d i s m i s s  opportunity  108).  judgment"  s t a n d a r d s , a  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s 1981,  conclude  c a s e s ,  from  simply  1979,  209)  that  " d i s c r e t i o n a r y  e s t a b l i s h e d  cannot  Meadows  personal  d i s m i s s a l  them  and  of  Many provide  and  the  i n v o l v e s  c e r t a i n  students they  be  Educational without  d i s c u s s  academic  i n s t i t u t i o n s  a  forum.  have  a  210).  are  may  i n s t i t u t i o n s such  academic  (1979,  students  to  e v a l u a t i n g  unable  to  c o n s i d e r e d  f o r  i n s t i t u t i o n s f i r s t  g r a n t i n g  problems  (Irby  and  with  others  e s t a b l i s h e d  Most  meet  appeal  " [ u ] n i v e r s i t y  50 appeal [of  p r o c e d u r e s ,  appeal]  or  "[p]rocedures  u s u a l l y  more"(Krivy [may]  m e d i a t i v e . "  be  settlements  hearing  or  panels;  i n t e r v e n o r s  c o n f l i c t ,  c o n s t r u c t  s o l u t i o n "  ( F o l g e r  provide  for  Informal  both  . . . a t  the  b u i l d  in  formal issue  the  appeal  and  processes  hoc  g r i e v a n c e s and  Shubert  a r i s e 1981,  for  on  t y p i c a l l y  the  through  " i n c l u d e [ s ]  p a r t i e s ,  in  s a t i s f a c t o r y 33).  formal  of  Most  systems  procedures.  the  grievance  students  1981, have  various which  u n i v e r s i t y  procedures  or  to  t h e i r  and  invoke  then  more  grievances  i f  the  u n s e t t l e d .  Shubert  the  " r e l y  1981,  p r e s e n t i n g  g e n e r a l l y  s p e c i f y  handbooks,, ad  for  appeal  recommended:  stages  option  remains  I n s t i t u t i o n s which  i n i t i a l  means  ( F o l g e r  are  These  mediation  help  and  l e v e l s  a r b i t r a t i v e  mutually  informal  procedures  while  Shubert  three  180).  reached  who  some  and  of]  procedures  n o n - n e g o t i a t e d boards  1982,  p r i m a r i l y  A r b i t r a t i o n  t h i r d - p a r t y  [ c o n s i s t  are and 32).  formal  steps  "are codes set  33)  up  u s u a l l y Thus,  in  w r i t t e n t h e i r  p u b l i s h e d of  in  conduct,  by are  procedures  grievance student e t c .  i n s t i t u t i o n s not  Informal as  p u b l i s h e d "  p r a c t i c e s  or  regarding  (Folger  h a n d l i n g  of  grievances  g u i d e l i n e s  "but  d i r e c t i o n  of  more  p r o t e c t i o n "  the  procedures  not  normally  c o n s i d e r i n g academic  making"  (Pavela  i n f o r m a t i o n " a c t i o n , " f a i r  d i s m i s s a l  f a c u l t y  h e a r i n g . " be  other  s i d e  p r i o r  to  a  L  s  of  evidence"  case  in  and  Such  an  to  a  355).  cumulative t a k i n g  students  of  r e c e i v e  that to  those  One  In  d e c i s i o n  Before  to  the  a l l e g a t i o n s the  standards  order  the  know  proceedings  and  for  d e c i s i o n of  d i s m i s s a l  do  " i n t e r n a l  opportunity  r u l e s  students  r e q u i r e s  made.  and  are  academic  that  respond  " s o p h i s t i c a t e d  of  168).  hearing  being  1982,  in  review  judgments"  f a c u l t y  develop  ensure  academic  (Golden  to  to  academic  when  1981,  with  d e c i s i o n  d e f i c i e n c i e s absence  f a i r  provided  of  e v a l u a t i o n  must  A  the  evaluated  f a i l u r e  55).  expert  designed  are  i n e q u i t i e s  1978, an  or  need  ( I o v a c c h i n i  the  student  T h e r e f o r e ,  reduce  in  procedural  u s u a l l y  examination  they  p u b l i s h e d  339).  students  which  the  u s u a l l y  less  by  reasons,  " . . . . r e q u i r e s  [ i s ]  are  73).  to  from  "systems  the  procedures  than  1982,  permit  1978,  vary  v a r i a t i o n  rather  (Golden  Grievance  (Pavela  such  may  for  a  i s  the  of student  a  52 to  have  a  quashed  d i s m i s s a l  through  [the]  by]  d e c i s i o n  must  i n t o in  a  and  there  to  academic  s t a n d a r d s ,  of  systems been by and  in  This  Golden  found  survey  had  systems  to  s i g n i f i c a n t d i s m i s s a l  that  [academic the  f a c t s  a r r i v e  reasoned  or  d e c i s i o n of  at  the  a  manner,  or  acted  113)  to  be  i s  a  a l l  use  in  place  a  to  only  o n e - t h i r d  deal  with  academic was  were  that  the  the  of  m a t e r i a l  are of  not  such  of  with  the  has  i n s t i t u t i o n s . in  his  d i s c i p l i n a r y  i n s t i t u t i o n s His  i n s t i t u t i o n s  with  those  appeal  S t a t e s ,  d i s m i s s a l s .  g e n e r a l l y  the  grievance  i n s t i t u t i o n s deal  or  United  of  in  study  w r i t t e n  sample  meeting  s t u d i e s  grievance  one  in  s i x t y - t w o  in  f i n d i n g  for  Only  analyzed  in  who  dearth  conducted,  who  volumes  students  but  systems  not  procedures  was  systems  d i s m i s s a l s ,  of  there  systems  Golden  and  e d u c a t i o n .  (1981),  appeals  the  take  did  appear  and  higher  found.  to  1981,  management  p o l i c i e s  overturned  reasons.  r e l a t i n g  area  that  f a i l e d  others  Although  show  l o g i c a l  d e c i s i o n  p r o c e s s :  account,  m a l i c i o u s  (Irby  f a i l u r e  appeal  f a c u l t y  s i t u a t i o n  for  an  student  made  or  with  had  most academic  53 p r o f e s s i o n a l p r o f e s s i o n in  which  s p e c i f i c  education such  the  knowledge  than  to  programs,  problems  r e s u l t  c o n f u s i o n academic  s k i l l s  e x i s t s problems  c o n f u s i o n  has  led  as  to  or  h e a r i n'g  p r o f e s s i o n a l  programs 1979;  I n s t i t u t i o n a l to  provide  at  the  When  these  e x t e r n a l  well  time  or  nursing  d i s c i p l i n e  as  the  When for  these  American  such  and  a t t i t u d i n a l c l i n i c a l  problems  be  work, are  This  that  should  rather  education  problems.  suggest  p r o v i s i ons under  of  a p p l i c a t i o n  c o g n i t i v e  d i s c i p l i n a r y to  the  p r o f e s s i o n a l  whether  f u l l employed  in  c i r c u m s t a n c e s  1983).  e v a l u a t i o n  do  procedures  d i r e c t i o n  safeguarding  i n t e r v e n t i o n  p r a c t i c e  d i s c i p l i n a r y  a p p r a i s a l s  Spink,  procedures  of  for  a s s e s s e d .  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  same  r e s u l t  In  w r i t e r s  d i s c i p l i n a r y  ( C a l o g e r o ,  a  students  poor  as  a  d e n t i s t r y ,  requirements  are  in  into  s p e c i a l i z e d  reasons.  a t t i t u d i n a l  psychomotor  law,  of  are  d i s m i s s  academic  l e a d i n g  taught.  procedural  used  for  i s  f i n d i n g s  d i f f e r e n t  c o u r t s  m e d i c i n e ,  a p p l i c a t i o n  Golden's of  as  programs  not  into  the meet  to  are  expected  f a c u l t y ,  r i g h t s these  i n s t i t u t i o n a l  of  while  students.  e x p e c t a t i o n s , a f f a i r s  may  54 o c c u r .  Such  j u d i c i a l  review  p r o v i n c i a l the  i n t e r v e n t i o n by  Human  p r o v i n c i a l  the  may  c o u r t s ,  Rights  c o n t r a c t  legal  and  i n s t i t u t i o n s . i ndi vi  common  by  the  hearing or  on of  law,  areas  law,.  This  foK  the  p u b l i c l y - f u n d e d exceeds  the  an  a  i n v e s t i g a t i o n  educational  by  issues  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  on  w i l l  the be  i t  "An  S i n c e ,  are  p u b l i c l y  in  p r o v i s i o n s  agency  Canada,  funded,  law,  f u n c t i o n i n g  of  d i s c u s s e d  the  of  law  aspects  when  t h e i r  a  made  by  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g  l e g i s l a t e d  acts  w i t h i n  i t s  the  powers  c o n f e r r e d  upon  (MacKay  1984,  or  common  most  of are  governing  provides  d e c i s i o n s  law"  educational  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  i n s t i t u t i o n s of  of  t h e i r  e x e r c i s e s  c e r t a i n  Educational  of  r e g u l a t i o n ,  11).  to  i n s t i t u t i o n s  properly  s t a t u t e ,  area  c h a l l e n g i n g  boundaries  j u r i s d i c t i o n s .  apply  of  d u a l l y .  mechanism  by  impact  These  A d m i n i s t r a t i v e  when  form  L i t e r a t u r e  w r i t i n g s  p o t e n t i a l  law,  a  the  ombudsman.  Secondary the  in  C o u n c i l ,  Legal  address  be  t h e i r  law  j u r i s d i c t i o n i t  i n s t i t u t i o n s c o n s i d e r a t i o n s  o p e r a t i o n .  empowered s t a t u t e s  to  act  passed.  under These  the  55 s t a t u t e s  often  i n s t i t u t i o n s ' " these  powers  through by  powers can  the  c o u r t s or  made  reviews  a  to  d e c i s i o n  an  on  court  to  u n l i k e with  conduct  r i g h t  a d m i n i s t r a t o r sought  v i a  p r o h i b i t i o n . sought,  law  the  a  to or  by  or  j u d i c i a l  j u d i c i a l If court  the w i l l  1984,  "the  30).  than  to  act  Students bodies  d e c i s i o n proper  Most  on  the  do  review:  as  could  not  review  made  three  by  with  d e c i s i o n  the  r e v i e w s ,  a  remedies  c e r t i o r a r i the  an  provide  c e r t i o r a r i , of  p u b l i c  p e t i t i o n  These  d e c i s i o n s Only  for  d i s s a t i s f i e d  reviews.  remedy  examination  [whether]  p r o v i s i o n s  p r o c e e d i n g s , change  This  31).  boards  these  examination  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  and  rather  1984,  "an  an  which  a p p l i e d  whether  powers  makes  board.  of  under  i s  30).  (MacKay  t r i b u n a l .  reached  common  the  law  law  by  1984,  l a t t e r ,  (MacKay  the  provide  made  board's  o f f i c i a l s  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  The  assessment  the  A d m i n i s t r a t i v e  d e c i s i o n s  (MacKay  of  c i r c u m s t a n c e s  which  f o l l o w e d "  i t s e l f  i n s t i t u t i o n  the  e x e r c i s e d .  the  were  focus  and  breadth  d e c i s i o n  board"  w i t h i n  procedures  the  reviews  of  r e s t r i c t e d  was  be  j u d i c i a l  o f f i c i a l is  d e s c r i b e  the  court  p u b l i c can  be  mandamus, is  and  being  made  by  the  56 p u b l i c the  o f f i c i a l s  o f f i c i a l s  d e c i s i o n  mandamus of  to i s  out  be  to  request  d e c i s i o n  natural  Natural of  c o u r t s  over  f a i r n e s s " r e q u i r e the  case  a f f e c t e d  are  i s  i s  to  apply  procedure  which  have  the  heard  and  333).  that  deci si on.ihas  to  o f f i c i a l s s i n c e  not that  i s  which  a f f e c t  r u l e s  1982,  118).  not  r u l e s  formulated  about  of  the  encompassing  F a i r  the an  that  been  bring  d e c i s i o n - m a k e r  review  i n d i v i d u a l  the  (Krivy  concept  the  an  d e c i s i o n s  l e g a l  1978,  a  j u r i s d i c t i o n .  ensure  to  of  o f f i c i a l s  d e c i s i o n ,  p r o t e c t e d  c e n t u r i e s  be  t h e i r  p u b l i c  mandated  make  may  f o l l o w i n g  sought,  planned  of  that  remedy  p u b l i c  "a  the  the  w i t h i n  order  r u l e s  are  If  order  r e q u i r e d  These  r i g h t s  being by  a  t h e i r  (Alexander  that  court  been,  o f f i c i a l s  c o u r t ,  duty  o f f i c i a l s  they  j u s t i c e  j u d i c i a l  the  beyond  j u s t i c e .  i n d i v i d u a l ^  could  making  p u b l i c  i n d i v i d u a l s ,  the  j u r i s d i c t i o n  has  case.  p r o h i b i t i o n  that  with  i s  When  If  the  i t  the  the  unperformed  i f  If  and  sought,  p r e s e n t e d ,  an  proceed  quashed  r e c o n s i d e r  j u r i s d i c t i o n . w i l l  determine  exceeded.  being  evidence  c a r r y  was  w i l l  requested  and  equity  by  the  and  procedures biased  i n d i v i d u a l  opportunity  a g a i n s t who  to  i s present  h i s  or  her  (MacKay  case  1984,  Bias  i n v o l v e d  or in  the  a r i s e some  two  " d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s  must  not  the  hearing]"  [of  [of  s u s p i c i o n others  of of  1984,  bias  due  to  bias  the  of  between  one  a a  of  involvement the  the  d e c i s i o n  of  and  in  l a t t e r  case  i s  and  which  a  the  (c)  and  of  bias  r e l a t e d  be  However members1'  charged  outcome"  by  i d e n t i f y  lead  to  a s s o c i a t i o n  d e c i s i o n - m a k e r " ,  "an  in  to  panel  Risk  could  "an  d e c i s i o n - m a k e r and  to  "the  or  members.  l i k e l y  and  be  in  reasonable  (Evans  hearing  (a)  a  students  panel  M u l l a n ,  are:  case  apprehension  l i k e l y  of  i n t e r e s t  create  by  hearing  witness  case  the  not  not  p a r t i e s  toward  party  material  reasonable  J a n i s c h ,  a  a  Charges  These  by  a  former  have  r e l a t i o n s h i p s  the  f i n a n c i a l  d e c i s i o n - m a k e r "  d e c i s i o n " ,  d e c i s i o n - m a k e r  the  must  would  the  b i a s . of  with  r e l a t i o n s h i p s  with  types  of  of  Evans,  charges  stage  or  i n t e r e s t s  s t u d e n t s .  "an  bias  matters  involvement  three  d e c i s i o n ]  219-220).  e d u c a t i o n a l f i n a n c i a l  a  the  l i k e l i h o o d  make  sources:  r e l a t i o n s h i p In  context  the  from  case.  r e s u l t  o f f i c i a l s  31).  may  i n t e r e s t s  before  in  a  p r e l i m i n a r y  a t t i t u d e (1984,  (b)  of  220).  a  In  programs  r e q u i r e d one  to  l e v e l ,  stop  such  make the  bias  of  a  r u l e s  about  reasonably  be  1978,  342).  could  be  made  to  being  s t u d e n t  a  p o s i t i o n  in  breach  673.  In  was  d i s m i s s e d a  t h i s  p r e s e n t ,  "the  from  of  known  evidence  not  f a c t s  and  h i s  before  u p h e l d  a  the  (Spiro  j u s t i c e  i f  bad  o f f i c i a l s  of  of was  use  f a i t h  system the  out  Regina  committee  l o a t h  other 42).  the  above  [1979]  informed  s t u d i e s .  (Scott  i s  1978,  has- set  h e a r i n g , the  of  exhausted  student  program  (Alexander  natural  court  Canada  a  to  review,  U n i v e r s i t y  conducted and  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g  j u r i s d i c t i o n ,  a v a i l a b l e "  v.  of  formal  have  c a s e ,  hearing  committee  show  Court  H a r e l k i n  WWR  requested  or  which  Supreme  rule  judgment  t h e i r  The  The  to  o b j e c t i v e  of  instruments  operate  i n f l u e n c e  o u t s i d e  remedial  than  foreseen  d e c i s i o n s  cases  more  be  or  j u d i c i a l  However,  the  be  c o u l d  a  p r o c e d u r e s ,  may  may  performance  L  s  at  made.  p r e v i o u s l y  through  review  being  the  an  j u s t i c e  i n v a l i d a t e the  T h e r e f o r e ,  15).  T h i s  l i k e l y  of  d e c i s i o n s  found  f a u l t y 1977,  a d m i n i s t r a t o r s  d e c i s i o n s  expect[ed]  l i k e l i h o o d  same  natural  because  background  the  of  and  w i l l  panel  the  q u a s i - j u d i c i a l  a c t i o n s  a g a i n s t such  where  He  that then  of  c o u n c i l .  without  H a r e l k i n  e a r l i e r  d e c i s i o n .  3 he  H a r e l k i n  then  committee  so  that  however,  t h i s  provided  for  Committee t h i s for  a  f u r t h e r  h e a r i n g .  i n i t i a l  appeal  to  r u l i n g  was  Court  c o u n c i l  had  However, Senate  of  T h e r e f o r e , appeal  the  because  remedies  [96  a  a p p e l l a n t , appeals other  the  outcome he  had  D . L . R .  formal  committee  h e a r i n g ,  mechanisms"  way  (Krivy  hold  and  a  h e a r i n g . "  s u c c e s s f u l Appeal  exhausted  of  but  the  i n i t i a l to  that  to  been  the the  the c o r r e c t e d .  H a r e l k i n  his  on  j u s t i c e .  complaints have  to  s  L  i n t e r n a l  14-58].  w i t h i n  by  r i g h t  a p p l i c a t i o n  natural  denial  the  his  c o u n c i l "  to  Act  Appeal  r u l e d  was not  Senate  then  could  a  u n i v e r s i t y  appealed  of  h i s  e v i d e n c e ,  then  wrong  (3d)  provided  of  was  r u l e s  taken  t h i s  A d j u d i c a t i o n s r e q u i r e  Court  It  The  of  was  same  own  brought  order  H a r e l k i n  H a r e l k i n  Committee,  he  the  his  e x e r c i s e  H a r e l k i n  Canada.  before  the  u n i v e r s i t y  Saskatchewan  breached  had  not  the  the  overturned.  Supreme  to  Instead  hearing  the  denied.  did  quash  r e q u i r e  present  appeal  of  to  r e - h e a r i n g  was  H a r e l k i n  to  a  c o u l d  request  " c e r t i o r a r i  the  he  but  l e v e l  "mandamus At  requested  i n s t i t u t i o n s  "do  or  the  presence  case  was  presented  of  not of  correspondence,  1982,  147).  always the  to  the  b r i e f s ,  However,  or  Alexander s t a t e s that there i s some controversy over , 1  whether n a t u r a l j u s t i c e i s f u l l y submissions  served i f only w r i t t e n  form the b a s i s o f the student's  p r e s e n t a t i o n to the a d j u d i c a t o r s (1978, 344). He concludes that without a v e r b a l h e a r i n g , w r i t t e n submissions by the student conform w i t h the r u l e s o f n a t u r a l j u s t i c e p r o v i d e d students have access to a l l evidence presented p r i o r submission.  to making the w r i t t e n  Students have a l s o demanded the r i g h t t o  be r e p r e s e n t e d by l e g a l counsel at these appeals but the "presence o f l e g a l counsel i s not a fundamental element o f f a i r n e s s " (Alexander 1978, 350). In summary, the c o u r t s w i l l quash the d e c i s i o n of an i n t e r n a l a d j u d i c a t o r or appeal panel r e g a r d i n g academic d i s m i s s a l s i n only three s i t u a t i o n s :  (a) when  the l e g a l or c o n t r a c t u a l r i g h t s o f students have been i n f r i n g e d upon or abrogated,  (b) when there i s a  f a i l u r e by the p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n t o perform i t s s t a t u t o r y d u t i e s , or (c) when there i s a d e n i a l o f natural justice C o n t r a c t Law.  (Krivy 1982, 130). The r e l a t i o n s h i p between an e d u c a t i o n a l  i n s t i t u t i o n and a student i s c o n t r a c t u a l , a c c o r d i n g to Jennings  (1980*81).  She r e p o r t s that c o n t r a c t law has  61 Jennings been  (1980-81).  a p p l i e d ,  program  i n  She  the  United  t e r m i n a t i o n s ,  q u a l i t y  during  a  s t u d e n t ' s  tenure,  academic  d i s m i s s a l  procedures"  a n a l y s i s  of  cases  r e p o r t s  that:  for  lack  a p p l i c a t i o n d o c t r i n e . and  whether one  study.  disagree  there law  the  length  as  1980-81,  to  a  negotiated  s i n g l e  and  w r i t t e n  the  what  law  disagree i s  to  term,  course  of  c o n t r a c t  i s  that  the  as  one  means.  a p p l i c a t i o n  e d u c a t i o n ,  the a  e n t i r e  whether  any  c o n s t i t u t e s  They  the  notable  c o n t r a c t  c o n t r a c t  n o n - t r a d i t i o n a l higher  what  her  a p p l i e d ,  most  of  In  217)  r e l a t i o n s h i p  in  the  been  almost  to  and  123).  has  aspects as  of  to  c o n t r a c t u a l p a r t i e s  of  i n d i v i s i b l e ;  i s  on  programs,  requirements  are  acceptance.  d u r a t i o n  d i f f e r  (Jennings  c o n t r a c t  They  -or  and  agreement  the  law  has about  d i s m i s s a l s ,  reviewed  p a r t i c u l a r  what  Cases  of  in  (1980-81,  c o n t r a c t  law  " d i s p u t e s  academic  academic  cases  c o n t r a c t  to  changes  of  the  year  e n t i r e  Thus,  where  c o n t r a c t  t h e i r  o f f e r  degree,  of  to  . . . . t h e  a  that  S t a t e s ,  r e f u s a l s  she  grant  reports  an  i s  meaning  "obviously  agreement  document.  It  i s  that  not  which one  of  one i s  of  the in  which  embodied mutual  o b l i g a t i o n s Under to  such  i m p l i e d a  provide  for  to  by  the  the  over  e x e r c i s e s  a  The  i n s t i t u t i o n s  in  i s  a  1980-81,  221).  f a i l u r e ,  students  j u d i c i a l  f a i l u r e s  under  that  would  are  be  reverse  power to  t h e i r  i n  the  favour  charging  such,  academic  In  f a c t ,  "the  c l o s e r  academic the  cases  courts  are  to  (Jennings  i n v o l v i n g r e s o r t  than  to  plead  use  as  c o n t r a c t u a l  to  may  of  e d u c a t i o n a l  a d m i n i s t r a t i v'e- 1 a w .  students  Obviously  degree  l i k e l y  law  agreements  and,  educators" in  l e s s  c o n t r a c t  review  a l t e r n a t i v e  by  T h e r e f o r e ,  of  the  r e l u c t a n t  made  and  greater  agree  in  i n s t i t u t i o n s .  s t r i c t l y  more  d e c i s i o n  a p p l i c a t i o n  on  fees  a  tend  where  programs  has  of  152).  i n s t i t u t i o n s  of  q u e s t i o n e d .  the  overturn  than  courts  i n t r u d e s  r e l a t i o n s h i p s ,  these  degree  cases  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g dispute  payment  of  student  greater  1981-82  p r e s c r i b e d  i n s t i t u t i o n  the  r e l a t i o n s h i p .  the  with  r u l e s  (Nordin  e d u c a t i o n a l  students'"  e d u c a t i o n a l  power  law"  c o n t r a c t ,  students  exchange abide  by  to  deal  educators  with  c l i n i c a l to  for  a  Another with  c l i n i c a l  e d u c a t i o n a l  m a l p r a c t i c e .  Common  Law.  students  may  Legal sue  w r i t i n g s e d u c a t i o n a l  i d e n t i f y  two  o f f i c i a l s :  areas these  where being  63 defamation  of  the  case  former  charged one  in  c h a r a c t e r  i n s t i t u t i o n  that  in  t h i s  where to  the  among  f a l s e h o o d s . "  (MacKay  the  communicate  has:  be (a)  the  statement",  the  statement,  1981;  130).  u n l i k e l y charge  In  Although  in  about  r e a l i t y  brought none  275).  has  a  a  inform, a  r i g h t  (d)  or  there  the  to  c a s e s ,  her  are  r i g h t  in in  succeed  be  upon  such  a  educator to  and  duty educator  the the  i n f o r m a t i o n would  to  the  the  b e l i e f  f e l t  based  duty  that  s  L  truth truth  of of  (Connors,  extremely  in  proving  such  a  e d u c a t o r s . '  a  great  many  e d u c a t i o n a l  only  for  and  by  her]  i s  i s ,  b e l i e v e  i t  c o u l d  courts  s u c c e s s f u l  a  l i m i t e d  p o t e n t i a l have  (b)  or  defense  That  shown  reason  student h i s  The  provided  student  and  In  be  s t u d e n t  [his  This  were  been  the  f e l l o w s  p r i v i l e g e . "  i t  most  there  before  being  to  and  a g a i n s t  w r i t i n g s  i f  .(c)  that  her  could  a  and  lower  i n f o r m a t i o n .  duty  the  to  or  reference  accepted a  program;  1984,  " q u a l i f i e d  p r o v i d i n g  would  his  has  c o n c e r n i n g  "tends  m a l p r a c t i c e .  c h a r a c t e r  reference  former  r e f e r e n c e  i s  a  of  another  r e p u t a t i o n . . .  charge  e d u c a t i o n a l  defamation  cases  weaknesses  and  been in the  the  secondary m a l p r a c t i c e  approximately United  States  p l a i n t i f f s .  Such  s u i t s ,  ten  cases  with s u i t s  64 are  brought  before  students  who  b e n e f i t s  when  f a i l e d  to  have  School  conform  case  high  reading which  to  In  make  a of  at  (Hazard The  court  upheld  a  case  or  he  had  graduated a  Rptr.  a  s t a t u t e  i s  was  between  with  grade  8th  court  854  5th  graduates  the  a  have  grade  the  (Connors  asked teaching  (as  a s s e s s a b l e  a  acts)  a s s e s s a b l e  c o n n e c t i o n ,  they  U n i f i e d  who  there  s p e c i f i c ,  precedent  C a l .  only  above  s e r i o u s  p r o f e s s i o n a l  131  school  the  of The  q u a l i t a t i v e l y  have  i n t e n t i o n a l l y  F r a n c i s c o  student  l e v e l  which  1978,  814,  connection  (as  date,  r u l e d  upon  a  process  to  3d  high  s p e c i f i c ,  r e l a t i o n s h i p  San  [for]  educational  194).  C a l i f o r n i a a l l  l e g a l  performances),  w h i c h ,  a  " r e d r e s s  standards  v.  while  t h i s  l e a r n i n g  l e a r n i n g  VI.  was  that  f u l l  1980,  C A .  In  read  s e r i e s and  W.  a b i l i t y .  149). to  60  seek  n e g l i g e n t l y  minimum  Peter  diploma  r e q u i r e s  a b i l i t y 1981,  i s  Peter  school  to  to  r e c e i v e d  (Patterson  D i s t r i c t .  (1976).  not  courts  teachers  c o m p e t e n c e . . . " s e t t i n g  the  a  c a u s e - e f f e c t  r e s e a r c h e r s  s t u d i e d  for  of  many  the  years  have  no  d e f i n i t i v e  Peter  W.  and  and  on  data.  283). against  appeal.  In  a  subsequent  t h i s c a s e ,  d e c i s i o n Donohue  was v.  65 Copiague A.D.  Union  2d  29  The  Free  (1978)  f a i l u r e  t e a c h .  It  i s  classroom [407  not  (2d)  e d u c a t i o n a l  c o u r t s  Canada  in  such  a  c a s e ,  up  academic  "the  are  c o u r t s  based  upon  (Marx,  have  to  possess"  Legal m a l p r a c t i c e  support a g a i n s t  been  standards  review  w i t h i n  e x p e r t i s e  " f a c t o r s  the  e x p e r t i s e  However,  academic  records  p a r t i c u l a r  academicians" j u d i c i a l  procedures that  the  that  met.  the  the  s u c c e s s f u l  prove  of  view  that  before  be  favor  d i s m i s s a l  cases  To  not  to  to  l e a r n .  brought  were  equipped  f a i l u r e  i d e n t i c a l  any  standards  and  874,  (1978)]  present.  expressed  (Brock,  not  29  to  Thus,  i n v o l v e  2d  a  to  have  s c h o l a s t i c  c o n t i n u a l l y  d i s m i s s a l s not  4 3 ) .  the  would  experience  1983;  deference  not  academic  knowledge,  the  2d  p l a i n t i f f ' s  f a i l e d  i n s t i t u t i o n s  students  e s t a b l i s h e d  A.D.  the  to  also  have  to  N . Y . S .  bespeak  that  exposed  874,  there  i n v o l v i n g  not  a l l e g e d  were  407  concluded  does  i n s t r u c t i o n ,  r e a l i t y  i n  D i s t r i c t ,  court  l e a r n  who  N . Y . S .  In  the  to  c l a s s m a t e s ,  School  - -  courts  academic  j u d i c i a r y  does  1979).  f o r an  a  s t u d e n t ' s  educator  c l a i m  would  be  of  e d u c a t i o n a l  dependent  on  66 proving c o u r t  t h a t  s p e c i f i c  standards  would  need  to  "reasonable  man"  would  c i r c u m s t a n c e s . e s t a b l i s h t h a t in  because  has  l i a b i l i t y " be  between  the  s t u d e n t ' s  students1' r e s e a r c h c l e a r  such  t e a c h i n g  e d u c a t o r , would  be  In  can  measure  the  extremely  d i f f i c u l t  absence  causal  f a i l u r e  l e a r n  to  teach  s t a n d a r d s ,  i s  could  be  Thus,  the  d i f f i c u l t  a b i l i t y  the  of  there  of  i s  no  by  by the  known  to  r e l a t i o n s h i p  between  the student  prove.  educators  c l i n i c a l  e v a l u a t i o n s  p o t e n t i a l l y  a f f e c t e d  by:  performances,  with area  t e a c h i n g ) ,  to  the  e s t a b l i s h e d  l e a r n i n g , '  also  l i n k a g e  and  ongoing  Consequently,  of  would  i n t e r f e r e  an  of  for"  C o n s i d e r i n g can  to  p r i n c i p l e s of  "but  e q u i t a b l e  students'"  of  student  n e g l i g e n t  the  i s  set  The  which  lack  same  a  40).  which  ( i . e .  standards  i m p o s i t i o n  l i n k a g e .  summary,  and be  and  a  The  the  e d u c a t i o n .  r e l a t i o n s h i p  support poor  to  met.  a g a i n s t  l e a r n .  v a r i a b l e s  not  undefined  the  d i r e c t  e d u c a t o r ' s  a b i l i t y in  a  to  vague  f i e l d ;  1979;  show  the  comparison  m i t i g a t e d  to  what  in  "the  the  f a i l u r e  innumerable  use  a  of  ( K l e i n ,  r e q u i r e d  f a i r  Such  c h a r a c t e r i z e  f a c t ,  e s t a b l i s h  were  for  v a r i a b l e s the  to  provide students  used  to  r e l a t i o n s h i p  67 between  the  complexity  performance of  e x p e c t a t i o n s  a p p r a i s a l s ,  e x p e c t a t i o n s assessment i n t e r - a n d  of  students  of  personal  d i s t o r t i o n s  in  been  e v a l u a t o r s  c l i n i c a l  demonstrate grievance  i n s t i t u t i o n s .  e s t a b l i s h e d  to  provide  a  educators'"  and  students'  Procedures  for  these  l i m i t s ,  process the  for  p r o c e s s ,  a d j u d i c a t i v e  the  and  the  degree  of  evaluators1"  performances, f a c t o r s  students  the  above  and  appeal  Such means  and  can  of  lead  to  students'  f e e l i n g  hearings  of  the  process  d e c i s i o n s .  f e e l i n g s  that  of  u s u a l l y  of  reason  hearing for  have  ensuring  are  by  hearings  hearings  r i g h t s  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s e l e c t i o n  the  in  u n f a i r l y .  e d u c a t i o n a l  time  s o c i a l i z a t i o n  p e r c e p t i o n  L  s u b j e c t i v i t y  e x p e r t i s e  x  of  These  e v a l u a t o r s in  of  p r o f e s s i o n a l  v a l u e s .  judged  through  degree  r e l i a b i l i t y  r e s u l t i n g  Students redress  the  the  c l i n i c a l  performances,  1 -  students'"  evaluators1"  have  and  s t u d e n t s ,  i n t r a - r a t e r  performances  students1'  evaluators1'  of  assessment  they  of  seeking w i t h i n been  that  both  p r o t e c t e d . c o n t a i n : for p a n e l ,  s p e c i f i c  g r i e v a n c e , steps  communicating  in  68 In t h e i r  the  event  e v a l u a t i v e  educational they The  may  i n s t i t u t i o n ' s  courts  w i l l of  e d u c a t i o n a l  they  t r a d i t i o n a l  students1'  of  charging  i n s t i t u t i o n s  to  of  other  The wide  which  defamation  educational  l i t e r a t u r e  v a r i a t i o n s  in  e v a l u a t i o n  process  approaches  to  the  c o u r t s .  there  i t s are  i s  a  h e s i t a n t  d e c i s i o n s  experts  in  the  performances.  i n s t i t u t i o n s '  may  be  opening  up  to  students  are:  breach  of  t h e i r  c o n t r a c t s ,  competence  to  t e a c h ,  with  of  the  outside  d i s s a t i s f i e d  i n s t r u c t o r s ' "  mechanisms,  the  academic  have the  when  academic as  of  when  courts  education  p r e r o g a t i v e s by  or  The  educators  c h a l l e n g e s  charges  r o l e .  view  aspects  review  acted  s u b s t a n t i v e  j u d i c i a l  c h a l l e n g i n g  has  to  through  r i g h t s  with  of  a  way  review  review  such  unable  by  i n t e r n a l  s t u d e n t ' s  mandated  determination  Other  provide  are  a l t e r e d  j u d i c i a l  i n s t i t u t i o n  i n t e r f e r e  because  a  the  l e g i s l a t i v e l y to  students  d e c i s i o n s  request  v i o l a t i o n  that  a  c h a r a c t e r  over  and  references  sent  i n s t i t u t i o n s .  reviewed  provided  writers'"  views  and  the  also  implementation  i n s i g h t s  about  lack of  of  the  into  c l i n i c a l  c o n s i s t e n t  grievance  and  the  69 appeal Three  systems major  decisions  for  themes  reviews  These  being,  nurse  educators;  policies  the  and  A  educator's  In  the  those  and  the  of  emerged  component  students'  clinical  professional  from  clinical  can  the as  (i.e.,  of  the  uses  in arriving  component  of  natural made  literature being  justice  fairly  the  at  basis  and of  of  the  the  students' the  with  an a  student.  reviewed the  judgments:  the  reached on  three  about  the the  process  the  conclusion);  (i.e.,  by  and  in  evaluator);  whether  equitably). the  students  involved  based  (i.e.,  and  identified.  regarding  conclusions  evaluator  of  interfere  performance  judgment  became  were  regarding  evaluative  component  elements  performance  formulation  ability  administrative  were  the  of  institutional  protection  theme  identified  academic  reached  decisions  decisionmaking  formulation  decisions.  formulation  clinical  during  f a c t o r s which  were  the  a p p l i c a t i o n of  procedures  conclusion,  elements  to  students' of  further  unconscious  evaluation  professional appraisal  processes;  rights.  relating  regarding  subsequent  review  assessing  conceptual  and  the  conclusions  These framework  70  for  the study  chapter  3.  and w i l l  be explained more f u l l y in  71  CHAPTER CONCEPTUAL  FRAMEWORK  —  The  conceptual i n  l i t e r a t u r e  reviewed.  d e s c r i b e  and  f o l l o w e d  by  the  framework  summarized  previous  a  the  would  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g  and  be  F i n a l l y ,  the  above  be  was  designed  of  the  to  s t u d y ' s  survey  academic  component, d e p i c t e d  and i n  the  the  interdependent process  about  the  model  model, the  of  education of  f u r t h e r f o r  e v a l u a t i v e  the  both  model  of which  development  t o o l s .  component,  conceptual  s t u d e n t ' s  Model  the  component  elements a  a  from  i n i t i a l l y  w i t h i n  d i r e c t i o n  Conceptual  The  w i l l  t h i s  into  as  d e r i v e d  c o n s o l i d a t i o n  presented  provide  i s  processes  the  study,  conceptual  how  a p p l i e d  review  i n s t i t u t i o n s . ; w i l l  of  *  t h i s  chapter  o v e r a l l  d e s c r i p t i o n  s p e c u l a t i v e l y ,  f o r  c h a p t e r ,  This  d i s c u s s  3  of  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e natural  model  i n v o l v e d c l i n i c a l  (see i n  j u s t i c e  F i g u r e  the  1)  are as  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g  performance.  The  F i g . 1.  Judgment Model  K3  73 f i r s t  element  e v a l u a t o r  r e f e r s  about  performance.  a  the  s p e c i f i c  These  p r e - e s t a b l i s h e d  to  data,  data  s t u d e n t ' s when  academic  c o l l e c t e d  by  the  c l i n i c a l  compared  standards,  with  r e s u l t  in  an  #  academic  c o n c l u s i o n .  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e procedures a l s o and of  to  component,  used  the  which make  the the  student  sre of  the  r e f e r s  not  are  A p p l i c a t i o n  of  his  Model without  to  a p p l i c a t i o n the  review  i n s t i t u t i o n s  l i t e r a t u r e  on  or  are  f a i r l y the  of  to  her  her  formulate  p e r c e p t i o n  The  the  but  way  method  in used  to  c l i n i c a l  the  a p p l i c a t i o n to  say,  a p p l i e d  to  ensure  of  the that  the  e q u i t a b l y . to  Reviews  of  C l i n i c a l  D e c i s i o n s  components  based  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  data,  i s  Model  the  the  That  and  processes i s  or  and  through  E v a l u a t i v e  The  his  j u s t i c e .  j u s t i c e  t r e a t e d  i n s t r u c t o r  a p p l i e d of  to  c o l l e c t  performance.  c o n t r o l l e d  natural  the  the  only  to  student,  aware  natural was  element,  by  c l i n i c a l  student  second  e v a l u a t o r  used  standards  p r o v i s i o n s of  the  to  s t u d e n t ' s  performance  r u l e s  by  process  communicate the  The  provided on  a  of  both  review  p r a c t i c e s  the  and  Judgment  w i t h i n  of the  and  the nursing  74 education  experience  r e p r e s e n t s w i t h i n  a  most  a g a i n s t  respondents  can  " s p e c u l a t e d "  the  grievance the  (the  program  Such  the  then a  reached  the  F i g u r e  apply  for  hearing  It  w i l l  A  to  provide  obtained  review  from  occur a  the  d e s c r i p t i o n  would The  2).  of  be  study  of  t h i s  of  would  r e - e v a l u a t e  the  c a l l e d  review  review)  w i t h i n  be  a  t h i s i n t e r n a l  the  to  academic  the  3).  of  the  Appeal  was  have  not  a  upheld,  i s  and  conducted been  the  the  of  i n c l u d i n g  f a i r l y  p r e v i o u s l y  c o m p l a i n a n t ' s  of  review  made  t r e a t e d  hearing  i s  Hearing  i n v o l v e  c o n c l u s i o n s  This who  c o n c l u s i o n  an  would  student  employees reviews  s p e c u l a t e d  reassessment  would  academic  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e not  i s  i t  u n i t .  If may  a  F i g u r e  and  Therefore,  f o l l o w s .  grievance  i n s t i t u t i o n  c o n c l u s i o n  data  compared.  i n i t i a l  (see  what  which  be  r e s e a r c h e r .  programs.  requests  t h i s  " g r i e v a n c e "  of  process  student  judgment,  the  prototype nursing  "standard"  If  of  d e c i s i o n .  the whether  e q u i t a b l y by  or (see  i n s t i t u t i o n  involved  e v a l u a t i o n .  student  in  I  /  =  SECONDARY FOCUS OF REVIEW  Fig.. 2.  I n i t i a l Review o f D e c i s i o n  I  ^  F i g . 3.  Second L e v e l o f R e v i e w  77 If the  the  outcome  c a l l e d  the  provided  student  continues  of  h e a r i n g ,  t h i s  I n s t i t u t i o n a l  (see  Figure  At  4).  review  the  a s s e s s i n g  i t  procedural  rendered  to  In  words,  other  the  the  process  T h e r e f o r e , reviews  u n f a i r  e x t e r n a l (see by  the  the  of  a  in  the  i n t e r n a l  the  or  of  a  the  of  the  An or.  f e e l s  where  such A c t ) .  I n s t i t u t i o n a l  she  a  that or  and  These Student  that  student. appeal  of  the  account  the  he  review  p o s i t i o n  ensure  the  model.  p r o v i n c i a l a  the  the  into  i n s t i t u t i o n ' s  external  by  grievance  taking  treatment judgment.  and  to  would  made,  review  j u s t i c e  a p p e a l ,  panel  the  process  conceptual  s t i l l  at  with  be  u n f a i r  r e - a p p r a i s a l  i n e q u i t a b l e ,  5).  p r o v i n c i a l  in  judgment  student  c o u r t s ,  s i t u a t i o n s by  the  review  Figure  would  natural  r e s u l t  elements  If been  provided  would  a r r i v i n g  appeal  a  d e c i s i o n or  of  may  appeal  e r r o r s  in  l e v e l  Appeal,  t h i s  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g  both  f o r m u l a t i o n three  student  d i s s a t i s f i e d  f u r t h e r  e v a l u a t i v e  t h i s  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  a  be  Student  t y p i c a l l y  for  to  judgment  may  i n i t i a t e  an  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g could  be  ombudsman has  external Appeal,  has  l e g a l  undertaken (in  j u r i s d i c t i o n  a d j u d i c a t o r s , would  review  as only  F i g . 4.  Third Level  o f Review  EXTERNAL APPEAL  D  = PRIMARY FOCUS OF REVIEW F i g . 5.  E x t e r n a l Review o f D e c i s i o n  * T h i s r e v i e w o n l y o c c u r s i n p r o v i n c e s and i n s t i t u t i o n s w h i c h p r o v i d e t h e i r ombudsman w i t h s u c h powers  80 the  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  there  had  been  a  c o n c l u s i o n  denial  of  and/or  natural  examine  j u s t i c e  whether  to  the  student.  Judgment  Thus, the a l s o  not  three  only  does  the  flow  the  i n s t i t u t i o n  two  The  f i r s t  would  l e v e l  second  l e v e l  w i t h i n  the  Review  Committee).  would  the  conducted has  the  in  performance mechanism  f i v e  the  the  flows  d e s c r i b e s  the  Each  judgments Each  previous  Judgment  sequence  The  judgment,  being  made.  program  i t Within  occur.  u n i t ;  department  I n s t i t u t i o n a l  the but Marks  i n s t i t u t i o n , d e c i s i o n  an  may  occur  i n v e s t i g a t i o n  ombudsman of  show  these  (where  he  three  about  student  l e v e l  acts  as  or  l e v e l s  she i s  c l i n i c a l a  checking  l e v e l .  Process  d e p i c t e d . the  the  p r o v i n c i a l  a  the  an  through  d e c i s i o n s .  for  the  i n s t i t u t i o n ' s or  making  in  ( e . g . ,  framework  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g  o u t s i d e  Outside  C o u r t s , by  of  occur  occur  the  of  d e c i s i o n s  l e v e l s  j u r i s d i c t i o n ) .  i n v o l v e d  In  of  conceptual  elements  of  i n s t i t u t i o n  a d j u d i c a t i o n w i t h i n  the  i n t e r c o n n e c t e d  d e p i c t s  Process  (see  f i r s t  from  when  Figure  flow the  (see  6 ) ,  there  Figure  student  6,  are #1)  performs  JUDGMENT  'STUDENT PERFORMS/  IS MADE  r )EPARTMENTAli REVIEW  ^DECISION  N  #2  GRIEVANCE REVIEW >St S1tjUDE DNETN>t •iKACCEPTS >T K  v  TDECISIOff  APPEAL HEARING,  #3  IN STOIJENT. fX^ACCEPTS > Y ^DFCISIQN^  INSTITUTIONAL!1 STUDENT'  #4  LAEEE^t  >TUDENTv .ACCEPTS DECISION  EXTERNAL APPEAL  #5 iiTUDENTsw  -X^ACCEPTS TENSION Fig.  6.  F l o w Model o f Judgments  o r Reviews  >Y ^  82 in  a  c l i n i c a l  e v a l u a t o r ' s The  next  s e t t i n g judgment  three to  i n i t i a l  d e c i s i o n .  d e p i c t s  an  external  empower  her  him  or  During p r o c e s s ,  the  the  performance and  w i t h i n  c l i n i c a l  would  f a i r  The  that  the  accepted at  and  the  of  the  flow  a  made in  u n i t  would  e q u i t a b l e  s  the to  when  Acts  c l i n i c a l the  p o l i c i e s the  that  s t u d e n t  the  was  program  u n i t  review the L  s  program's  e v a l u a t i o n  p r o v i d i n g  d e c i s i o n .  L  ensure  d e c i s i o n  i n s t i t u t i o n a l  #5)  judgment  w i t h i n  r e f l e c t s  e v a l u a t i v e  time,  the  e v a l u a t i o n  i n s t i t u t i o n a l  6,  reviews.  s t u d e n t  r e l a t i o n  the  through  ombudsman such  c o n s i d e r e d  of  Figure  or  through  about  #4)  e v a l u a t i v e  c o u r t s ,  undertake  and  reviews (see  the  performance.  #2,#3,  the  p r o v i n c i a l  program  same  6,  flow  i n s t i t u t i o n a l  performance  through w h i l e ,  be  d e c i s i o n  o b j e c t i v e s . ensure  to  f i r s t  The  e v a l u a t i v e  the  d e c i s i o n  th-e  mechanism.  review  r e c e i v e s  c l i n i c a l  Figure  f i n a l  through by  student  i n s t i t u t i o n a l  The  i n v e s t i g a t i o n s  the  t h i s  (see  p o t e n t i a l  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g  when  about  flows  p e r t a i n  to  review  a r r i v e d and  would at  procedures  student  with  a  83 I n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p Components  Gri evance f i r s t  Revi ew.  informal  program  u n i t  the  e v a l u a t o r would  Appeal  Hearing.  Appeal  The  Hearing l e v e l  i n t e n t  formulate  the  e v a l u a t o r  about  to  the  the  way  in  occurs  data  were  i s  would  shown to  c l i n i c a l the  student  i m p a r t i a l i t y  of  the  c l i n i c a l  the  Appeal  Hearing  would  the  how  and  c l i n i c a l  the  the  of  F i g u r e  student  Grievance  the  occur  data  used  made  by  the  to  the  performance, the  e v a l u a t i v e  were  and  d e c i s i o n . the  but  c o n c l u s i o n ,  d i f f i c u l t i e s  f a i r n e s s  r e a s s e s s  i s  at  This  making  the  review  3.  c l i n i c a l in  the  the to  the  assessment.  performance  to  assess about  i s ,  judgment  used  the  g e n e r a l l y  in  s t u d e n t ' s  at  l e v e l  review  communicated  i s ,  That  2).  formal  procedures  which  and  f i r s t  not  r e p r e s e n t s  to  c o l l e c t e d  Model  Review  communicated  p r o f e s s i o n a l the  i s  academic  as  of  g e n e r a l l y  the  which  Judgment  review  purpose  (Figure  h e a r i n g ' s  of  performance,  r e a s s e s s  i n s t i t u t i o n a l  assess  the  the  Levels  l e v e l  Its  problems  Review  the  of  the  and  l e v e l .  c l i n i c a l  performance by  This  review  a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s s t u d e n t ' s  and  Between  That  84 a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a s s e s s m e n t and d e t e r m i n e  i f the student  r e c e i v e d h i s o r h e r due p r o c e s s . I n s t i t u t i o n a l Student further  I n some i n s t i t u t i o n s  formal appeal i s provided t o e i t h e r  executive officer panel  Appeal.  the chief  o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n or a d e l e g a t e d  (see Figure 4 ) .  I f this  provided i n the institution', the c h i e f executive o f f i c e r proceedings  a  from t h e  would p r o v i d e a f i n a l  l e v e l o f a p p e a l was  i t would g e n e r a l l y  involve  or panel r e v i e w i n g only the  Appeal Hearing.  This  review  i n t e r n a l review of the  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e component o f t h e d e c i s i o n and a s s e s s m e n t o f due p r o c e s s p r o v i d e d t o t h e s t u d e n t . External Appeal.  E x t e r n a l reviews  be p r o v i d e d t h r o u g h e i t h e r ombudsman.  ( s e e F i g u r e 5) c a n  t h e c o u r t s or t h e p r o v i n c i a l  P r o v i n c i a l ombudsmen c a n o n l y c a r r y o u t an  external review  i n i n s t i t u t i o n s where t h e i r  provincial  l e g i s l a t i o n p r o v i d e s ombudsmen w i t h s u c h p o w e r s . reviews are directed  Their  t o t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e component o f  t h e d e c i s i o n and t h e f a i r n e s s and r e a s o n a b l e n e s s  of the  process used i n a r r i v i n g a t the d e c i s i o n . If either  t h e student or r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e  e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n were t o d i s a g r e e w i t h t h e  85 d e c i s i o n could  be  the  an  the  made  to  such  e r r o r  only  t r i a l ,  j u d i c i a l can  have  When review the  of  p r o t o t y p i c developed  afforded  analyzed  of  for  a  " f i t "  l e g a l the  b a s i s by  appeals  preceding  t r i b u n a l s , i s  be  upheld  and  have  i s  the  no  new  not  a l l o w e d ,  the  student  a u t h o r i t y  d e c i s i o n s '  dependent  these  the  p r a c t i c e s  actual as  that with  compared that  data the  to  impact  on  on  the  p o s i t i o n s .  Model  r e q u i r e d  ensure  at  l e a v e .  p r i n c i p l e s  Generation  i n s t i t u t i o n s  to  the  appeal  t h e i r  i n s t i t u t i o n s  models  only  the  would  grievances  Determination  with  on  of  appeal  Canada,  Since  ombudsmen  Data  e d u c a t i o n a l  If  Court  f u r t h e r  l e g a l  party  r e c o u r s e .  p r o v i n c i a l  powers  of  q u a s i - j u d i c i a l  f u r t h e r  e d u c a t i o n a l  made  presented  entered.  students''  be  A  of  Appeal.  d e c i s i o n  no  p r o v i n c i a l  can  e i t h e r  p r o v i n c i a l  Court  a p p l i c a t i o n  or  e v a l u a t i v e  would  appeal  evidence  be  the  Court,  l e a v e .  Supreme  Court  the  to  obtains  the  p r o v i n c i a l  evidence  i t  the  in  Supreme  d e c i s i o n  an  review  the  p r o v i n c i a l  provided  However, of  the  appeal  A p p e a l , can  of  a  with  in the  s t r u c t u r e d  obtained  could  models.  To  above plan  be  be  implement  86 such  a  F i g u r e  plan  a  7).  The  components  t h r e e - d i m e n s i o n a l f i r s t  (see  l o c a t i o n  where  r e l a t i n g  to  model  dimension  F i g u r e  1),  d e c i s i o n s  v a r i a b l e s  the  the  second  were  about  was  was  made,  the  r e q u i r e d  Judgment  being  and  (see Model  the  the  t h i r d  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g  p r o c e s s .  A  set  provided  a  processes c l i n i c a l These  of  f i v e  means which  ( i . e . ,  or  body  when  he  are:  (a)  the  i s , the  she  (c)  performance,  and  (e)  a v a i l a b l e  to  students  d e c i s i o n s  a b o u t t h e i r  the  where  program to  the  the  who  actual  which  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g  nursing  programs  performance  1  the  are  in  the  when  made.  d e c i s i o n - m a k e r  u n i t ,  i s  i n s t i t u t i o n ,  i n s t i t u t i o n ) ,  (b)  who  the  f u n c t i o n s  the  d e c i s i o n - m a k e r  placed  the  d e c i s i o n - m a k e r  judgments the  s e l e c t e d  Canadian  c o n t r o l s  makes  was  students  E x t e r n a l  (d) or  in  of  in  d e c i s i o n - m a k e r performs,  assess  occur  v a r i a b l e s  a  to  judgments  l o c a t e d in  v a r i a b l e s  about  various wish  on  to  student  review  mechanisms  question  performances.  c l i n i c a l  e v a l u a t i v e  87  F i g . 7.  Data G e n e r a t i o n Model  88 T h i s model p r o v i d e d a framework t o i d e n t i f y content of questions which  n e e d e d t o be  data c o l l e c t i o n  a b o u t e v a l u a t i o n and  practices.  instrument  instrument and  the q u e s t i o n s asked  review  practice  i n the  at each l e v e l o f the program's e v a l u a t i o n  review process.  Questions  to obtain data r e l a t e d processes  i n c l u d e d i n the  I n summary, t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g  v a r i a b l e s would guide  the  and  w o u l d a l s o be  to both the f o c i of  developed  these  t o t h e l o c a t i o n where e a c h l e v e l  review occurs. methodology w i l l  This instrument be  and  the  of  study's  d i s c u s s e d i n the next  chapter.  89  CHAPTER RESEARCH  This  chapter  i n v e s t i g a t e  the  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e the  the  research  development measures  r e l a t i o n s h i p s  of  The  and  f o r  both  Since  t h i s  study  s u f f i c i e n t  data  had  broad  to  overview  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g v a r i a b l e s . determine  the  data  be of  Data whether  c o l l e c t e d the  elements as  well  and  i n c l u d e  d i s c u s s i o n  f o r  the  c o l l e c t i o n  of as  then of  study,  and  and a n a l y s i s .  Design  a  e x i s t i n g  p r a c t i c e s  to  appeals  new  c o l l e c t e d  of  the  used  instruments,  explored  understanding general  of  Research  :  i n i t i a l  w i l l  population  t e s t i n g  method  procedures,  and  d e s c r i p t i o n  the  between  and  grievances  d e s i g n ,  used  PROCEDURES  d e s c r i b e  s t r u c t u r e s  i n c i d e n c e  outcomes.  w i l l  4  were  t h e o r e t i c a l  to  of  to  also  r e s e a r c h ,  provide  p r a c t i c e s  a c t i v i t i e s r e l a t e d  area  an  through  a  and s e l e c t e d chosen  models  f o r  to the  study  90 r e f l e c t e d  actual  programs.  To  survey  meet  using  An  p r a c t i c e s  a  these  d e f i n i t i o n ,  a l l o w s  elements  be  r e s u l t s P o l i t  in  and  nursing  parameters,  c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l  e x p l o r a t o r y  to  in  study only  such  the  d i s c o v e r e d ,  any  other  a  d e s c r i p t i v e  design  as  was  t h i s  c a r r i e d  one,  r e l a t i o n s h i p not  causes  p o p u l a t i o n  Hungler,  education  (Borg  or  out.  by  between p r e d i c t i o n  and  Gaul,  of  1983;  1983).  P o p u l a t i o n  The heads  t a r g e t  of  n u r s i n g  a l l  due  the  diploma  programs  programs was  p o p u l a t i o n  in to  in  The  v a r i a t i o n  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  law  in  c o n t r a s t  a p p l i c a t i o n s  in  the  as  Quebec  programs  This  u n i f i e d  study  b a c c a l a u r e a t e  a  with  in  was  to  survey  of  Quebec  Quebec  p r o v i n c e s . group  as  of programs  of p u b l i c  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  respondent  the  exception  a p p l i c a t i o n to  was  b a c c a l a u r e a t e  the  e x c l u s i o n  remaining  were  t h i s  b a s i c  p r o v i s i o n s  i n s t i t u t i o n s  ensure  and  Canada,  Quebec. the  for  law T h e r e f o r e ,  to  p o s s i b l e ,  e x c l u d e d .  also  programs  to  l i m i t e d ensure  to  diploma  that  as  and  basic  homogeneous  a  91 grouping  as  remaining  p o s s i b l e  nine  programs  Since  decided  then  and  there  programs  from  how  appeared  which t h a t  search  of  D i r e c t o r y  a  study  diploma known  in  t h i s  p o p u l a t i o n  b a s i c  the  t h i s  nine Since  in  only  programs  The  much  the  were  number  study,  be  i t  made  was  through  H o s p i t a l  programs  were  e d u c a t i o n  i d e n t i f i e d  for  t h i s  r e s t r i c t e d  nursing  programs,  to two  p o s t - b a s i c  e l i m i n a t e d  from  the  p o p u l a t i o n .  V e r i f i c a t i o n programs n u r s i n g  and  the  of  the  s t a t u s  of  the  remaining  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n  of  the  names  a d m i n i s t r a t o r s  of  these  programs  of  used.  was  was  be  group?  small  nursing  provided  would  t a r g e t e d  ninety  survey  the  data  Canadian  p r o v i n c e s the  b a s i c  Canada.  would  ninety  b a c c a l a u r e a t e  which  in  the  meet  r e l a t i v e l y  s e a r c h ,  a l l  and  to  p o p u l a t i o n  l i s t e d  From  the  a  how  t o t a l  chosen.  b a c c a l a u r e a t e  many  to  i n v o l v e d  w i t h i n  programs  as  be  I n i t i a l l y  and  throughout  would  1983.  were  nurses  be  of  throughout  diploma  to  programs  i d e n t i f i e d . programs  prepare  arose  I d e n t i f i c a t i o n a  Both  requirements  Questions necessary  achieved  p r o v i n c e s .  b a c c a l a u r e a t e r e g i s t r a t i o n  was  were  of  the then  92 undertaken.  The  p r o v i n c i a l have  the  nurses  nursing  programs  Education n u r s i n g  the  base  r a i s e d  about f i v e  of  to  Of  theseto  each  agreed  the  hence  of  in  the  p r o v i n c i a l  study.  the  n i n e t y - f o u r  are  not  Development  and  T e s t i n g  of  of  study,  purposes  developed: procedures  appeals;  and  one  students  to  r e l a t e d  the  other  had  f a m i l i a r Nursing  p r o v i n c i a l  to  which  programs,  hence  the  are  v e r i f y  the  They were  also  added  p o p u l a t i o n  to  was  programs.  other  For  r e g i s t e r  The  nine  t o t a l  The  and  the  p r o v i n c i a l  programs.  programs  Thus,  to  they  w r i t i n g  survey  respond  where  for  were  a s s o c i a t i o n s  a u t h o r i t y  the  p o p u l a t i o n .  and  These  j u r i s d i c t i o n .  a d d i t i o n a l  the  v e r i f i c a t i o n  r e s p e c t i v e and  t h e i r  n i n e t y - f o u r  responded  were  w i t h i n  a s s o c i a t i o n s  i d e n t i f i e d  t h e i r  programs,  C o n s u l t a n t  i n f o r m a t i o n  t h i s  l e g i s l a t e d  from  e d u c a t i o n  for  a s s o c i a t i o n s .  p r o v i n c i a l l y  graduating  n u r s i n g with  sources  or  86.IX  t h i r t e e n  of  assess  the  in  e v a l u a t i o n ,  to  assess  the  not  study.  Instruments  two  instruments  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  to  launched  did  the  the  programs  t o t a l  programs  i n c l u d e d  t h i s  eighty-one  p r a c t i c e s  g r i e v a n c e s , i n c i d e n c e  complaints  about  of t h e i r  and cases  93 c l i n i c a l  e v a l u a t i v e  d e c i s i o n s .  designed  to  data  c o l l e c t  These  r e l e v a n t  to  instruments  two  of  were  the  sub-problems: One, E x p l o r a t i o n of the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e s procedures in Canadian nursing programs which with the c l i n i c a l f a i l u r e of students.  and d e a l t  Two, Examination of the frequency of academic grievances and a p p e a l s Canada from 1978 u n t i l 1985. Three personal  methods  f i n a l  of  in  as  a  F o u r t h , A f t e r  T h i r d ,  there  semantic  varying  p r a c t i c e s  names  c o n s i d e r a t i o n  determined accommodate  that  the  these  was  of  f a c t o r s  need  were  in  above  was  a  to  of  using  data  o f f - s e t  from  i n s t i t u t i o n s  reviews. by  method  mailed  of  geographic  c o l l e c t  respondents.  f a c t o r s ,  f e a s i b l e  s e l e c t i o n  cost  to  of  use  mailed  was  p o s s i b l e  l e v e l s  and  wide  the  r e s u l t i n g  for  the  only  a  as  problems  of  a  in  c o n s i d e r e d :  the  i n t e r v i e w s  format  v a r i e t y  was  Second,  telephone  a  d i c t a t e d  there  or  s t a n d a r d i z e d  p e r c e i v e d using  F i r s t ,  were  i n t e r v i e w s ,  f a c t o r s  respondents.  personal  p r o h i b i t i v e .  c o l l e c t i o n  telephone  Four  c h o i c e .  d i s p e r s i o n e i t h e r  data  i n t e r v i e w s ,  q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . the  of  nursing student which have o c c u r r e d  i t which  was would  q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  94  F o l l o w i n g  the  d e c i s i o n  c o n s i d e r a t i o n q u e s t i o n s would  to  had be  provide  f u r n i s h  to  to  be  used  breadth  M u l t i p l e - c h o i c e  to  to  open  or  c l o s e d .  posed  a d d i t i o n a l  programs  whose  p r a c t i c e s  respond. would  c l o s e d  but  respondents  to  they  from  v a r i e d  Instrument  to  p r o c e d u r e s . s t r u c t u r e d l e v e l s  of  to  seek  reviews  organized  around  d i s c u s s e d where  d e c i s i o n - m a k e r  in the was,  that  an  obtain  for  from  the  could  the  not  questions  option  for  p r a c t i c e s  p r a c t i c e s  the  previous  needed  concerning  u t i l i z e d .  dimensions  the  to  when  p r o v i d e d .  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g  processes the  provided  programs'  i n f o r m a t i o n of  s i g n i f i c a n t l y  provide t h e i r  to  questions  Respondents  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  Questions  Open  i n d i v i d u a l i z e d  decided  options  of  responses.  without  was  type  opportunity  responses  on  assess  and  i n c l u d e d :  the  the  v a r i e d  would  expand  s t r u c t u r e  Model  i t  the  problems.  the  T h e r e f o r e ,  be  with  t h e i r  comments  in  q u e s t i o n n a i r e ,  as  responses  mentioned  a  made  respondents  more  options  use  of  as  the  was  what  the  f u n c t i o n s  the  were  various as  the  questions  Data  chapter.  d e c i s i o n - m a k e r  data  well  These  and  were  Generation  These l o c a t e d ,  who  the  d e c i s i o n - m a k e r  p e r f o r m e d , who  controlled  the decision-maker,  r o u t e students used i f they decision.  wished  Such decisions-making  a s s e r t i o n r e f l e c t e d both literature  search  for this  study  the f o l l o w i n g : program,  designed  and  from  Thus,  This  from  the  the the  data r e l a t e d  to  e v a l u a t i o n p r a c t i c e s i n the  (b) i n f o r m a l r e v i e w  of the e v a l u a t i v e  d e c i s i o n s w i t h i n the program,  (c) formal review  e v a l u a t i v e d e c i s i o n s w i t h i n the i n s t i t u t i o n , a d j u d i c a t i o n o f t h e f o r m a l d e c i s i o n by executive off-icer of  the  institution.  to c o l l e c t  (a) c l i n i c a l  what  potentially  i n f o r m a t i o n gained  researcher's personal experience. q u e s t i o n n a i r e was  to question  processes  o c c u r r e d a t f o u r l e v e l s w i t h i n any  and  the  of  and  the  (d)  chief  the  institution. Because i n s t i t u t i o n s u t i l i z e d for  their  l e v e l s of reviews  a variety  o f names  t h e n a m i n g or l a b e l l i n g  the four l e v e l s proved  problematic.  generic term-labelling  (eg., grievance, appeal,  was  used.  instrument process called  However, a f t e r i t was  the p r e - t e s t i n g of  determined  s h o u l d be u s e d .  Initially,  of  a etc.)  this  t h a t l a b e l s d e s c r i b i n g the  Therefore,  "Assessment of Students'  the f i r s t  Clinical  level  was  Performance,"  96 the  second,  Clinical Appeal  "Informal  Performance  Hearing  Decisions,"  of  and  Grievance  D e c i s i o n s , " the  Student  the  Review  Clinical  fourth,  of  Student  third,  "Formal  Performance  "Institutional  Student  Appeal."  Two (a)  the  sources Data  were used  Generation  variables  from  education  institutions'  Generation provision  of  specified  Golden's  which  education from  while  Golden's  acted  reviews called  what  as  were during  determined  were  i n the  which  included: advisors  to  documented, reviews  to  (a)  was  number  United  were who  (d)  was  for  and  variables and of  appeal  higher  States.  and  Variable  faculty, witnesses  evidence,  c o u l d be during  (e)  called, a  the  the  the  interviewed,  whether  provide  permitted  Data  incorporated into  students  which witnesses  evidence  grievance  in a  The  necessary  provided  of  i n place  study  higher  in institutions  structure  institutions  questionnaire who  the  of  described  study  content  selected  handbooks. data  information which  programs,  systems  the  question  (b)  study  student  practices  to  and  (1981)  decision-making  pertaining  specify  Model,  Golden's  Model  to  review.  and  (b)  (c) were who (f)  how  97 In  order  the elements procedures,  t o determine  the relationships  o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e s and i t was r e c o g n i z e d t h a t some d e m o g r a p h i c  i n f o r m a t i o n w o u l d a l s o be r e q u i r e d . v a r i a b l e s were i d e n t i f i e d : institutions,  (a) geographic  location of  (c) t o t a l  student enrollment of the  ( d ) t y p e o f n u r s i n g p r o g r a m , ( e ) number o f  students enrolled age  S i x demographic  (b) t y p e o f i n s t i t u t i o n w i t h i n w h i c h t h e  program operated, institution,  i n t h e p r o g r a m , and ( f ) t h e a v e r a g e  o f nursing students  currently  i n t h e program.  E a c h o f t h e a b o v e v a r i a b l e s was f o r m u l a t e d question w i t h options which the respondents. overall  cases  Although  into a  c o u l d be r e a d i l y this  checked  i n f o r m a t i o n i n order  i t was n e c e s s a r y  by  section increased the  l e n g t h o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , i t was f e l t  important First,  between  to assess  t o be  two a r e a s .  t o p r o v i d e a means o f a n a l y z i n g  o f g r i e v a n c e s and a p p e a l s w h i c h w e r e o b t a i n e d  through  t h e use o f t h e second  determine  whether v a r i a t i o n s  instrument  to  i n administrative  p r a c t i c e s w e r e due t o t h e g e o g r a p h i c program, t h e type o f i n s t i t u t i o n situated  and s e c o n d ,  l o c a t i o n of the  t h e p r o g r a m was  i n , the size of the i n s t i t u t i o n ,  the size of  t h e n u r s i n g p r o g r a m , t h e a v e r a g e age o f s t u d e n t s  i n the  98 nursing  program,  or  a  combination  of  any  of  these  variables.  Mason any  (1983)  reports, that  longer  than  not  be  The  proposed  eleven the  instrument "rule."  respondents,  that in  page  event  programs'  suggested  and  questionnaire skip  the  content  questions.  longer  was  questions did  125  prevent  than  this  "burnout"  structured and/or  not  Anderson's  book  on  apply  of  so  sections to  their  questionnaires  of  considerations  the  chance  of  questionnaire  These  Printing  Colors to  to  number  quality 2.  be  a  respondents. 1.  to  or  should  practices.  Berdie  enhance  proved  could  that  questionnaire  pages  Therefore,  the  respondents  the  eleven  a  a  and  to  completion  by  included: Paper  -*  artful  reproduction  on  high  little  cost  paper. T - Colored  study  probably  and  for  increase  questionnaire. (1974:56)  designed  papers  and  certain the  inks  types  appeal  of  add of  the  samples  will  99 A  20  l b .  l i g h t  Typing  of  L e t t e r  Gothic  C o u r i e r brown  the  12  type  12.  the  to  form  Instrument  to  c o l l e c t  c o m p l a i n t s .  outcomes  and  v a r i e d  g e o g r a p h i c a l l y to  the  i n s t r u m e n t . instrument of the  l e v e l s  of  review  ( i . e . ,  types  review  v a r i a b l e s  an  (b)  whether whether  as  to  or  u p h e l d ) ,  (c)  or  e x t e r n a l  a p p e a l ,  (d)  what  e x t e r n a l  a p p e a l ,  (e)  the  were  to  frequency  to  of  was  w i t h i n  that  This  the and  instrument  the the  were:  second (a)  student of  not  o r i g i n a l  the  each  student  agency outcome  was of  the used  number w i t h i n  l e v e l  of  d e c i s i o n  launched  i n v o l v e d an  was  f i r s t  outcome  the  then  r e f e r  procedures  was  assess  not  in  i n s t i t u t i o n s  i n d i v i d u a l  the  in  i n s t r u m e n t .  cases  of  in  d u p l i c a t e d  P l e a s e  i n s t i t u t i o n a l l y .  respondents  typed  instrument  how  s e l e c t e d .  completed  pages  r e l a t e d  determine  was  was  t h i s  second  designed  i n s t i t u t i o n ,  The  of  data  S p e c i f i c was  copy  between  same  typing  b o o k l e t .  s p e c i f i c  to  and  a  The  analyze  i n s t i t u t i o n s  sent  a  was  i n s t r u c t i o n s  green.  review  to  with  paper  options  in  to  necessary  and  former  A  student  q u a l i t y  The  l a t t e r  together  Appendix  l e t t e r  q u e s t i o n s  I t a l i c  and  s t a p l e d  tan  in  e x t e r n a l  was  an the  100 a p p e a l ,  and  i n s t i t u t i  It  (f)  was  recognized would  respondents. both  t a b l e s  requested a  instrument  launched  the  B  any  the  in  areas to  concern  was  the  for  a  the  sample  was  cases;  case  complaint  however,  f i r s t  of  other  skip  the  reported  her  and (  the  time-consuming  of  i n s t i t u t i o n s  i d e n t i f y  r e f e r  the  to Some  above and  about  were  i n s t r u m e n t ) .  respondents  or  c a s e .  i n f o r m a t i o n  that  in  s e c t i o n s  respondents  t h i s  were  case h i s  most  i n f o r m a t i o n  for  o c c u r r e d ;  reported too  to  need of  the  "  i n s t r u m e n t ,  i n d i v i d u a l  c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y  each  each  a g a i n s t  where  the  instrument  Respondents  complaint  in  the  for  i n s t r u c t i o n s  apply  number  which  a  above  checking  case.  A c c o r d i n g l y ,  i n f o r m a t i o n  provide  As  given  not  the  to  respondents, for  one  s t u d e n t s .  Appendix  on  the  for  for  complete  secondary  in  boxes  the  for  format  each  d i d  requested  the  simple  instrument  m a i n t a i n  year  outcome  p r o v i d i n g  time-consuming  and  were  second  t h e i r  be  d e c i s i o n .  requested  to  an  for  student  respondents  A  such  responses to  e v a l u a t i v e  the  of  that  T h e r e f o r e ,  a p p r o p r i a t e  which  impact  on.  i n f o r m a t i o n  used  the  request  did  reported  not a  l i m i t e d  101 number  of  of  types  the  s t i l l a l l  the  number,  cases  205  t h e i r cases  however,  cases  from  t h e r e f o r e ,  programs  does  represents  c o n c l u s i o n s  had  based  on  a  had  been by  cases  sampling  e x p e r i e n c e d ; for  i n v o l v e d  a  t o t a l  w i t h . This  It,  sample must  A  p o p u l a t i o n  p o p u l a t i o n .  haphazard  these  a  i n s t i t u t i o n s .  represent  a c c e s s i b l e  were  instruments  reported not  these  programs  completed  was  the  that  t h e i r  provided  cases  of  i n d i c a t i n g  of  others  t o t a l  of  c a s e s ,  of  be  cases  and  s u i t a b l y  c a u t i o u s .  P r e - t e s t i n g  of  the  instruments..  development  of  the  two  p r e - t e s t e d  by  a  educators c o l l e g e , would e i t h e r  be  they  of  e d u c a t o r s .  ten  of  respondents in  to  non-basic  were  not  sample  were  c u r r e n t l y ,  of  e i g h t  had  hearings  n u r s i n g  for  heads  education  previous  programs  the  were  i n  study  of or  diploma had  programs,  P r i o r  which  because  they  appeal  to  the  Two  of  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  while  in  were  nursing  programs.  been,  These  u n i v e r s i t y ,  programs  b a c c a l a u r e a t e  experience  s t u d e n t s .  nurse  technology  or  heads  the  i n s t r u m e n t s ,  n u r s i n g  i n s t i t u t e  f a c u l t y  programs, t h i s  represented and  not  group  F o l l o w i n g  and  the  other  grievance  p r e - t e s t ,  each  102 p o t e n t i a l  p a r t i c i p a n t  to  in  a s s i s t  i n d i v i d u a l s  t h i s  packet  and  to  complete  by  p r o v i d i n g  areas:  (a)  l e n g t h  of  r e q u i r e d  and  the  the  q u e s t i o n s . p r e - t e s t .  a  she  l e t t e r ,  and  comments  each  of  the  (c)  the  r e t u r n  f i r s t  r e v i s i o n  instrument  development  G e n e r a l l y ,  the  the  instruments  the  second  was  of  f e l t  a p p r o p r i a t e  instrument  would  pose  requested  f o l l o w i n g  and any  (b) time  t h e i r  c o m p l e t i o n ,  to  for a  content  of  the  major l e v e l s  e a r l i e r  t h i s  that  them  terminology  rate  d i s c u s s e d  s e c t i o n  of  s p e c i f i c  l e d  two  (d)  i n s t r u m e n t ' s  respondents was  the  provided  the  with  the  evaluate  amount  for  There  the  to  i n s t r u m e n t ,  50%  of  i n s t r u m e n t s ,  of  of  w i l l i n g  provided  were  regarding  a:ppropri atenes s a  be ten  were  They then  i n s t r u c t i o n s  was  A l l  copies  form.  instruments  format  would  study.  p r e - t e s t i n g  c r i t i q u e  (e)  i f  w i l l i n g n e s s .  i n s t r u m e n t s ,  r e s t r u c t u r i n g  problems.  the  cover  Information  This  of  t h i s  complete  the  asked  such  s p e c i f i c  both,  (f)  a  o v e r a l l  to  in  review.  to  c o n t a i n i n g  i n s t r u m e n t s ,  used  phase  i n d i c a t e d  Respondents a  was  in  of the  c h a p t e r .  the did  length not  feel  of that  c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y  103 The f i n a l was  above  i n f o r m a t i o n  r e v i s i o n  of  completed,  c o l l e c t i o n  the  the  phase  packets  to  was  next  be  Cover  assembled.  of  of  the  and  was  not  the  Department Education  for  a  n u r s i n g French.  of was  of  copy  l e t t e r  of  s p e c i f i c  from  was  and  r e v i s i o n  data  agenda.  data  the  c o l l e c t i o n  p o t e n t i a l  next  s e c t i o n  phase,  respondents  w i l l  d e s c r i b e  about  the  the  procedures  for  (1978)  g u i d e l i n e s  were  cover  sponsor  l e t t e r .  for of  the  used  for  s t u d y t h i s  also  the  L  s  the  l e t t e r .  end  New of  study,  A d u l t ,  A  and  l e t t e r  three  Brunswick  are  l e t t e r  an  l e t t e r h e a d  to  provide Appendix  t r a n s l a t i o n  because  t h i s  there  Higher  See  French  for  C o l u m b i a ' s  a u t h e n t i c i t y .  provided in  t h i s  cover  used  Although  B r i t i s h  A d m i n i s t r a t i v e ,  the of  the  U n i v e r s i t y  programs At  the  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g  O r l i c h ' s  p r e p a r a t i o n  support  and  t h i s  the  f o l l o w - u p .  l e t t e r . -  a  to  into  C o l l e c t i o n  the  This  packets  the  paper  out  of  the  Data  mailed  development  m a i l - o u t  for  be  the  content  on  implementing  to  Once  implementation  to  had  i n c o r p o r a t e d  i n s t r u m e n t s .  Measures  P r i o r  was  of  the  provided apology  C of  the  f i v e in was  given  104 for  the  French  f a i l u r e as  response  w e l l . rate  The  logo  was  e n c l o s e d  which  to  these  addresses  provide of  g i f t  were  p l a c e d  in  d i r e c t l y  typed.  stamped  return  hence,  M a i l - o u t  i n c r e a s e  and  of  the  would ensure p r i o r  was  of  prepared.  i n i t i a l have  to  that to  the  the  the  A data  end  data of  the  with of  B.C.  time  l e t t e r manila  taken  and envelopes  and postage  envelopes to  to was  stamps  also r e c i p i e n t s  r a t e .  t h i s  schedule phase plan  r e a l i z e d  instruments  academic  were  impress  c o l l e c t i o n  c o l l e c t i o n the  the  t i t l e s ,  t e n t a t i v e  It  pin  envelopes.  made  C r u c i a l  r e c e i v e  for  white  response  m a i l - o u t .  the  the  was  f o l l o w - u p .  implementation study  e f f o r t  100%  to  lapel  Coloured  S e l f - a d d r e s s e d ,  a  A s s o c i a t i o n  names,  to  and,  a  cover  l a r g e  a p p l i e d  Every  of  The  heads'  was  need  p a r t i c i p a n t s  s e p a r a t e l y  * i n c l u d e d .  the  Nurses'-  i n s t r u m e n t s .  program  e f f o r t  in  programs.  s t r e s s e d A  instruments  t h i s  French  also  "thank"  were  the  outcome  R e g i s t e r e d  the  instruments  to  surveys.  the  complete  were  from  for  able  The  the  the  on  be  l i t e r a t u r e  p e r s o n a l i z e  to  to  phase  terms  of  of  was  the the  that  p r i o r was  for  to  date  programs May  to  concluded most  105 institutions. occurring first of  Four  three  weeks  and t h i r d  a coloured  postcard  cover  initial  mail^out  letter  1985.  As  their  completed  first  followifup.  second were  shown  ACTION  Initial  Mail-out  would  while  1,  be  A  each  mailing.  i n the  the second  further  while  their  to receipt  instruments  to the third  returned of the  respondents prior  to the  instruments  and  follow-up.  final  Based  % OF RETURNED  on Use o f  1 OF T O T A L SENT  94  20  21.3  21 .3  .6  1st  Follow-up  74  33  35.1  44  2nd  Follow-up  41  17  18.0  41 .5  3rd  Followup  24  11  11.7  45 .8  TOTAL  81  26th,  completed  Respondent Returns F o l l o w <rups INSTRUMENTS SENT RETURNED  The  on A p r i l  thirty*three  seventeen  provide  respondents  prior  The  form  would  occurred  twenty  instruments  prior  l . s -  the previous  of the packets  and r e t u r n e d  received  were p l a n n e d ,  and s e t o f i n s t r u m e n t s .  i n Table  follow-up  Table  after  follow-up  another  completed  follow-ups  86.2%  106 The  fourth  f o l l o w - u p  i n s t r u m e n t s . without  Two  data.  provided  a  y i e l d e d  a d d i t i o n a l  Thus  t o t a l  the  D e s c r i p t i o n  for  w i l l  be  each  of  d i s c u s s e d  data  of  Data  were  returned  f o l l o w - u p s  8 6 . 2 % .  Analysis,  methods  used  s e p a r a t e l y  r e l a t e d  p r o c e d u r e s .  completed  P r i o r  This  tool  during  the  coding  ( r e f e r  to  to  analyze  under  the  measures  entered  on  D  a  r e c e i p t  data  for  on a  of  used  the  to  sheets  act  Data  and  f i r s t  tool  was  as  guide  returned  copy).  s t r u c t u r e s  the  c o l l e c t i o n  intended  data  F o r t r a n  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  the  was  of  Appendix  to  to  i n s t r u m e n t s ,  designed.  then  the  three  completed  i n s t r u m e n t .  A n a l y s i s and  of  of  rate  for  eleven  instruments  use  response  Methods  data  another  a  instruments  were  coded,  v e r i f i e d  for  a c c u r a c y .  F r e q u e n c i e s q u e s t i o n made  by  were  and  then  c a l c u l a t e d .  respondents  computer  f i l e  and  number.  Comments  percentages  were  grouped were  of Any  responses a d d i t i o n a l  t r a n s f e r r e d a c c o r d i n g  then  reviewed  for  into  to  the  during  a  each  comments separate  question the  107 analysis of questions.  The q u e s t i o n s were  c l u s t e r e d around t h e v a r i a b l e s i d e n t i f i e d M o d e l ( s e e F i g u r e 7, 8 7 ) .  Generation initially by  educator,  T h i s was  involvement  who h a d n o t h a d any  w i t h t h e s t u d y . A summary o f t h e  outcomes o f t h i s c l u s t e r i n g p r o c e s s Table  i n t h e Data  c a r r i e d o u t b y t h e r e s e a r c h e r b u t was c h e c k e d  a n e u t r a l nurse  previous  then  i s reported i n  2 below.  Table  2.**  VARIABLE  C l u s t e r i n g o f Questions Around Data Generation Model V a r i a b l e s LEVEL  QUESTION NUMBERS RESEARCHER NURSE EDUCATOR 8,9 22 39 65  8,1 ,3 22 50 65  Location of Decision* maker  I II III IV  Decision* maker  I II III IV  8,9,10 22 39 65  9,1 0,16 19 39 59, 60  I II  11,15 21,23,24,25 26,27,28,29 30 , 3 1 , 3 2 38140^41,42 43,44,45,46 47,48,49,50 51,56,57 64,66,67,72 73  11,12,15 23,24,25,32 33,34  Functions Decision* maker  of  III  IV ...  37,38,40,41, 42,51,52,53 64,67,68,69, 70  108  Table  2. - - C l u s t e r i n g Generation Model  VARIABLE  of Questions Around V a r i a b l e s continued QUESTION  LEVEL  RESEARCHER C o n t r o l s on D e c i s i o n maker  Student Route to Question  Wherever a s s e s s o r s , whether  a  or  a n a l y s i s  data  i n  the  of  next  Nursing provide  and  F i f t y - s e v e n survey  5 2 , 5 3 , 5 4 , 5 5  IV  6 3 , 6 8 , 6 9 , 7 0 , 71  I 11 I 11 IV  17,18,19 35 , 3 6 58,62  review  whether  i t  w i t h i n  was  of  the  should  the  5 , 4 6 , 4 7 , 9 , 5 5 , 5 6 ,  6 3 , 6 6 , 7 2 , 7 3  17 2 6 , 2 7 , 3 0 , 3 5 4 3 , 4 4 , 5 4 , 5 8 6 1 , 6 2 , 7 1  0  o c c u r r e d  , 1 8 1 , 2 8 , 2 9  between  the  undertaken  to  question be  decide  was  moved.  c l u s t e r s  two  The  w i l l  be  d i s c u s s e d  chapter.  program  c o p i e s  p o l i c i e s  111  placement  a p p r o p r i a t e  7 , 1 4 2 0 , 2 31 3 6 , 4 4 8 , 4 57  16 33,34  c a r e f u l  present  NUMBERS NURSE EDUCATOR  I II  v a r i a t i o n s  Data  of  any  respondents w r i t t e n  procedures of  provided  the  program  p e r t a i n i n g  e i g h t y - o n e  such  were  documents.  to  a l s o or the  respondents The  requested  to  i n s t i t u t i o n a l study to  p o l i c i e s  t o p i c .  t h i s and  109 procedures the of  document  r e s e a r c h e r the  s t u d y  r e s e a r c h e r  s  L  c a r r i e d  out  in  each  f i f t y - s e v e n  F o r t r a n  agreement  between using  A n a l y s i s  of  next  of  complai n t s . analyzed  the  of  point  same  the  of  sets  of  r e s p o n d e n t ' s  option  for  Tables  then  The  every of be  the  data  with  data.  as  second  were  r e s e a r c h e r ' s  was  process  programs the  copy  documents.  the  two  a  The  completion  The  Contingency  t h i s  data Data  using  a  instrument  C o l l e c t i o n t h e i r  data.  each  program.  by  for  entered  onto  data  l e v e l s  of  q u e s t i o n  were  F r e q u e n c i e s .  assessment  w i l l  d i s c u s s e d  r e l a t e d  frequency  in  the  c h a p t e r .  A n a l y s i s  f i r s t  of  reviewed  completed  where  to  e x c e p t i o n  sheets  the  compared  the  was  provided  respondents'  check  above  the  the  r e l i a b i l i t y  placed  only  a c c o r d i n g  with  separate  that  coded  for  the  for  o p t i o n s  i n s t r u m e n t s  of  program  independently  instrument  covered  were  each  then  s e l e c t e d  s p e c i f i c a l l y Responses  who  for  - -  the  s i m i l a r (see  Tool-2).  r e s p e c t i v e  i n s t i t u t i o n  for  to  second process  Appendix A l l  cases  p r o v i n c e s  and  E  of  instrument d e s c r i b e d for  a  copy  were  then  then  by  h o s p i t a l , " c o l l e g e ,  student were for of  grouped  type  of  i n s t i t u t e  of  the Data into  110 t e c h n o l o g y ,  u n i v e r s i t y ,  broken  down  by  year  c a l c u l a t i o n  of  the  type  In  order  of  value  was  each  provided b a s i c  programs,  the  your  made,  enrollment  the  number  and  1985  number  based of  was  of  seats a  by  an  e i g h t  e n r o l l m e n t  in  to  n-e-x-t  c h a p t e r /5>o  <C i\  give  and  a n a l y s i s  An  an  p e r i o d .  by w i l l  assumption s o u r c e s ,  between  was  per  type be  of  1978 the  t o t a l  F i n a l l y , 100  that  then  approximate  cases  and  T h e r e f o r e ,  1985  the  e n r o l l m e n t  diploma  programs  for  to  response  informed  c o n s t a n t .  of  province This  n u r s i n g  each  This  responses  1985.  to  for  needed.  student  students  by  student  e n r o l l m e n t s  in  rate  by  by  of  the  e n r o l l m e n t s  of  The  over  the  and  cases  then  a  province  were  for  were  f a c i l i t a t e  programs?"  reported  of  out.  rate  cases  q u e s t i o n n a i r e  i n q u i r y  c a l c u l a t i o n  c a r r i e d  by  actual  programs  r e l a t i v e  students  m u l t i p l i e d student  on  to  approximate  nursing  b a c c a l a u r e a t e  the  province  "What  the  was  by from  i s  The  cases  the  obtained  of  of  c a l c u l a t e  i n s t i t u t i o n  q u e s t i o n , in  in  other.  o c c u r r e n c e  rate  i n s t i t u t i o n .  e n r o l l m e n t type  of  of  to  or  of  the  student  i n s t i t u t i o n  reported  in  the  was  Ill Coded d a t a r e f l e c t i n g the l e v e l s of reviews, both the i n s t i t u t i o n ,  information pertaining to internal  and e x t e r n a l t o  were t h e n a n a l y z e d a c c o r d i n g t o  f r e q u e n c i e s , and t h e n a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r  outcome a t  each l e v e l ,  b o t h by p r o v i n c e and by t y p e o f  institution.  A n a l y s i s of these data w i l l  reported  i n the next  chapter.  their  a l s o be  112  CHAPTER RESULTS:  DEMOGRAPHICS,,  5  ADMINISTRATIVE  STRUCTURES  AND  PROCEDURES  The  purpose  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e Canadian  for  of  c l i n i c a l  p r a c t i c e .  This f i r s t  deals  demographic  grievances  with  program  d e s c r i p t i o n g r i e v a n c e s l a t t e r  part  an  data.  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e by  and  i s  programs  then  respondents, of and w i l l  data  i n  to  the  of  the  a l s o  three  a s s e s s e d .  p a r t s :  the  e x i s t i n g  p r o c e d u r e s ,  i n  aspects  respondents'  by  the  as  the  reported  t h i r d ,  i n c i d e n c e  r e p o r t i n g  d i s c u s s e d  and  d e s c r i b e s  the  the  recommendations  were  into  f o l l o w e d  r e l a t e d  appeals be  and  to  these  appeals  second  i n  r e s p e c t  procedures  of  what  e x i s t  determine  derive  separated  s t r u c t u r e s  determine  with  between  and  and  to  to  a n a l y s i s The  to  procedures  a p p e a l s ,  s t r u c t u r e s  a n a l y s i s  was  and  R e l a t i o n s h i p s  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e of  study  education  e f f e c t i v e n e s s  i n c i d e n c e  t h i s  s t r u c t u r e s  nursing  assessment t h e i r  of  programs. next  a of The  c h a p t e r .  113 Analysis An  accessible  population  participated  i n this  this  57  number,  their  appeal  to  clinical  Data  (2)  type  (3)  (4)  of nursing  was  excluded  The  largest  and  the  (one).  collection.  provided  copies  their  institution's  their  procedures  within  of  from  the  Of  of  grievance  pertaining  number  s i x demographic  of the the  enrollment  currently  institution, program  of  the  program, and  i n Canada  ( 5 ) number  (6)  i n the  institutions:  study  to  which  i n the program,  a l lprovinces  total  location  of nursing  students  smallest A  of the data  student  type  location  represented  four  total  enrolled  Geographic  programs  in relation  geographic  institution  institution,  age  collected  (1)  of  students  and/or  Data  evaluation.  were  operates,  policies,  systems  variables:  phase  o f 81  respondents also  program's  and  o f Demographic  the average program.  Respondents except  for reasons  was  population  o f the provinces:  from P r i n c e r e s p o n s e was  British  Columbia,  Quebec  stated  o f r e s p o n d e n t s ( 3 2 ) was  number  of  earlier.  from  Edward  which  Ontario Island  received  from  Saskatchewan,  114 M a n i t o b a , The  and P r i n c e  o v e r a l l  response  Table  3 . - -  PROVINCE  Edward rate  I s l a n d  was  Number  of  ( r e f e r  to  Table  3 ) .  8 6 . 2 % .  Respondents  by  P r o v i n c e  QUESTIONNAIRES SENT  QUESTIONNAIRES RETURNED  MB ON NB  10 10 3 7 32 6  10 13 3 7 39 7  100.0 76.9 100.0 100.0 82.1 85.7  NS PE NF  8 1 4  9 1 5  88.9 100.0 80.0  81  94  BC AB SK  TOTAL  Type of  of  I n s t i t u t i o n :  i n s t i t u t i o n s  i n s t i t u t e s  of  were  As  shown  in  i n c l u d e d :  t e c h n o l o g y ,  Table  4 ,  h o s p i t a l s ,  u n i v e r s i t i e s ,  86 . 2  f i v e  types  c o l l e g e s ,  and  independent  programs.  The programs Table  5.  c o l l e g e  type  of  v a r i e s  i n s t i t u t i o n from  O n t a r i o and  p r o v i n c e  provides  u n i v e r s i t y  which to  province  nursing  s e t t i n g s  o f f e r s  nursing as  programs  while  Nova  shown only  S c o t i a  i n  i n and  115 Table  TYPE  OF  4 . - -  Respondents to Study I n s t i t u t i on  INSTITUTION  TOTAL  PROVINCE HOSP .  AB SK MB ON NB NS PE NF  45.7 24.7 18.5  6 3  7.4 3.7  I n s t i t u t i o n Responding P r o v i n c e  provide  to  1 1 1 1 7 1 2 0 • 1  0 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 0  40  3  15  6  P r i n c e nursing  programs Edward  only  I s l a n d  programs  i n  by  TOTAL  1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0  these  Study  INDEP .  7 6 0 2 25 0 0 0 0  provide  u n i v e r s i t i e s .  Brunswick  100.0  TYPE OF INSTITUTION COLL. TECH.INST. UNIV.  17  Newfoundland and  of  1 3 0 4 0 0 6 0 3  B-C  TOTAL  % OF TOTAL  81  Type  of  37 20 15  Independent Programs T e c h n i c a l I n s t i t u t e  5.-- -  Type  N U M B E R OF RESPONDENTS  C o l l e g e H o s p i t a l U n i v e r s i t y  Table  by  i n and  10 10 3 7 32 6 8 1 4  81  h o s p i t a l s New  independent  116 n u r s i n g  s c h o o l s  programs  in  e i t h e r  u n i v e r s i t i e s . provide  w h i l e  Saskatchewan  t e c h n i c a l  B r i t i s h  these  i n s t i t u t e s  C o l u m b i a ,  programs  in  o f f e r s  n u r s i n g or  A l b e r t a ,  h o s p i t a l s ,  and  Manitoba  c o l l e g e s ,  and  u n i v e r s i t i e s .  Student  Enrollment  e n r o l l m e n t to  500  Nursing  Programs:  diploma  n u r s i n g  programs  students  r e p o r t e d  The 500  in  in  as  with  196  students  lowest  s t u d e n t s .  the  n u r s i n g  students  the  average  The  h i g h e s t  the  was  65.  of  n u r s i n g  Approximately they  o f f e r e d  o f f e r e d 14.8% to  than  diploma  basic  p r o v i d e d  Table one  of  o f f e r e d  the  Some  type  of  of  18.5%  400  the  to  400  258 students  and  i n s t i t u t i o n : reported  s t a t e d and  that  they approximately  programs  i n s t i t u t i o n s  program.  50  being  programs,  was  basic  from  was  by  50  being  h i g h e s t  in  b a c c a l a u r e a t e  these  nursing  the  i n s t i t u t i o n s  programs,  p o s t - R . N .  and  ranged  e n r o l l m e n t  b a c c a l a u r e a t e  7).  56  from  6 ) .  e n r o l l m e n t  programs  82.6%  Table  student  ranged  enrollment  e n r o l l m e n t  programs  s t u d e n t s .  Types  was  student  b a c c a l a u r e a t e  1owest  (see  e n r o l l m e n t The  with'  average  The  o f f e r e d  ( r e f e r more  117 Table  6 . - -  500  Student Enrollment in Diploma B a c c a l a u r e a t e Nursing Programs  Number of  shows  B a s i c  o  T j — I — 2 — 3 — 4 " — 5 — 5 — 7 — 8 — 9  Age  and  students t h a t ,  for  e n t e r i n g  the  modal  24  years  and  the  up  to  one  was  the  range  was  from  i n s t i t u t i o n  i n s t i t u t i o n s  o f f e r i n g  at  34  b a s i c  12  13  programs:  o f f e r i n g  age  11  14  15  Programs  n u r s i n g  i n s t i t u t i o n s  program,  of  10  the  category the  p l u s .  Table diploma  22  to  category For  8  16  to  those  b a c c a l a u r e a t e  programs,  18  118 Table  TYPE  OF  7 . - -  Type  PROGRAM  of Nursing I n s t i t u t i on NUMBER  Program  O f f e r e d  OF  %  RESPONDENTS (N=81)  D i pioma B a s i c  B a c c a l a u r e a t e  Post R.N. Masters Other* No  B a c c a l a u r e a t e  response  by  OF  TOTAL  67 15  82,.6 18. .5  12 8 17 1  14..8 9..9 21. .0 1,.2  * This category represented some P r a c t i c a l Nursing (Nursing A s s i s t a n t ) and p o s t - b a s i c s p e c i a l t y programs.  Table Basic  AGE  8 . - - Average Age of Students Entering B a c c a l a u r e a t e Nursing Programs During Academic Year  RANGE  16 18 yea 19 21 yea 22 24 yea 25 27 yea 28 - 30 y e a 31 33 y e a 34 + y e a r s No response  r r r r r r  s s s s s s  TOTAL  the only  modal one  %  DIPLOMA PROGRAM  age  i s  1.5 29.7 43.8 17.2 0.0 0.0 1.5 6.3  64  100.0  the  i n s t i t u t i o n  BACCALAUREATE PROGRAM  TOTAL  1 19 28 11 0 0 1 4  category with  an  Diploma and the 1984-85  •  19  to  average  % OF TOTAL  1 12 0 0 0 0 0 2  6.7 80.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.3  15  100 . 0  21  and  age  at  there 16  to  i s 18.  119 A n a l y s i s  of  E x i s t i n g  A d m i n i s t r a t i v e  S t r u c t u r e s  and  Procedures  D i s c u s s i o n a r i s i n g  from  s e l e c t e d of  the  and  the  from  w i l l  then  which  of  Data  occur  in  c o n t r o l s  (3)  mechanisms  to  above  l e v e l s  of  Assessment II--  Performance Hearing Level  of  Informal  of  IV--  the  Students'  Grievance D e c i s i o n s ,  Student  I n s t i t u t i o n a l  be  d i s c u s s e d .  l e v e l s  review  of  to  of  (1)  the  the  of  C l i n i c a l  Level  d e c i s i o n -  (5)  Data  that  of  Student  III--  Formal  Appeal.  of  maker,  and  across  Performance  w i t h i n  p o s i t i o n  r e l a t e d  the  i s ,  Performance,  Student  v a r i a b l e s  the  s t u d e n t s .  d i s c u s s e d  Review  r e l i a b i l i t y  f i v e  i n s t i t u t i o n s  C l i n i c a l  p r o t o t y p i c  d e c i s i o n - m a k e r ,  are  1  c o n s i s t e n c y  s p e c i f i e s  are:  those  those  the  w i l l  l o c a t i o n  a v a i l a b l e  w i t h i n  The  s t u d y ' s  obtained  the  and  F i n a l l y ,  v a r i a b l e s  v a r i a b l e s  review  t h i s  v a r i o u s  on  v a r i a b l e s :  Model,  Model  (2)  of  (1981).  f u n c t i o n s  p l a c e d  review the  data  These  d e c i s i o n - m a k e r , (4)  with  the  d e c i s i o n - m a k e r ,  sets  examined.  the  a l l  two  study  Generation  i n s t i t u t i o n s . the  be  on  Generation  r e s u l t s  v a l i d i t y  The  Data  G o l d e n ' s  Golden  models  focuses  four  Level  I--  Level  C l i n i c a l Appeal  D e c i s i o n s ,  and  120 The  p o s i t i o n ( s )  were of  asked  to  review.  Table  As  of  the  d e c i s i o n - m a k e r :  i d e n t i f y shown  the i n  d e c i s i o n - m a k e r  Table  9 ,  6 3 . 0 % of  9 . - - The Number of I n d i v i d u a l s Regarding a S t u d e n t ' s C l i n i c a l  LEVEL I DECISIONMAKER  Making a D e c i s i o n Performance  NUMBER O F * RESPONSES  made  the  c l i n i c a l t h a t  only  % OF PROGRAMS  program committee o r plus s u p e r v i s o r of a l i n s t r u c t o r o r plus program head  20  54 . 0 23 . 2 21 . 1  63 . 0 27 . 2 24 .7  9 6 4  9 .5 6 .3 4 .2  11 . 1 7 .4 4 .9  3  3 .2  3 .7  TOTAL responses  respondents  % OF TOTAL  51 22  only  I n s t r u c t o r plus t o t a l f a c u l t y I n s t r u c t o r plus another i n s t r u c t o r ( u n s p e c i f i e d )  * M u l t i p l e i s 81.  the  i n s t r u c t o r : * plus RN s u p e r v i s o r  than one I n s t r u c t o r g c t i c c t  l e v e l  34 . 6  More  n u n u  each  29 . 5  i n s t r u c t o r  i r i r  OF  at  28  One  Nurs I n s t c l I n s t  Respondents  i n d i c a t e d  o r i g i n a l  requested.  that  d e c i s i o n  performance one  95 are  (Level  i n s t r u c t o r  more about I ) ,  made  Number  than  one  nursing while  such  of  programs  i n s t r u c t o r students'  3 4 . 5 % i n d i c a t e d  d e c i s i o n s .  121 Where  respondents  i n s t r u c t o r  made  performance, r e g i s t e r e d c l i n i c a l w h i l e  the  f a c u l t y  nurse  s t u d e n t ' s programs  o n e - t h i r d  of  makes  were  the  of  the  i n s t r u c t o r  r e g a r d i n g  a  Respondents i n d i v i d u a l  or  reviewed  the  t h a t  once  a of  i s ,  c l i n i c a l the  or  a  into  was  a  n u r s i n g  in  the  such a  i s  d e c i s i o n s ,  f o r m u l a t i n g  the  nurse In  independent the  d e c i s i o n  performance.  o u t s i d e  of  the by  in  i f  nursing  an program  the  nursing  i s  reached  d e c i s i o n  or  remaining  an  i d e n t i f y  or  a  committee.  to  alone  i n d i v i d u a l  r e g i s t e r e d  asked  reached  an  regarding  f a c u l t y  c l i n i c a l  i n d i v i d u a l s  the d e c i s i o n ,  Of  programs  i n v o l v e d  i n i t i a l  in  programs  f r e q u e n t l y  i n s t r u c t o r  above  the  most  d e c i s i o n s  the  a  source  input  were  that  such  d e c i s i o n  r e p o r t i n g  group  the  in  more  s t u d e n t ' s  one  respondents).  the  student  than  students'  student  performance.  p r o v i d i n g  3.2%  i n v o l v e d  of  more  reported  the  frequent  c l i n i c a l  s u p e r v i s i n g  t o t a l  (24.7%  alone  sources  second  most  almost  the  a l s o  that  r e g a r d i n g  s u p e r v i s i n g  was  next  i n s t r u c t o r  only  of  committee  In  other  d e c i s i o n s  27.2%  area  i n d i c a t e d  f a c u l t y by  c o n s u l t a t i o n  groups,  i s  i t  again  e i t h e r  with  one  122 reviewed? programs  Table does  10  such  shows a  that  review  of  the  programs,  This  to  the  p o s s i b i l i t y  for  i n f o r m a t i o n  c o n c e r n i n g  and  respondents  chose  remaining  From  programs  the  data  d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s t u d e n t ' s  c l i n i c a l  i n s t r u c t o r  i n  s u p e r v i s i n g and  that  at  to  such  not  l e v e l  I  there  l i k e l y  or  does  the  not  that  i n  that to  be:  the  r e g i s t e r e d  a  no  external  the  the  the  (c)  c l e a r  o c c u r .  (b)  or  request  was  l i k e l y  (a)  c l i n i c a l  f a c u l t y review  nurse  committee, of  the  d e c i s i o n .  Table  1 0 . - -  External  Program  E v a l u a t i o n INDIVIDUAL  D i r e I n s t Dean f a Ho r  OR  GROUP  c t o r of Program i t u t i o n a l Committee of d i v i s i o n , school c u l t y esponse  TOTAL  Review  of  C l i n i c a l  D e c i s i o n s NUMBER  % OF TOTAL  11 10  13.6 12.3  5 55  6 . 2 67.9  or  81  the  p r o v i d e d .  not  appears  of  remaining  not  reviews  most  with  the  e i t h e r  answer,  i n s t r u c t o r ,  student, i s  i s  In  that  i t  o n e - t h i r d  were  review  p r o v i d e d ,  c o n j u n c t i o n  the  data  such  a  only  o c c u r .  t w o - t h i r d s leads  i n  100.0  a  123 Table review  11  was  n u r s i n g  d i d  p a n e l ,  most  but  p a n e l .  s t u d e n t  she  to  standing  review the  that  l i k e l y  program  g r i e v a n c e only  shows  or  he  L  s  at  l e v e l  be  the  conducted  committee In  7.4%  c l i n i c a l  a l s o  I I ,  or  of  grievance  by a  the  e i t h e r  s p e c i a l programs,  i n s t r u c t o r  conducted  the  a  serve  not on  the  grievance  r e v i ew.  Table  11.--  P r o v i s i o n s  f o r Conducting Review  P E R S O N OR G R O U P CONDUCTING REVIEW  Nursing  program  OF  standing  NUMBER PROGRAMS  c t t e .  24  S p e c i a l g r i e v a n c e review panel Head of n u r s i n g program S t u d e n t ' s c l i n i c a l i n s t r u c t o r C o o r d i n a t o r of t h e team or year Dean of d i v i s i o n I m p a r t i a l n u r s i n g i n s t r u c t o r Hearing O f f i c e r Total f a c u l t y of n u r s i n g program Academic Appeals Committee of facu1ty U n s p e c i f i e d No response  t h a t  the  i n  only  g r i e v a n c e  2.5% review  of  these  was  Grievance  % OF PROGRAMS  29 25 13 7 6 3 2 1 1  21 11 6 5 3 2 1 1 1 3 3  100 . 0  programs  conducted  .6 .9 .6 .4 .2 .6 .5 .2 .2  1 .2 3 .8 3 .8  81  TOTAL  Respondents  a  by  i n d i c a t e d an  i m p a r t i a l  124 n u r s i n g  i n s t r u c t o r  o b j e c t i v e only  a p p r a i s a l .  one  program  o f f i c e r  in  S t a t e s ,  a  conductor  hearing  o f f i c e r  such  III  p o l i c i e s  and  review.  At  f r e q u e n t l y  to  the  24.7%  previous of  e x t e n t , and i n  the  revi  Thus, the  i t  membership  a  commonly  an  was  that  hearing in  the  United  advocated  f i r s t  formal  that  there  are  of  from  his of a at  educators  to  the  as  the  the  from  i n s t i t u t i o n a l  12),  of  the  the  most  nursing  program  i n c l u d e d  o f f i c e r  l e v e l .  To  a  o u t s i d e  the  committees  In was a  were: and  the  s u p e r v i s o r ,  i n s t i t u t i o n .  hearing t h i s  e s t a b l i s h e d  panels  the  her  of  hearing  members  or  l e v e l  conduct  Table  appeal  Other  l e v e l ,  e s t a b l i s h e d these  head  programs  nurse  of  the  f a c u l t y  head,  the  provide  f i n d i n g  c o n t r a s t ,  ( r e f e r  members  f a c u l t y .  and  use  d i r e c t i n g  l e v e l  nursing  l i k e l y  reviews.  procedures  program  o f f i c e r ,  i s  meaning  c i t e d  the In  represents  t h i s  n o n - n u r s i n g  more  i n t e r e s t i n g  review.  " f o r m a l "  nursing  An  a  of  s t u d e n t s ,  would  i d e n t i f i e d  such  Level review;  who  hearing c o n t r a s t  used  in  l e s s e r  i n s t i t u t i o n were  involved  ews.  appears of  that  appeal  there  hearing  i s  a  wide  panels  v a r i a t i o n  across  the  in  125 n u r s i n g panels  programs. would  nursing of  the  be:  program, n u r s i n g  Table  12.--  P E R S O N S OR INCLUDED  Students Nursing n u r s i Non-nurs Nursing Hearing  The  most  s t u d e n t s ,  l i k e l y  members  of  nursing  f a c u l t y  from  non-nursing program, Persons  and  f a c u l t y a  hearing  Included  GROUPS OF  f a c u l t y from n g program ing f a c u l t y program head o f f i c e r  E s t a b l i s h e d i n s t i t u t i o n a l commi t t e e : Head of student s e r v i c e s Board of D i r e c t o r s f o r n u r s i n g program Nurse, non-educator, from o u t s i d e i n s t i t u t i o n response  * M u l t i p l e is 8 1 .  l i k e l y  TOTAL responses  members  would  the  n u r s i n g  program  and  a  educator  nurse  i n  Appeal  Hearings  % OF TOTAL  % OF PROGRAMS  40 .7  31 29 24 20  16 15 12 10  38 35 29 24  .2 .1 .5 .4  13  6 .8  .3 .8 .6 .7 16 . 0  15  7 .8  18 . 5  7  3 .6  8 .6  3 2  1 .6 1 .0  3 .7 2 .5  1  0 .5  1 .2  1 13  0 .5 6 .8  1 .2 16 . 0  192  100 . 0  be:  the  from  Less  17 . 2  requested.  the  head  33  are  head,  the  the  o f f i c e r .  NUMBER* RESPONSES  Head of i n s t i t u t i o n Immediate s u p e r v i s o r of the n u r s i n g program head Nurse educator from o u t s i d e i n s t i t u t i o n  No  members,  these  Number  immediate head  o u t s i d e  of the  of  programs  s u p e r v i s o r the  of  i n s t i t u t i o n ,  i n s t i t u t i o n .  126  Only r e l a t e d  40.7%  to  Level  Respondents t h i s  l e v e l  such  a  of  the  IV,  chose  l e v e l  the  review  1 3 . - -  OR  respondents  e i t h e r  ( r e f e r  Table  PERSONS  of  or to  provided  I n s t i t u t i o n a l not t h e i r  Table  to  i n s t i t u t i o n who  was  conducted  sub-committee a  board  o u t s i d e  of  c o n c e r n i n g  not  provide  who d i d  NUMBER  q u e s t i o n  i n d i c a t e d  the  f r e q u e n t l y  these of  Appeal.  P r o v i s i o n s f o r I n s t i t u t i o n a l Appeal Hearing  GROUPS  t h i s  do  Those  TOTAL  to  data  programs  Head of i n s t i t u t i o n Sub-committee of senate Head of s c h o o l , d i v i s i o n or f a c u l t y E s t a b l i s h e d appeal committee Sub-committee of board of governors Outside a r b i t r a t o r Ad hoc i n s t i t u t i o n a l committee Sub-committee of board of t r u s t e e s U n s p e c i f i e d No response  respond  Student  provide  13).  i n f o r m a t i o n  most  hearings  e i t h e r  governors,  a r b i t r a t o r  at  the a  conducts  c o l l e g e . t h i s  % OF  TOTAL  11 6  13. .6 7 ., 4  6 3 3 1 1 0 2 48  7 .. 4 3 . .7 3 .. 7 1,.2 1,.2 0,. 0 2,. 5 59 . 3  81  100, .0  that  the  c i t e d  f o l l o w e d senate,  Student  by  at In  head  of  the  i n d i v i d u a l a  a  u n i v e r s i t y , one  h e a r i n g .  program  or an  127 In  summary,  C l i n i c a l  made  by  c o n s u l t a t i o n  the  s t u d e n t s .  were  more  f a c u l t y the  o f f i c e r .  At  hearings  were  i n s t i t u t i o n board  of  Table  made  d e c i s i o n s  from  Level  by  provided by  a  LEVEL  e i t h e r  d e c i s i o n s  programs' Level  of  I I I ,  the  s t u d e n t s ,  program, and  standing  n o n - n u r s i n g  a  h e a r i n g  Student  Appeal  by  head  the  e i t h e r  the  s u b - committee ( r e f e r  to  of  the  Table  Summary of P r o v i s i o n s Review DECISION-MAKER  I  One i n s t r u c t o r only More than one i n s t r u c t o r  I I  Nursing S p e c i a l Other  program standing Grievance Review  or  Review,  H e a r i n g s ,  head,  alone  I n s t i t u t i o n a l  i n s t i t u t i o n  1 4 . - -  most  s u p e r v i s i n g  n u r s i n g  n u r s i n g  Students''  nurse  composed  program  IV,  were  r e g i s t e r e d  Appeal  the  of  i n s t r u c t o r s  f r e q u e n t l y  n u r s i n g  or  the  the  formal  most  f a c u l t y ,  the  I I - - G r i e v a n c e  f r e q u e n t l y  were  n u r s i n g  with  At  I--Assessment  c l i n i c a l  Level  committees. panels  Level  Performance,  f r e q u e n t l y in  at  of  governing 14).  f o r  Levels  NUMBER  c t t e . Panel  of  % OF TOTAL  28 51  34.6 63.0  24 21 30  29.6 25.9 37 . 0  128 Table  1 4 . - -  Summary Review  LEVEL  DECISION-MAKER  Stud Nurs NonNurs Othe  program  i n s t i t u t i o n  For d e f i n i t i o n s of Levels see page M u l t i p l e responses are requested. is 81.  L o c a t i o n were  of  asked  l e v e l  of  the to  review  which  i n s i d e  the  conducted were  not  d e c i s i o n - m a k e r :  i d e n t i f y  review was  whether  o c c u r r e d  members  n e c e s s a r i l y  i n s t i t u t i o n ,  meaning  i n d i v i d u a l s  who  were  i n s t i t u t i o n  ( r e f e r  to  of  by  review  not  the  that  f a c u l t y ; which  employees  Table  15).  11 20  13 . 6 24 .7  of  of  .0 .7 .5 .6 .1  programs  respondents at  program the  each  meaning  review  o u t s i d e conducted  the  a  f a c u l t y ; was  i n s t i t u t i o n  or  was  % OF TOTAL  21 19 18 14 26  program,  n u r s i n g  of  33* 31* 29* 23* 41*  d e c i s i o n  e d u c a t i o n a l  n u r s i n g a  the  meaning the  Levels  122. Number  Program  w i t h i n  conducted  i n s t i t u t i o n , by  f o r  NUMBER  ents ing f a c u l t y from nursing f a c u l t y ing program head r  Head of Other  *  of P r o v i s i o n s (continued)  who  the by  e d u c a t i o n a l  129 Table  1 5 . - -  Location  DECISION-MAKER  LEVEL I - - ASSESSMENT PERFORMANCE: One More I n s C l Nu I n s S P A  of of  Reviewers Review  INSIDE PROGRAM NUMBER %  OF  at  the  INSIDE IN ST L N NUMBER %  STUDENTS1'  Four  OUTSIDE INST'N NUMBER %  CLINICAL  i n s t r u c t o r only 28 2 9 . 5 than one i n s t r u c t o r : t r u c t o r p l u s - i n i c a l s u p e r v i s o r rsing program c t t e 20 2 1 . 1 s t r u c t o r s responi b l e f o r course 7 7.3 u p e r v i s o r o f same 9 9 . 4 rogram head 6 6 . 3 nother i n s t r u c t o r 3 3 . 2  TOTAL * M u l t i p l e i s 8 1 .  73  responses  LEVEL II - - GRIEVANCE Nursing program s t a n d i n g c t t e . Head, n u r s i n g program C l i n i c a l i n s t r u c t o r C o o r d i n a t o r of t e a m o r y e a r I m p a r t i a l n u r s i n g i n s t r u c t o r Total n u r s i n g f a c u l t y F a c u l t y appeals c t t e S p e c i a l Grievance Review Panel D e a n o f d i v i s i o n H e a r i n g O f f i c e r No response  TOTAL  are  Levels  2 2 2 3 . 2  7 6 . 8  0  r e q u e s t e d .  0 0 . 0 Number  22 2 3 . 2 of  programs  REVIEW: 24 11 6  29.7 13.6 7.4  5  6 . 2  2 1 1  2 . 5 1.2 1.2 21 3 1  6  56  2 5 . 9 3.7 1.2  7.4  6 9 . 2  25  3 0 . 8  0  0 0 . 0  130 Table  1 5 . - -  L o c a t i o n of Reviewers at of Review (continued)  DECISION-MAKER  INSIDE PROGRAM NUMBER %  L E V E L I I I -- A P P E A L H E A R I N G : Nursing faculty from program 31 1 9 . 6 N u r s i n g program head 23 14.6 Students Non-nursing f a c u l t y Head of i n s t i t u t i o n Immediate s u p e r v i s o r of n u r s i n g head E s t L d i n s t ' a l c t t e . Head of student s e r v i c e s Nursing f a c u l t y from o u t s i d e i n s t i t u t i o n Board of D i r e c t o r s Nurse, non-educator from o u t s i d e i n s t i t u t i o n  * M u l t i p l e is 81.  TOTAL responses  are  TOTAL  Four  INSIDE I N S T '' N NUMBER %  33 29 13  20 .9 18 . 4 8 .2  15 3  9 .5 1 .9  2  1 .3  Levels  OUTSIDE I NS Tx N NUMBER %  4.4 0.6 1  54 3 4 . 2 95 r e q u e s t e d .  LEVEL IV - INSTITUTIONAL Head of i n s t i t u t i o n Senate sub-committee Head of s c h o o l , d i v i s i o n , school Appeal committee Ad h o c i n s t i t u t i o n a l commi t t e e Board of governors sub-commi ttee Outside a r b i t r a t o r No response  the  STUDENT  6 0 . 2 Number  APPEAL: 13.7 11 6 7.4 6 3  7.4 3.7  1  1.2  3  of  0 . 6  9 5.6 programs  (N=81)  3.7  50  61. 7  77  95.1  4  4 . 9  131 Both  l e v e l  conducted of  by  f a c u l t y  nursing  by  s t u d e n t s .  the  other  e d u c a t i o n a l reviews.  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s  s e n t a t i v e s  in  who  were  f a c u l t y  and,  not  in  were or,  w i t h i n  program  the  R e v i e w - - o c c u r r e d the  u n i v e r s i t y g e n e r a l l y I I I - - F o r m a l  w i t h i n  nursing programs.  o c c u r r e d Appeal  l e v e l the  program In w i t h i n  from  in  at the  these  composed  of  other  programs, the  repre-  i n s t i t u t i o n s .  non-nursing  l i m i t e d  reported  C l i n i c a l  w h i l e  programs  i n v o l v e d  of  these  f a c u l t y  number  of  employees.  respondents Students''  a  the  o f f i c i a l s  nine  e i t h e r i n  exception c l i n i c a l  program,  employees  n o n - i n s t i t u t i o n a l  of  of  were  nursing  the  s u p e r v i s i n g  also  panels  g e n e r a l l y  student  program  were  the  panels  Assessment  into  nurses  were  with  one-quarter  employees  G e n e r a l l y ,  reviews  input  hearing from  review  programs,  on  o f f i c i a l s  i n s t i t u t i o n a l  o u t s i d e  program  i n s t i t u t i o n s  i n s t i t u t i o n a l  II  non-nursing  Appeal  IV  l e v e l  r e g i s t e r e d  However,  II,  Level  and  dependency  d e c i s i o n s  l e v e l  I  that  Performance I I - - I n f o r m a l  i n s t i t u t i o n , with  the  program.  H e a r i n g s - - a n d  l e v e l  Both IV--  - -  Grievance  but  such  I  occurred  took  e x c e p t i o n  u n i v e r s i t i e s , the  Level  a  place  of review l e v e l  132 I n s t i t u t i o n a l w i t h i n Table  i n s t i t u t i o n s  A p p e a l s - - g e n e r a l l y but  external  to  occurred  programs  ( r e f e r  1 6 . - -  Review  Location  of  of  Students'  LEVEL  D e c i s i o n - m a k e r  C l i n i c a l  INSIDE PROGRAM NUMBER  INSIDE INSTITUTION %  at  each  E v a l u a t i v e  NUMBER  Level  D e c i s i o n s  OUTSIDE INSTITUTION  %  NUMBER  %  I  73  76.8  0  00.0  22  23.2  11  50  69.2  25  30.8  0  0.0  III  54  34.2  95  60.2  9  5.6  0  0.0  27  33.3  4  4.9  IV  Functions was each  to  16) .  Table of  Student  of  the  d e c i s i o n -maker .  l i k e l y  to  perform  l e v e l  of  review.  d e t e r m i n a t i o n evidence review,  or  of  who  the  and what  the  p a r t i c u l a r  are  to  a d d r e s s ,  would  p a r t i e s  aspects the  of  r o l e s  r o l e s  could  form  allowed  could  the  as  be  d e c i s i o n  of  what  during  a s s i s t e d  a d v i s o r s  of  part  i n c l u d e :  i n t e r v i e w e d ,  be  these  d e c i s i o n -maker  of  be  could  r o l e  and  v a r i e t y These  documents  whether  a d v i s o r s  a  The  might that  documentation  the by perform,  the of  reviews the  133 review.  Respondents  r e l a t i n g  to  the  f u n c t i o n s  l e v e l s  of  At  any  I,  of  c o u l d  marks  a p p l i c a t i o n  of  to  that  a l l  s p e c i f i c  c l i n i c a l  students  who  o b j e c t i v e s  were  c o n s i d e r e d  for  the  responding  programs e i t h e r  do  not not  were  and,  to  who  ensure  to  the  course  well  as  d i f f i c u l t y  p r o v i d i n g provide  as  by  f a c u l t y .  were  reviewed  a a  in  It  appears  response f u r t h e r  to  f i r s t l y ,  in  there  t h i s  the  case  composed  review  p o l i c i e s  c l i n i c a l  programs.  In  which  o u t s i d e  committee  meet  of  determine  whether  17).  students'"  f a i l u r e  of  a l l  reviewed,  c o n s i s t e n c y  o n e - t h i r d  reviewed  to  d e c i s i o n s  d i v i s i o n a l  had  during  then,  Table  i n s t i t u t i o n a l  reported  i n f o r m a t i o n  understanding  performed  these  programs  Approximately  those  of  a  an  c o l l e c t e d  programs  mean  provide  i n s t i t u t i o n s .  were  ( r e f e r  several  students'"  t h e i r  review  to  f a c i l i t a t e  performance  nursing  programs  " o u t s i d e "  to  data  f u r t h e r  n u r s i n g  heads  in  c l i n i c a l  the  asked  d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s  l e v e l  w i t h i n  above  review  students'"  was  the  were  of  a l l  the  and  procedures.  respondents performance the  performance  meeting  one-quarter those  t h i s  q u e s t i o n  of  of  being  that  review  a  course  Students in  in  e v a l u a t i v e  of  Table  17.--  Students' Nursing  STUDENTSx CLINICAL PERFORMANCES REVIEWED  C l i n i c a l Performances Reviewed at Level I Both Program and Outside of the Nursing Program  INSIDE NURSING PROGRAM NUMBER % OF % OF TOTAL  A l l students i n c l i n i c a l course Students who h a d d i f f i c u l t y meeting course o b j e c t i v e s Students being considered f o r f a i 1 u r e No  response  TOTAL *  M u l t i p l e  responses  OUTSIDE NURSING PROGRAM NUMBER % OF %  PROGRAMS  TOTAL  OF  29.6  42.0  8.1  8.6  31  27.0  38.3  7.1  7.4  25 25  21 .7 21 ,7  30  115* are  7 66  100.0 requested.  8.1 76.7  86* Number  of  programs  the  PROGRAMS  34  30  Inside  8.6 81.5  100.0 i s  81.  4>'  135 d e c i s i o n s  o u t s i d e  r e a s o n s , r e s u l t s  did  not  c o u l d  of  the  to  d e s c r i b e  needed,  they  in  c l i n i c a l  may  d i s t i n c t i o n s  Table  t h e i r  course"  and  the  grievance  reviews.  Respondents  e i t h e r  assessed  during  c l i n i c a l  e v a l u a t i o n  anecdotal the  next  notes  notes most  c o n t a i n  performed u s u a l l y  used  performance.  above  as  data.  many as  " a l l  they students  f u r t h e r  were  these  the  informal  reports  about  the  t h e i r  assessed  or  the  reviews.  The  a  during w r i t t e n  s t u d e n t ' s  most  to  the  that  documents  and,  frequently s t u d e n t ' s  l e s s e r  extent,  s t u d e n t ' s • p e r f o r m a n c e c i t e d .  Since  r e l a t e d  c l i n i c a l  formulate  c o n c e r n i n g  reported  student  documentation  to  that  f r e q u e n t l y  the  f r e q u e n t l y  during  the  p r a c t i c e s  f i n d i n g s  most  i n s t r u c t o r  These  respondents'  option  f e l t  reviewers  c l i n i c a l  the  s e l e c t  the  other  n e c e s s a r y .  presents  by  to  for  response.  by  programs'  s e l e c t e d  or,  seeking  asked  documents  submissions  a  i n f l u e n c e d  were  not  program  provide  questions  have  were  18  nursing to  been  respondents  o p t i o n s  same  the  choose  have  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n Although  of  to  the how  experience  d e c i s i o n s  were  anecdotal students and  regarding  are students'  136  Table  1 8 . - -  Documents  Assessed  Grievance DOCUMENTS  W r i t t e n W r i t t e n i n s t S t u d e n t Anecdot c l i n  ASSESSED  NUMBER*  submission from submission from r u c t o r ( s ) ' s c l i n i c a l e v a l u al notes about s t i c a l performance  student c l i n i c a l a t i o n u d e n t ' s  S t u d e n t ' s w r i t t e n assignments for the course S t u d e n t L s p r e v i o u s c l i n i c a l e v a l u a t i o n r e p o r t s S t u d e n t ' s e n t i r e academic f i l e Grievance review a p p l i c a t i o n C o u n s e l l i n g or Course o u t l i n e No response  * M u l t i p l e programs i s  From i n c l u d e g r i e v i n g as the  well  h e a l t h  responses 8 1 .  the  data  student as  the  anecdotal  performance  notes  would  f o r  about  a l s o  a l s o the  78  18 . 1  96 . 3  78 74  18 . 1 17 . 2  96 . 3 91 . 4  62  14 . 4  76 . 5  53  12 . 4  65 . 4  43  10 . 0 8 .8 0 .2 0 .2 0 .2 0 .4  53 . 1 46 . 9 1 .2  38 1 1 1 2  a  w r i t t e n  and h i s  be  or  II  % OF PROGRAMS  431 TOTAL are r e q u e s t e d .  s t u d e n t ' s  Respondents assignments  of  Level  % OF TOTAL  r e c o r d  o b t a i n e d ,  assessment  During  Reviews  100 .0 Number  of  grievance  review  submissions  from  her  c l i n i c a l the  1 .2 1 .2 2 .5  c l i n i c a l  would the  i n s t r u c t o r ( s ) ,  e v a l u a t i o n .  s t u d e n t ' s  I d e a l l y  c l i n i c a l  assessed.  i n d i c a t e d  courses  were  that used  s t u d e n t s ' more  w r i t t e n  f r e q u e n t l y  137 than  the  s t u d e n t s  1  p r e v i o u s  c l i n i c a l  e v a l u a t i o n  r e p o r t s .  Grievance  review  documentation f a c i l i t a t e d ( r e f e r in  to  student  not  only  about  the  g r i e v a n c e s ,  provided  i n t e r v i e w s  Table  n u r s i n g  panels  1 9 ) .  programs  and  h i s  Table  or  1 9 . - -  INDIVIDUALS  between Thus,  * M u l t i p l e is 8 1 .  TOTAL responses are  Rarely peers.  Thus  d i d panels i t  appears  that  g r i e v i n g  44. ,3  67 5 3 3 1 9  42. .4 3..2 1 .. 9 1 ,. 9 0, .6 5,.7  •  the  % OF PROGRAMS  86. .4 8 2 . .7 6. ,2 3 . .7 3. .7 1,.2 11, . 1  100 . 0 Number  input  these  During  % OF TOTAL  70  158 r e q u e s t e d .  u t i l i z e  reviews  i n s t r u c t o r s .  NUMBER*  Student S t u d e n t L s c l i n i c a l i n s t r u c t o r C o o r d i n a t o r of year or l e v e l Head of n u r s i n g program C l i n i c a l area personnel S t u d e n t ' s peers No response  p a r t i e s  the  I n d i v i d u a l s Interviewed Grievance Reviews  INTERVIEWED  also  grievance  i n t e r v i e w i n g  c l i n i c a l  but  aggrieved  g e n e r a l l y  i n v o l v e d her  the  reviewed  from  panels  of  the  programs  s t u d e n t ' s  addressed  the  138 s p e c i f i c  s t u d e n t  L  c r i t e r i a  r a t h e r  than  comparison c l i n i c a l  to  s  performance  that  the  of  r e p o r t e d  that  g r i e v a n c e  another  students  reviews  and  c o u l d about  t h i s  c l i n i c a l  i n s t r u c t o r ( s ) . r o l e  These assessment  support  they  of  the  s e v e r a l  o p t i o n s  "a  s e l e c t i o n  or  no  s p e c i f i c a t i o n given  not  be  a  in same  these  above  o p t i o n s .  This  i s  made  s t u d e n t ' s  a d v i s o r s  reported  provide  lawyers  as  an  both  poor  q u e s t i o n n a i r e l a w y e r . "  s t u d e n t s '  a d v i s o r s  at  wording have  of  the  said  be  as  r e p o r t i n g  a  c o u l d  and  programs  the  there  option  of  of  where  a d v i s o r a  r e s u l t  r e s u l t e d that  grievance  20.  a d v i s o r s  Programs the  have  Table  Such  should  who  may  in  be  accurate  l a w y e r . " to  could  students'"  s e l e c t e d  due  to  percentage  Who  a  respondents  same  g r i e v i n g  "not  about  the  number  the  a d v i s o r s  the  not  of  and  The  be  both  in  the  b r i n g the  respondents  q u e s t i o n n a i r e . must  may  l i k e l y  of  perform  use  lawyer" was  to  can  f i n d i n g s  because  not  performance  student  o n e - q u a r t e r  provided  the  s t u d e n t ' s  pre-determined  s e t t i n g .  Approximately  and  a g a i n s t  in  lawyers  r e v i e w s .  a  higher  To  was  were  s e l e c t e d  c o u l d  "may  be  139 compensate both  options  report  the  have  only  Table and USE OF  f o r  the  above had  problem,  t h e i r  option  respondents  responses  "may be  s e l e c t i n g  adjusted  l a w y e r . "  2 0 . - - Use of and Role of A d v i s o r s f o r C l i n i c a l I n s t r u c t o r s During Grievance  OF/ROLE ADVISORS  STUDENT N U M B E R * % OF  able to b r i n g a d v i s o r 40 May be l a w y e r 23 May n o t be l a w y e r 5 A c t i v e p a r t i c i pant 11 Only p a s s i v e p a r t i c i p a n t 15 A c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t i f requested 9 No response 41  to  % OF  Students Reviews  CLINICAL INSTR'S N U M B E R * % OF % OF  TOTAL  PR0GxM  TOTAL  PROG'M  27 . 8 16 . 0 3 .5  49 . 4 28 .4 19 . 8  31 16 11  23 . 3 12 . 0 8 .3  38 . 3 19 . 8 13 . 6  7 .6  13 . 6  8  6 .0  9 .9  10 . 4  18 . 5  8  6 .0  9 .9  6 .3 28 . 4  11 . 1 50 . 6  9 50  6 .8 37 . 6  11 . 1 61 . 7  Is  TOTAL * M u l t i p l e i s 8 1 .  Table r e c o r d i n g  144  responses  21  provides  grievance  respondents'  1 0 0 . 0 are  133  requested.  an  i n d i c a t i o n  reviews  i n s t i t u t i o n s .  u t i l i z e d  1 0 0 . 0  Number  of  programs  of  the  methods  by  the  of  140 Table  2 1 . - -  Methods to  RECORDING  U t i l i z e d  Record  i n  Reporting  Grievance  METHOD  NUMBER*  P r e p a r a t i o n of a w r i t t e n summary of review P r e p a r a t i o n of a w r i t t e n t r a n s c r i p t of review  I n s t i t u t i o n s  Reviews % OF TOTAL  % OF PROGRAMS  66  72.5  8 1 . 5  10  11.0  12.3  Tape r e c o r d i n g the review P r e p a r a t i o n of mtg. minutes Recording of d e c i s i o n only  4 4 2  4 . 4 4 . 4 2.2  4 . 9 4 . 9 2 . 5  No No  2 3  2 . 2 3 . 3  2 . 5 3.7  r e c o r d i n g response  * M u l t i p l e is 8 1 .  means  t r a n s c r i p t s  no  :  surnmar i e s  documenting  one-tenth  or  of  r e c o r d i n g  l i k e l y  g r i e v a n c e  tape  the of  i n s t i t u t i o n s . more  to  were  these  the  review  the  a  process  were  determine  i f  most  reviews of  the  i n d i c a t e d  by  review.  i n d i c a t e d  that  o c c u r r e d  used w r i t t e n Only  l i m i t e d i n  i n s t i t u t i o n s  comprehensive  r e c o r d  with  was  a  three primary  foci  or  t h e i r are of  the  n o t .  provided there  programs  f r e q u e n t l y  f o l l o w e d  process  than  of  respondents  r e p o r t i n g  m a i n t a i n  review  the  r e c o r d i n g s  T h e r e f o r e , to  of  respondents  Respondents attempt  TOTAL 91 1 0 0 . 0 a r e r e q u e s t e d . Number  t h r e e - q u a r t e r s  w r itten of  review  responses  Almost that  of  to  focus  of  141 reviews  r e l a t e d  o b s e r v a t i o n s  made  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e e v a l u a t i o n " ) , ( " f a i r n e s s  to  by  or  and  there  to  which  grievance  ("procedures  used  j u s t i c e  over  the  v a r i a t i o n  i n  focused  on  Table the  one  degree of  other.  FOCUS  M u l t i p l e  % OF TOTAL  NUMBER*  TOTAL responses  74  35.4  91.4  70  33.5  86 . 4  62 3  29.7 1.4  76 . 5 3.7  209 are  % OF PROGRAMS  100.0  requested.  Number  of  programs  8 1 .  During to  the  component  e v a l u a t i o n " ) .  panels  F a i r n e s s and'-reasonabl eness of e v a l u a t i o n Procedures used during the e v a l u a t i on V a l i d i t y of o b s e r v a t i o n s made by the e v a l u a t o r No response  is  during  of  2 2 . - - Grievance Review Panels1' Focus During Review of C l i n i c a l E v a l u a t i o n D e c i s i o n s  PANELS1'  *  of  l i m i t e d  review  ( " v a l i d i t y  the  natural  was  component  e v a l u a t o r " ) ,  reasonableness  t h a t  Table  the  the  shows  options  academic  component  22  these  the  address  grievance with  r e a s o n a b l e n e s s  f a i r l y of  the  r e v i e w s , equal  the  panels  frequency  e v a l u a t i o n ,  the  the  were  l i k e l y  f a i r n e s s  procedures  and  used,  142 and  the  v a l i d i t y  e v a l u a t o r . the  And  o p t i o n s  Table at the  Level  23  i n d i v i d u a l s  Table  most  shows  the  student are  2 3 . - -  G r i e v i ng  i n d i v i d u a l s  and  h i s  most by  who  I n d i v i d u a l s INTERVIEWED  As  the  or  on  i n  by  the  a l l  three  conducted  of  r e v i e w s ,  i n t e r v i e w e d the  the  NUMBER*  i n t e r v i e w e d  c l i n i c a l  of  Interviewed  are  grievance  her  head  student  TOTAL responses i s  who  commonly  S t u d e n t ' s c l i n i c a l i n s t r u c t o r Head of t h e n u r s i n g program I n d i v i d u a l ( s ) who c o n d u c t e d Grievance Review S t u d e n t ' s peers Persons i d e n t i f i e d by Appeal Hearing Panel C h a i r p e r s o n of program c t t e . No response  * M u l t i p l e is 81.  made  focused  Hearing.  the  f o l l o w e d  i n d i v i d u a l  INDIVIDUAL  o b s e r v a t i o n s  programs  I l l— Appeal  g r i e v i n g  the  the  o f f e r e d .  i n s t r u c t o r ( s )  and  of  nursing  grievance  at  Appeal  % OF TOTAL  program review.  Hearings  % OF PROGRAMS  64 60 42  29 . 6  20 7  9 .3 3 .2  24 .7  6 1 16  2 .8 0 .5 7 .4  7 .4 1 .2 19 . 8  216 requested.  79 . 0 74 . 1 51 . 9  27 . 8 19 . 4  100 .0 Number  of  programs  143 In  c o n t r a s t  respondents  to  the  reported  were  i n t e r v i e w e d  t h a t  the  appeal  i n d i v i d u a l s  to  and  persons.  only  conducted.  the  formal  reviews of  could  to  and  provide  previous  panel  might  These  of  the  l a t t e r of  an  respondents  from of  would  informal  evidence  be  i n t e r v i e w s  have  which  a p p l i e d  r e s t r i c t s  l e v e l s  c o m p l a i n t s .  i n t e r v i e w e d  which  other q u a l i f i e d  were  might  student  not  other  programs  was  peers  a d d i t i o n a l  i n c l u d e  and  the  stated  i d e n t i f y  a p p e a l ,  of  s t u d e n t ' s  might  group  seven  not  In  such  unless  they  presented  at  h e a r i n g s .  When  respondents  ( r e f e r  to  were  c l i n i c a l  i n s t r u c t o r s  p r a c t i c e ,  was  s u p e r v i s o r  The  in  were  Table  students  options  s i x  hearings  new  g r i e v i n g  f u r t h e r  documentation  i n d i v i d u a l s  process  four  This  reviews,  s u p e r v i s o r s ,  d e f i n i t i o n  reviews  c a s e s ,  a  the  i n t e r v i e w .  c l i n i c a l  not  that  hearing  i n s t r u c t o r s , In  grievance  24)  i n t e r v i e w e d  ontained the  and  in  i n t e r v i e w  e q u a l l y  the  presence  of  A  i n t e r v i e w or  the  s i m i l a r of  absence  numbers  " i n t e r v i e w i n g . . . i n  the  reported  alone.  for  about  they in  presence  s i m i l a r i t y  asked  of  the  responses  presence  of"  t h e i r  d i v i s i o n  the of  that  of  c l i n i c a l student.  to and  the  144 Table  2 4 . - - Appeal Hearing Procedures Used to Interview P a r t i e s Regarding the S t u d e n t ' s Grievance  PARTIES  INTERVIEWED  NUMBER*  I n t e r v i e w i n g the student i n presence of c l i n i c a l i n s t r u c t o r I n t e r v i e w i n g the student alone I n t e r v i e w i n g the c l i n i c a l i n s t r u c t o r alone I n t e r v i e w i n g the c l i n i c a l i n s t r u c t o r i n presence of student  % OF TOTAL  % OF PROGRAMS  37 36  22 . 6 22 . 0  45 .7 44 . 4  36  22 . 0  44 .4  35  21 . 3  43 . 2  I n t e r v i e w i n g by student  witnesses i n t r o d u c e d or c l i n i c a l i n s t r u c t o r  3  1 .8  3 .7  I n t e r v i e w i n g  head  2  1 .2  2 .5  I n t e r v i e w i n g I n t e r v i e w i n g No response  other i n s t r u c t o r s c o o r d i n a t o r of course  1 1 13  0 .6 0 .6 7 .9  1 .2 1 .2 16 . 0  of  the  program  TOTAL * M u l t i p l e is 8 1 .  responses  are  164 requested.  " i n t e r v i e w i n g . . . a l o n e "  leads  programs  to  the  are  presence  At  the  students than of i  as  l i k e l y  of  each  appeal  had  a  n o t .  Table  a d v i s o r s  f o r  n s t r u c t o r s .  25  hearing  as  to  compares with  of the  of  s p e c u l a t i o n these  i n t e r v i e w  l e v e l ,  chance  students  Number  i n t e r v i e w  other  greater  to  100.0  i t  p a r t i e s them  f o r  i n alone.  that  allowed  p r o v i s i o n  that  that  appears  being  programs  f o r  c l i n i c a l  a d v i s o r s and  r o l e  It the  i s  i n t e r e s t i n g  opportunity  f r e q u e n t l y are  also  than  are  c l i n i c a l  than  more  be  are  that  represented  to  be  1  '  appear  students by  are  a d v i s o r s  i n s t r u c t o r s . allowed  i n s t r u c t o r s .  i n s t r u c t o r s in  note  c l i n i c a l  l i k e l y  c l i n i c a l  p a r t i c i p a n t s r o l e s .  to  to  a d v i s o r s hearings  lawyers  Both  given more  Students as  a d v i s o r s  students'  are  as  apt  to  as  to  assume  and be  a c t i v e  p a s s i v e  Table  2 5 . - - Use  of  and Role  of  Advisors  f o r  Appeal USE  OF/ROLE  OF  ADVISORS  Is  able  to  No  i v e p a r t i c i p a n t y passive partc i p a n t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t f requested response  M u l t i p l e  % OF TOTAL  and C l i n i c a l  CLINICAL  % OF PROGRAM  I n s t r u c t o r s  NUMBER*  INSTR'S  % OF TOTAL  % OF PROGRAM  4 8 , .1 37, .0  bring  TOTAL *  STUDENT NUMBER*  a d v i s o r May be lawyer May n o t be lawyer A c t Onl i A c t i  Students  Hearings  responses  56 44 32 21  26..3 2 0 . .7 15. ,0 9..9  6 9 . .1 54..3 39..5 25..9  39 30 11 15  23..8 18. .3 6 . .7 9..1  13  6..1  7..4  11  6.,7  13, .6  20 27  9..3 1 2 , .7  2 4 . .7 33..3  14 44  8..5 26..9  17, .3 3 7 ,. 6  164  1 0 0 . 0  213  100.0  are  requested.  Number  of  programs  i s  13, .6 18, .5  8 1 .  During  147 Table  26  i n d i v i d u a l s are  to  be  heard  w h i l e  i d e n t i f y  the  Students  tend  to  the  than  and  l i k e l y from  what  to  evidence  w i l l  determine  during  members  the  they  ( r e f e r  most  and  to  c l i n i c a l r e p o r t ,  i n s t r u c t o r s  next  Appeal  appeal  are  be  more  l i k e l y  to  p r e s e n t e d .  evidence  determine  the  and  of  frequent  evidence  hearing  Table  27)  to  anecdotal  course  f r e q u e n t l y  and  with  h e a r i n g s .  persons be  to  to  be  presented  w i t n e s s e s  for  by  appealing  the the  notes  the  programs  determine  w r i t t e n  both  about  the  s t u d e n t  L  s  by  the  e v a l u a t i o n  s t u d e n t ' s  w r i t t e n  frequency.  submissions  student,  s t u d e n t ' s  s t u d e n t ' s  s i m i l a r  nursing  heard.  u t i l i z e  the  review  heads  panels  i n s t r u c t o r ( s ) ,  performance,  these  heard  determine  which  h e a r i n g s .  w i t n e s s e s  the  more  which  to  h e a r i n g s .  panel  evidence  C l i n i c a l are  be  hearing  f r e q u e n t l y  these  are  w i l l  witnesses  appeal  o f f i c e r s  hearings  p e r t a i n i n g  which  during  w i t n e s s e s  more  data  determine  Hearing which  presents  c l i n i c a l  assignments  They  academic  for  l e s s f i l e  during  Table  INDIVIDUAL  2 6 . -  I n d i v i d u a l s  Determining Appeal  DETERMINING NUMBER*  Hearing  O f f i c e r  Hearing Panel Student C l i n i c a l I n s t r u c t o r ( s ) Head of nursing program Chairman of committee or board Head of i n s t i t u t i o n No  response  TOTAL *  M u l t i p l e  responses  are  Witnesses Hearings  WITNESSES % OF % OF TOTAL PROGRAM  23 16 15  24.2 16.8 15.8  28.4 19.8 18.5  11 11  11.6 11.6  13.6 13.6  4 1  4.2  4.9 1.2  14  1.1 14.7  95  100.0  requested.  Number  or  Evidence  NUMBER*  17.3  programs  3 1 13  Heard  During  % OF PROGRAM  .4  38 . 3  .7 .8 .4 14 . 4  40 .7 33 . 3 27 . 2  2 .0 0 .7 8 .6  3 .7 1 .2 16 . 0  20 21 17 14  31 33 27 22 22  i s  be  EVIDENCE % OF TOTAL  27 . 2  100 . 0  152 of  to  81.  4> 00  Table  2 7 . - -  Documentation  Assessed  DOCUMENTATION  NUMBER*  W r i t t e n s u b m i s s i o n by student S t u d e n t ' s e v a l u a t i o n r e p o r t W r i t t e n s u b m i s s i o n by c l i n i c a l i n s t r u c t o r ( s ) Anecdotal notes about student'' s c l i n i c a l performance S t u d e n t L s w r i t t e n assignments S t u d e n t ' s p r e v i o u s e v a l u a t i o n s S t u d e n t ' s e n t i r e f i l e W r i t t e n s u b m i s s i o n by head of n u r s i n g program W r i t t e n s u b m i s s i o n by student1's a d v i s o r C o u n s e l l i n g records of student W r i t t e n s u b m i s s i o n by head of campus No response  TOTAL * M u l t i p l e is 8 1 .  responses  These o b s e r v e r s of  the  p u b l i c  at  m a j o r i t y  the  of  are i n  can the  s t u d e n t ' s  asked  t h e i r  a r e  o u t l i n e d  programs  When w i t h i n  hearings as  at  what  the  i n s t i t u t i o n respondents  % OF TOTAL  Hearings % OF PROGRAMS  60 56  14 . 4 13 . 3  74 .1 69 . 1  54  12 . 9  66 .7  50 47 40 38  11 . 9 11 . 2 9 .5 9 .0  61 . 7 58 . 0 49 . 4  37  8 .8  45 .7  22  5 .3  1  0 .2  27 . 2 1 .2  1 14  0 .2 3 .3  1 .2 17 . 3  g e n e r a l l y  Number  c l o s e d  2 8 .  hearings  46 . 9  100 .0  420  requested.  Table  Appeal  In  be  to  of  o u t s i d e  only  opened  programs  one-tenth to  the  request.  focus ( r e f e r  of to  i d e n t i f i e d  appeal Table  hearings'' 2 9 ) ,  determining  the the  was  150 f a i r n e s s  and  procedures  Table PUBLIC  Hearing Hearing  reasonableness  used  during  of  c l i n i c a l  2 8 . - - P u b l i c  Access  ACCESS  c l o s e d to p u b l i c normally c l o s e d ,  TOTAL  Table  2 9 . - -  FOCUS  to  Appeal  % OF  TOTAL are  TOTAL  8 0  9 . 9 0 . 0  0 15  0 . 0 18.5  81  1 0 0 . 0  Hearings'  NUMBER*  responses  Hearings  71.6  Appeal  181 requested.  and  S l i g h t l y  58  F a i r n e s s and reasonableness of of e v a l u a t i o n outcome 64 Procedures used during e v a l u a t i o n e v a l u a t i o n 57 V a l i d i t y of o b s e r v a t i o n s 48 No r e s p o n s e 12  * M u l t i p l e i s 8 1 .  outcomes,  e v a l u a t i o n s .  NUMBER  can be open when requested Hearing open to p u b l i c Hearing normally open, can be c l o s e d when requested of student No r e s p o n s e  HEARING  e v a l u a t i o n  Focus  % OF TOTAL  % OF PROGRAMS  3 5 . 4  7 9 . 0  3 1 . 5 2 6 . 5 6 . 6  70.4 5 9 . 3 14.8  100.0 Number  of  programs  151 more  than  o n e - h a l f  of  the  were  also  d i r e c t e d  at  a s s e s s i n g  o b s e r v a t i o n s  made  Panels  the  the  of  l e s s e r  e v a l u a t i o n . in  If  there  academic  d e c i s i o n  these  show. the  procedures  both  the  which  in  r u l e s  c o n t r o l  Table  and  of  panels  W r i t t e n  summaries  ngs.  had  no  the  the  review  to  tape  used  powers  of  d e c i s i o n  the  methods  document  hearing  more  commonly  r e c o r d i n g s ,  or  appeal (or  at  the  the  than  courts  the  by  the  accorded  the  with  s t a t u t e s  i n s t i t u t i o n .  the  were  by  whether  and  of  the  w e i g h t i n g  review  j u s t i c e  a  during  a r r i v i n g  e x e r c i s e d  the  to  procedures  s i g n i f i c a n t  power  natural  and,  l e v e l s  of in  and  used  f u r t h e r  assess  at  of  f a i r n e s s  outcome  external  would  v a l i d i t y  procedures  more  an  o u t l i n e s  hearing  proceedi  then  a r r i v i n g  the  30  t r a n s c r i p t s ,  were  If  courts  used  i n s t i t u t i o n  the  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g )  e v a l u a t i v e data  the  hearings  i n s t r u c t o r s .  e v a l u a t i o n  e x t e n t ,  appeal  the  reviewed  the  i n s t i t u t i o n ,  o c c u r r e d ,  c l i n i c a l  g e n e r a l l y  reasonableness s l i g h t l y  by  programs'-  used  by  appeal  p r o c e e d i n g s . used  minutes  than of  w r i t t e n  152 Table  3 0 . - - Methods  METHOD  OF  of  Documenting  DOCUMENTATION  NUMBER*  W r i t t e n summary of hearing W r i t t e n t r a n s c r i p t of proceedings Tape r e c o r d i n g of proceedings Minutes of proceedings No response  TOTAL * M u l t i p l e i s 81.  responses  are  hearing  panels  Appeal panels  a  method  of  use  s i m i l a r  reviewing  w r i t t e n  summaries  documentation f i n a l l y  tape  was  t h a t the  there  t h i s  w h i l e  was  p r e v i o u s  i d e n t i f y  a  w r i t t e n  of  the  documents  ( r e f e r  of  to  100 . 0  Table  f o r  programs  review  t h e i r  P r i m a r i l y other  they  forms  t r a n s c r i p t s  that i n  of  and  respondents a p p e a l .  l i k e l y  3 1 ) .  the  be  appeal  t h e i r i n d i c a t e d  A g a i n ,  respondents  would  of  grievance  over  appeal  of  review,  69 .1 19 . 8 16 . 0 1 .2 17 . 3  .0 .0 .0 .0  Number  reported  l e v e l  % OF PROGRAMS  p r o c e e d i n g s .  t w e n t y - f o u r  of  16 13 1 14  with  hearings  l e v e l  fourth  l e v e l  what  review  f i n a l  56 . 0  p r e f e r e n c e s  respondents  the  56  p r o c e e d i n g s .  by  r e c o r d i n g s  i n s t i t u t i o n s ,  of  of  f o l l o w e d  F i f t y - s e v e n hearing  the  % OF TOTAL  100  share  Hearings  16 13 1 14  requested.  p a t t e r n  Appeal  were  as  asked  assessed  at  i n to  153 The  four  documentation hearings student  frequently  identified  at the i n s t i t u t i o n a l  were:  written  submissions  and h i s or her c l i n i c a l  student's about  most  clinical  evaluation,  the student's  Table  31.-* *  DOCUMENTS  clinical  student  instructor(s), the and t h e a n e c d o t a l  performance.  ASSESSED  NUMBER*  responses  TOTAL 173 are requested.  s e t o f documents  identified  This  notes i sa  Documents A s s e s s e d a t I n s t i t u t i o n a l Student Appeal Hearings  :  similar  appeal  by t h e a p p e a l i n g  W r i t t e n s u b m i s s i o n s by s t u d e n t s 21 W r i t t e n s u b m i s s i o n s by c l i n i c a l 20 instructors Students' c l i n i c a l evaluation reports 19 A n e c d o t a l notes about s t u d e n t s ' per formances 17 Students' w r i t t e n assignments f o r 14 cour ses W r i t t e n s u b m i s s i o n s by heads o f n u r s i n g programs 13 Students entire files 12 No response 57  * Multiple i s 81.  forms o f  as h a s been  at the grievance reviews  1 OF TOTAL  % OF PROGRAMS  12 .1  25 .9  11 .6  24 .7  11 .0  23 .5  9 .8  21 .0  8 .2  17 .3  7 .5 6 .9 32 .9  16 .0 14 .8 70 .4  100.0 Number o f p r o g r a m s  previously and a t t h e a p p e a l  154 h e a r i n g s .  Thus,  documents out  i n  are  appears  assessed  at  that  a l l  s i m i l a r  l e v e l s  of  sets  of  reviews  c a r r i e d  i n s t i t u t i o n s .  Table focus  i t  on  d e c i s i o n  32  the  presents appealing  during  data  r e l a t e d  s t u d e n t ' s  i n s t i t u t i o n a l  to  the  c l i n i c a l  student  FOCUS  NUMBER*  F a i r n e s s and reasonableness of the e v a l u a t i o n outcome Procedures used during e v a l u a t i o n of student V a l i d i t y of o b s e r v a t i o n s made by the e v a l u a t o r F a i r n e s s of a p p l i c a t i o n of appeal procedures No response  The  responses  m a j o r i t y  i n s t i t u t i o n a l  of  student  are  % OF TOTAL  % OF PROGRAMS  23 . 3  33 . 3  24  20 .7  29 . 6  16  13 . 8  19 . 8  1 48  0 .8 41 . 4  1 .2 59 . 3  100 . 0  requested.  respondents appeal  P a n e l s ' Focus D e c i s i o n s  27  116  TOTAL * M u l t i p l e i s 81.  e v a l u a t i o n  a p p e a l s .  Table 3 2 . - - I n s t i t u t i o n a l Student Appeal During Review of C l i n i c a l E v a l u a t i o n PANELS'"  r e v i e w e r s '  Number  reported  panels  of  programs  that  d i r e c t e d  t h e i r  155 hearings  to  both  the  " f a i r n e s s  the  e v a l u a t i o n  outcome"  the  e v a l u a t i o n  of  respondents  also  o b s e r v a t i o n s a p p e a l . the  of  the  d e c i s i o n  make  A the  an  copy  most  there  of  Given  most  the  appeal form  that  frequent  t h i s  that  f o c u s i n g could a  of  r e f e r s  At  nurses  to  t h i s  are on  members t h i s  a l t e r  the  student  p r o f e s s i o n a l  of  the  l e v e l  made"  of  during  number of  nurses.  nurse  competence  to  d e c i s i o n  were  place d o n c a s e ,  i f  p l a c e d  ( r e f e r  to  Table  33).  of  f i n d i n g s  were  such  a  p a n e l ' s  documentation  copies  on  only  hearing  of  f i l e  were  p l a c e d  was  by  competence  summaries  r a r e l y  proceedings  of  d e c i s i o n ,  the  a  " v a l i d i t y  o b s e r v a t i o n s made  used  of  assessment.  e x t e n t ,  d e c i s i o n  the  s t u d e n t ' s  and  the  programs  without  frequent  a p p e a l i n g l e s s e r  about  However,  u n l i k e l y  Thus,  care  such  i s  reasonableness  "procedures  focus  the  e v a l u a t i v e  made  provide  of  i t  p a n e l s .  of  the  d e c i s i o n  review  these  that  was  " V a l i d i t y  aspect  to  made"  to  s t u d e n t . "  stated  p r o f e s s i o n a l  l e v e l of  the  and  and  copy  the of  the  complete  on  each  To  a  placed hearing  f i l e s .  of  an  a p p e a l i n g students  appeal students'  chose  to  hearing f i l e s f u r t h e r  in  the  appeal  156 these  d e c i s i o n s ,  c u r r e n t  and  separate lead  to  FORM  Copy  the  previous  f i l e s . a  Table  a l l  reviews  Such  loss  of  i n f o r m a t i o n would  management  s i g n i f i c a n t  OF  of  DOCUMENTATION  hearing of  c o n t a i n e d  M u l t i p l e  i n could  P l a c e d  % OF TOTAL  45  proceedings  responses  the  i n f o r m a t i o n  NUMBER*  d e c i s i o n  hearing  22  48 . 9 23 . 9  5 1 19  5 .4 1 . 1 20 .7  on  % OF PROGRAMS  55 . 6 .2  27 6 1 23  .2 .2 .5  100 . 0  92 TOTAL are requested.  Number  of  programs  81.  At  a l l  l e v e l s  student  was  the  i n t e r v i e w e d , i n s t r u c t o r s r a r e l y at  of  to  data.  Copy of hearing proceedings Set of recommendations No response  i s  be  3 3 . - - Appeal Hearing Documentation Appealing Students1F i l e s  Summary  *  r e l a t e d  most  r e v i e w s .  ( r e f e r  attendance  appeal A  review, l i k e l y  f o l l o w e d  i n t e r v i e w e d  formal  of  but  the  nursing  s t u d e n t 3 4 ) .  were  more  than  p a t t e r n  g r i e v i n g  i n d i v i d u a l  Table  hearings  s i m i l a r of  to  by  the  program  s  to  l i k e l y  to  informal  seen  heads.  appealing  be  c l i n i c a l  Students'  at  was  L  or  with  -  peers be  were  present  grievance the  157 Table  3 4 . - Summary of I n d i v i d u a l s Interviewed Grievance Reviews and Appeal Hearings  INDIVIDUAL(S)  GRIEVANCE  INTERVIEWED  NUMBER*  reviewed  35  at  64  31 . 8  79 . 0  60  29 . 9  74,. 1  40  1 9 ,. 9  4 9 ,. 4  1 9  0,.6 5..9  1.,2 1 1 . ,1  20 7 10  10, .0 3,.4 5,.0  2 4 . .7 8.,6 12. ,3  154  1 0 0 . ,0  g e n e r a l l y  a r r i v e  a  and  at  the  the  a  of  v a r i e t y  used  c l i n i c a l  of  the  review. of  c o n c e r n i n g  data  Number  comparison  wide  1 0 0 ., 0  201  r e q u e s t e d .  l e v e l s  i n f o r m a t i o n  performance to  three  u t i l i z e d  s u f f i c i e n t  are  p r e s e n t s  the  % OF PROG'M  8 6 ,. 4  responses  Table  HEARING  8 2 , .7 4,.9 3,,7  Indi vi dual who conducted p r e v i o u s l e v e l of review Student peers Other  TOTAL  APPEAL  % OF N U M B E R * % OF PROG'LM TOTAL  45 . 5 43,.5 2,.6 1 ,. 9  70 Student 6 7 C l i n i c a l i n s t r u c t o r 4 C o o r d i n a t o r of year Head, n u r s i n g prog'm 3  * M u l t i p l e is 81.  REVIEW  % OF TOTAL  During  by  programs  documents  Programs  documents  both  the  c l i n i c a l  e v a l u a t i o n  of  to  gain  s t u d e n t ' s i n s t r u c t o r s  d e c i s i o n  of  that  s t u d e n t .  During students  c o u l d  f r e q u e n t l y Table  both  3 6 ) .  than  grievance  be  reviews  accompanied  c o u l d  A d v i s o r s  c l i n i c a l f o r  both  by  and  appeal  a d v i s o r s  i n s t r u c t o r s p a r t i e s  were  hearings  more ( r e f e r more  to l i k e l y  Table DOCUMENT  GRIEVANCE NUMBER  Written  REVIEW  % OF TOTAL  % OF PROG'M  NUMBER  During  Levels  HEARING  % OF TOTAL  Review  INSTITUTIONAL STUDENT APPEAL  % OF P ROG L M  NUMBER  % OF TOTAL  % OF PROG'M  54  74 .1 66 .7  20  18 .1 17 . 2  25 . 9 24 .7  91 . 4  50  13 . 2  61 .7  19  16 . 4  23 . 5  14 . 3  76 . 5  56  14 . 7  69 .1  17  14 .7  21 . 0  53  12 . 2  65 . 4  47  12 . 4  58 . 0  14  12 . 1  17 . 3  43  9 .9  53 .1  46  12 . 1  56 . 8  37  8 .5  45 .7  38  10 . 0  46 . 9  12  10 . 3  14 . 8  13  11 . 2  16 . 0  18 . 0  74  17 . 1  62  78  for Course Student's previous e v a l u a t i o n s Student's academic f i l e Written submission by head, p rogram  of  15 . 8 14 . 2  60  by C l i n i c a l Inst Student's c l i n i c a l Evaluation I n s t r u c t o r ' s anecdotal notes Written assignment  18 . 0  21  nursing  by student's advisor  *  APPEAL  96 . 3 96 . 3  78  Other  Reviewed  submissions  Student  by  Documents  3 5 . -  9  2 .0  11 . 1  TOTAL 434 100.0 M u l t i p l e responses are requested.  22  5 .8  27 . 2  7  1 .8  8 .6  380 100.0 Number of programs  i s  159 to  play  an  a c t i v e  than  a  p a s s i v e  r o l e  during  these  h e a r i n g s .  Table 3 6 . - A v a i l a b i l i t y of Advisors to Students and C l i n i c a l I n s t r u c t o r s during Grievance Review Appeal Hearings AVAILABILITY ROLE  OR  GRIEVANCE REVIEW APPEAL HEARING NUMBER % OF % OF NUMBER % OF % OF TOTAL PROG'M TOTAL PROG'M  A C C E S S TO ADVISOR: S t u d e n t may h a v e a d v i s o r C l i n i c a l I n s t r u c t o r may have a d v i s o r No response  TOTAL  41  4 8 . 8  5 0 . 6  56  4 9 . 1  6 9 . 1  31 12  3 6 . 9 14.3  3 8 . 3 16.0  39 19  3 4 . 2 16.7  48.1 2 3 . 5  84  1 0 0 . 0  A D V I S O R MAY BE LAWYER: S t u d e n t ' s a d v i s o r 23 C l i n i c a l I n s t r u c t o r ' s a d v i s o r 16 No response 46  TOTAL  ACTIVE  1 0 0 . 0  27.1  2 8 . 4  44  3 5 . 8  5 4 . 3  18.8 54.1  19.8 5 6 . 8  30 49  2 4 . 4 6 0 . 5  37.0 6 0 . 5  1 0 0 . 0  123  1 0 0 . 0  PARTICIPANT:  S t u d e n t ' s C l i n i c a l a d v i s o r No  85  114  13 . 6  21  29.2  25 . 9  12 . 3  9 .9  70 . 8  56 . 8  15 36  20.8 50.0  18 . 5 44 . 4  72  100.0  11 a d v i s o r I n s t r u c t o r ' s 8  16 . 9  46  65  100 .0  response  TOTAL  160 Table 3 6 . - A v a i l a b i l i t y of A d v i s o r s to Students and C l i n i c a l I n s t r u c t o r s during Grievance Review Appeal Hearings (Continued) AVAILABILITY ROLE  OR  GRIEVANCE REVIEW APPEAL HEARING NUMBER % OF % OF NUMBER % OF % OF TOTAL PROGJM TOTAL PROG'M  PASSIVE PARTICIPANT: 15 S t u d e n t L s a d v i s o r C l i n i c a l I n s t r u c t o r Ls 8 a d v i s o r 46 No response  TOTAL ACTIVE PARTICIPANT CHAIRPERSON:  18, .5  21  30, .9  25, .9  11. .6 6 6 , .7  9,.9 56, .8  11 36  16, .2 52, ,9  13, ,6 44. ,4  68  69  100 .0  IF  REQUESTED  9 a d v i s o r I n s t r u c t o rx s 9 46 response  S t u d e n t ' s C l i n i c a l a d v i s o r No  2 1 , .7  TO  panel the  members  f o c i .  the  informal  d i r e c t e d  There  was  a  11. 1  20  28. 6  2 4 , .7  14 . 1 71 . 9  11. 1 56. 8  14 36  20. 0 51. 4  17, .3 44, .4  and  t h e i r  formal  70 100.0 Number of programs response i s  l e v e l s  assessment  s l i g h t l y  l e s s  of  o b s e r v a t i o n s  made"  than  i n  the  r e v i e w s ( r e f e r  informal  i n  to  of a l l  emphasis  " v a l i d i t y seen  100. 0 PANEL  14 . 1  TOTAL 64 100.0 M u l t i p l e responses are requested. is 81. Only a p o r t i o n of the t o t a l r e p o r t e d . Number of programs i s 81.  During  BY  BE  the  formal to  review three on  the  reviews  Table  37).  of  Table FOCUS  OF  3 7 . - -  Reviewers  DECISION  Focus  GRIEVANCE  NUMBER*  of  D e c i s i o n  REVIEW"  A p p r a i s a l  APPEAL  HEARING  % OF TOTAL  % OF N U M B E R * % OF PROGRAM TOTAL  74  35.4  91.4  Procedures used 70 V a l i d i t y of observations made 62  33.5  F a i r n e s s / r e a s o n ableness of d e c i s i o n  No  response  3  TOTAL *  M u l t i p l e  209  responses  % OF PROGRAM  59.3  16  14.8  48  13 41  59.3  31.5  70.4  29.7  76.5  48  26.5  1.4  3.7  12  6.6  100.0 of  % OF TOTAL  programs  115 i s  81.  100.0  Review  STUDENT  33.3 29.6  86.4  181  INSTITUTIONAL APPEAL  of  23 20  79.0  Number  Levels  27 24  35.4  requested.  Three  % OF N U M B E R * PROGRAM  64 57  100.0 are  at  19.8  Table FORM  OF  3 8 . - -  Form  GRIEVANCE  DOCUMENTA-  of  Documentation  REVIEW  APPEAL  of  Levels  HEARING  TION NUMBER*  Written  Summary  of  Review  INSTITUTIONAL APPEAL  % OF % OF. N U M B E R * % O F % OF NUMBER* % OF % OF TOTAL PROGRAM TOTAL PROGRAM TOTAL PROGRAM  of  29.7  66  75.9  81.5  55  54.5  67.9  27  10  11.6  12.3  16  15.8  19.8  9  Proceedings Other  5  13 3 14  16.0  5  5.5  3.0 13.8  3.7  3  6.2 3.7 3.7  12.9  No  5.7 3.4 3.4  2 48  2.2 52.7  91  100.0  Proceedings Written T r a n s c r i p t of Proceedings Tape Recording of  response  TOTAL M u l t i p l e responses  3  87 are  STUDENT  ' 100 . 0 requested.  101 Number  17.3  100.0 of programs  i s  9.9  33.3 11.1 6.2 2.5 59.3  81  ON  163 Documentation was  most  often  proceedings  in  ( r e f e r  C o n t r o l s  on  c o n t r o l s  were  the  informal  the  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g f o l l o w i n g :  (c)  form  of  by  (a)  to  hearing l e v e l  powers to  of  delegated a  Information  outcome  At  was  Level  d e c i s i o n s )  reported  I,  c l i n i c a l  i d e n t i f i e s  the  be  v a r i e d  a l s o  and  the  tape  of  be  widely  as  the  the  f i n d i n g s , f i n d i n g s ,  whether  the  o v e r t u r n e d , as  to  or whom  i n s t i t u t i o n .  e v a l u a t i o n to  who  assessed  Table  c i t e d  39  by  respondents.  Only p r o v i d e d  a  r e l a t i v e l y  data  small  c o n c e r n i n g  the  number  a  the of  the  d e c i s i o n s . groups  e i t h e r  one  s o l i c i t e d  of  or  in  G e n e r a l l y  about  the  to  a u t h o r i t y  panel  would  review  e v a l u a t i o n  i n d i v i d u a l s  the  upheld,  w i t h i n  ( i n i t i a l  reviews  students'"  was  of  r e l a t i n g  regarding  d e c i s i o n  should  or  summary  a  m o d i f i e d .  Data  a p p e a l .  to  d e c i s i o n  hearings  summary  t r a n s c r i p t s  o f f i c e r  recommendations f i n a l  formal  38).  provide make  and  w r i t t e n  determine  prepare  e v a l u a t i v e  the  a  w r i t t e n  Table  intended  formal  or  the  d e c i s i o n - m a k e r .  to  to  informal  to  delegated  (b)  both  f o l l o w e d  r e c o r d i n g s  or  of  of  p r o v i s i o n  respondents of  student  164 e v a l u a t i o n  review  programs.  Data  the most  d i r e c t o r  to  i n s t i t u t i o n a l f i n a l l y  a  provided  of  l i k e l y  the  o u t s i d e  from  n u r s i n g  conduct  p a n e l .  respondents  dean  of  appears  of  responses  members  of  or  from  i n d i v i d u a l  school  the were  by  f a c u l t y  e v a l u a t i o n  the  and  above  data  Students1'  % OF TOTAL  % OF PROGRAMS  11 8  1 2 .. 4 9 , .0  13, .6  5 2 63  5 ,. 6 2..2 70.. 8  d e c i s i o n s i s  an  d i v i s i o n ,  9,. 9 6,.2 2..5  77 ..8  100..0 89 TOTAL are r e q u e s t e d . Number of  nursing  c l i n i c a l  throughout  At  the  NUMBER*  Program,  review 1  the  3 9 . - Level I, I n i t i a l Review of C l i n i c a l Performance D e c i s i o n s  * M u l t i p l e i s 81.  s t u d e n t s  i d e n t i f i e d  f o l l o w e d  I n s t i t u t i o n a l committee Dean of D i v i s i o n , S c h o o l / f a c u l t y Review Panel No r e s p o n s e :  that  nursing  reviews  REVIEWER  D i r e c t o r  the  as  the It  of  program  such  committee,  review  Table  processes  not  a  programs  regarding  common  p r a c t i c e  Canada.  next more  l e v e l , l i k e l y  the to  grievance make  a  review  f i n a l  p a n e l ,  d e c i s i o n  than  165 e i t h e r  a  summary  recommendations Level  I I ,  the  a u t h o r i t y  to  of  f i n d i n g s  ( r e f e r  review make  a  to  or  Table  panel f i n a l  was  a  s e t  of  4 0 ) .  Consequently,  g e n e r a l l y  d e c i s i o n  i n  a  given  at  the  grievance  review.  Thus, the  once  outcomes  i n d i v i d u a l s , i n v o l v e d  Table  review  were i n  make make make respo  reported  descending  c l i n i c a l  reached  to  the  order:  i n s t r u c t o r s ,  a re a ns  AUTHORITY  heads  of  programs, f a c u l t i e s , 1  deans  of  the  r e g i s t r a r s standing  i n s t i t u t i o n s .  d i v i s i o n s , of  the  the  of  NUMBER  f i n a l d e c i s i o n commendations summary of f i n d i n g s e  and  s t u d e n t s , nursing  Grievance  % OF  TOTAL  52 21 2 6  6 4 . 2 2 5 . 9 2 . 5 7.4  81  100.0  s c h o o l s ,  i n s t i t u t i o n s ,  committees,  d e c i s i o n ,  f o l l o w i n g appealing  TOTAL  programs  t h e i r  4 0 . - - D e c i s i o n - M a k i n g A u t h o r i t y R e v i ew P a n e l s  DECISION-MAKING  To To To No  panels  heads  of  or n u r s i n g the  166  Once were to  g r i e v a n c e  r e p o r t e d  both  Table  PARTIES  most  students  4 1 . - -  reviews  were  c o n s i s t e n t l y  and  t h e i r  REPORTED  Student S t u d e n t L s c l i n i c a l i Head of n u r s i n g prog Dean of d i v i s i o n , sc or f a c u l t y R e g i s t r a r of i n s t i t u Nursing program s t a n commi t t e e  c l i n i c a l  TO  t i o n d i n g  hearings f i n a l  at  d e c i s i o n s  ( r e f e r  to  26 . 6 22 .7 19 . 1  84 . 0 71 . 6 60 . 5  29 20  11 . 3 7 .8  35 . 8 24 .7  12  4 .6  14 . 8  3 1 1 0 0 1  .1 .6 .2 .4 .4 .2  9 4 3 1 1 3  100 .0  were  outcomes  g e n e r a l l y Table  4 2 ) .  41)  % OF PROGRAMS  58 49  Number  r e v i e w s ,  Table  Grievance  256  g r i e v a n c e III  of  r e q u e s t e d .  are  Level  i n  % OF TOTAL  8 4 3 1 1 3  responses  outcomes  i n s t r u c t o r .  68 n s t r u c t o r ram hool  TOTAL  i n  shown  NUMBER*  Head of i n s t i t u t i o n Nursing program f a c u l t y C o o r d i n a t o r of year Chairman Board of Trustees Senate No response  As  (as  P a r t i e s t o Whom O u t c o m e s Reviews are Reported  OUTCOMES  * M u l t i p l e i s 81.  c o n c l u d e d ,  i n  of  of  .9 .9 .7 .2 .2 .7  programs  appeal  the  form  of  167 Table  4 2 . - - D e c i s i o n - M a k i n g A u t h o r i t y Panels  DECISION-MAKING  To To  make make  To No  make a summary response  AUTHORITY  f i n d i n g s  TOTAL  Table " d e c i s i o n " the  TYPE  To  To  To No  f o r  f u r t h e r these  c l a r i f i e s appeal  Hearing  % OF  TOTAL  53 12  6 5 . 5 14.8  4 12  4 . 9 14.8  81  1 0 0 . 0  what  hearing  c o n s t i t u t e d panels  a  a c c o r d i n g  to  respondents.  Table  To  43  Appeal  NUMBER  a f i n a l d e c i s i o n recommendations of  of  OF  4 3 . - - Type  of  D e c i s i o n s Panels  DECISION  Made  by  NUMBER  change a students'" c l i n i c a l e v a l u a t i o n mark only make a d e c i s i o n as to the f a i r n e s s or r e a s o n a b l e n e s s of t h e c l i n i c a l e v a l u a t i o n only make recommendations f o r the n u r s i n g f a c u l t y to c o n s i d e r uphold or not uphold the n u r s i n g f a c u l t y ' s d e c i s i o n response  TOTAL  Appeal  Hearing  % OF  TOTAL  26  32.1  19  2 3 . 5  4  4 . 9  2 30  2 . 5 37.0  81  100.0  168 Thus, more than  o n e - t h i r d of appeal  responding  were empowered  evaluation  decisions.  one-quarter only  However, i n s l i g h t l y  recommending power.  likely  the appeal  clinical  -  panels  clinical more  than  programs panels had  Therefore,  i n the responding  hearing panels were more  to have the power to uphold  student's extent  to a l t e r students'  of the other responding  institutions,  hearing  or modify a  e v a l u a t i o n d e c i s i o n and to a l e s s e r  to have only the power to recommend  be considered by the nursing  faculty.  Table 44 o u t l i n e s who the outcome of an appeal  a c t i o n s to  is directed  to report  hearing and to whom the  outcome i s reported. Thus the i n d i v i d u a l s most l i k e l y report about the outcome of an appeal student The  to r e c e i v e a hearing were the  i n v o l v e d and the head of the nursing program.  next most f r e q u e n t l y s e l e c t e d i n d i v i d u a l s were the  clinical  instructor(s),  or f a c u l t y ,  school,  and the r e g i s t r a r of the i n s t i t u t i o n .  the options provided, receive this  the dean of a d i v i s i o n ,  the l e a s t  likely  From  i n d i v i d u a l to  report was the head of the i n s t i t u t i o n .  169 Table 4 4 . - - P a r t i e s Responsible f o r of Appeal Hearings a n d t o Whom T h e y PARTIES RESPONSIBLE FOR  OUTCOME REPORTED TO  REPORTING RECEIVING  NUMBER  AND OUTCOME  Panel c h a i r p e r s o n Hearing O f f i c e r Head of I n s t i t u t i o n Immediate s u p e r v i s o r nursing head Head n u r s i n g program R e g i s t r a r Dean d i v i s i o n , C h a i r p e C h a i r p e Other p o s i t  school  r s o n of board r s o n of Senate a d m i n i s t r a t i v e i o n  Appealing  % OF TOTAL  OUTCOME RECEIVED BY  NUMBER*  31  38.3 21  9 , .1  25,.9  2 6 5  2..5 7 ,. 4 6..2  54 25  23,.5 10, .9  6 6 , .7 3 1 ,. 0  2  2,.5  26  11, .3  3 2 ,. 1  1  1..2 1 ,. 2  2  0 ,. 9 0 ,, 4  2,. 5  1 2  2 ., 5  1  student  TOTAL responses  Students from  the  c h a i r p e r s o n s  i n d i v i d u a l s students  r e c e i v e d  who  i n c l u d e d :  i n s t i t u t i o n s , nursing  might  and  programs.  % OF PROGRAMS  9,.9 8,.6  i n s t r u c t o r s ) 16 response  * M u l t i p l e is 81.  % OF TOTAL  8 7  C l i n i c a l No  Reporting Outcome Report Outcome  81 are  1 9 , .7  100 . 0 requested.  hearing of  immediate  24.  ,8  70. ,4  31  38..3  13  13. , 5 5..6  230  100 . 0  Number  hearing  communicate  hearing  57  outcomes  appeal  such  o f f i c e r s ,  1,.2  of  most  programs  f r e q u e n t l y  p a n e l s .  Other  d e c i s i o n s  heads  s u p e r v i s o r s  16. .0  of  of  to  the  heads  of  170 Students outcomes student t h i s  of  who  remained  appeal  appeals  d i s s a t i s f i e d  hearings  i n  36  of  could  the  81  with  demand  i n s t i t u t i o n a l  programs  responding  45  o u t l i n e s  review  programs  used  Table  4 5 . - - Documentation Reviewed During Student Appeals  t t e n t t e n d e n t cdot c l i n S t u d e n t for  the  documentation  of  DOCUMENTS  i n  the  l e v e l  REVIEWED  NUMBER*  by by  StudentLs e n t i r e  f i l e  Transcripts/summaries p r e v i o u s response  * M u l t i p l e is 8 1 .  l e v e l s  of  at  t h i s  responding.  a p p e a l i n g student c l i n i c a l i n s t r u c t o r ( s ) ' s e v a l u a t i o n report al notes about s t u d e n t ' s i c a l performance ' s w r i t t e n assignments course Written s u b m i s s i o n b y head o f nursing p r o g r a m  No  to  survey.  Table  W r i W r i S t u Ane  the  I n s t i t u t i o n a l  % OF TOTAL  % OF PROGRAMS  21 20 19  11 . 6 11 . 0 10 . 5  25 . 9 24 .7 23 . 5  17  9 .4  21 . 0  14  7 .7  17 . 3  13  7 .2 6 . 7  16 . 0  12 8 57  4 .4 31 . 5  9 .9 70 . 4  14 . 8  of review  TOTAL responses are  181 requested.  Number  of  100 . 0 programs  171 I n s t i t u t i o n s documentation  to  p r e v i o u s  l e v e l s  a p p l y i n g  the  t h i s  a p p e a l i n g or  "due  r e s t e d  the of  only  student  the  content  of  the  or  and  of  procedures  were  The  the  were  an  to  or  her  outcome  of  such  c l i n i c a l  used  rather  a p p r a i s a l  of  of  u s u a l l y  to  In  a r r i v e  ensure  h i s  processes  of  " a p p e a l . "  used  a s s e s s e d  review  summaries  appeals  meaning  r e c e i v e d  p r o c e s s . " the  t r a n s c r i p t s  legal  d e c i s i o n  with  r e s t r i c t e d  reviews  pure  c o n t e x t ,  e v a l u a t i v e  which  that  " n a t u r a l  the  the j u s t i c e "  an  appeal  than  with  the  at  then the  s t u d e n t ' s  performance.  Level outcomes as  I V - - I n s t i t u t i o n a l  were  d e c i s i o n s  these  reported ( r e f e r  outcomes  When appears panels  as  asked  from e i t h e r  r e a s o n a b l e n e s s  or  change  47)  .  Appeal  respondents  Table  46)  most  f o l l o w e d  review f r e q u e n t l y  by  r e p o r t i n g  recommendations.  data  make  or  the  to  what  the  by  Student  a of  c o n s t i t u t e d that  i t  d e c i s i o n the  s t u d e n t ' s  i s  a  " d e c i s i o n "  more  r e l a t e d  s t u d e n t ' s c l i n i c a l  l i k e l y  that  to  f a i r n e s s  the  c l i n i c a l  mark  i t  ( r e f e r  e v a l u a t i o n to  Table  172 Table  4 6 . - - D e c i s i o n - M a k i n g A u t h o r i t y of Student Appeal Panels  DECISION-MAKING  AUTHORITY  make a f i n a l d e c i s i o n make recommendations make a d e c i s i o n and a summary of f i n d i n g s To make a summary of the No response  NUMBER*  % OF TOTAL  23 5  29 . 5 6.4  2 0 48  2.6  2.4  0.0 61.5  0.0 63.0  To To To  f i n d i n g s  78  TOTAL * is  M u l t i p l e  responses  I n s t i t u t i o n a l  are  28.4 6.2  100.0  Number  r e q u e s t e d ,  % OF PROGRAMS  of  programs  8 1 .  Table  TYPE  4 7 . - -  OF  Type o f D e c i s i o n s Made by Student Appeal Panels NUMBER  DECISION  Only make a d e c i s i o n as to the f a i r n e s s or r e a s o n a b l e n e s s of the c l i n i c a l e v a l u a t i o n Change a s t u d e n t ' s c l i n i c a l mark  I n s t i t u t i o n a l  %  11.1  Make recommendations about appropr i a t e a c t i o n to take head of i n s t i t u t i o n Only make recommendations f o r the n u r s i n g f a c u l t y to c o n s i d e r No response  Once t h e i r  i n s t i t u t i o n a l  d e c i s i o n s ,  the  6.2 3.7 67 . 9  100.0  81  student  most  appeal  f r e q u e n t l y  TOTAL  11.1  9 9  TOTAL  OF  panels  c i t e d  made  i n d i v i d u a l  173 they the an  reported head  of  t h e i r  the  of  the  a p p e a l i n g  Table  The  from  program, or  the  4 8 . - - Persons  the  Head  of  RECEIVING  was who  i n  R e c e i v i n g  was  Senate  conveyed  t u r n ,  Outcome  OUTCOME  of  Table  4 9 ) ,  t w o - t h i r d s  those  who  f i n a l  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g  were  48)  of  to  the  informed  the  t h i s  charged  reviews of to  of  I n s t i t u t i o n a l  Appeal NUMBER  the  or  OF  TOTAL  11 7 4  13.6 8.6 4.9  3 3 2 1 1 0 49  3.7 3.7 2.5 1.2 1.2 0.0 60.6  81  100.0  hearings  respondents  conduct  powers.  %  i n  TOTAL  l e v e l s  the  r e c e i v e d  i n s t i t u t i o n  a l l  by  Table  r e g i s t r a r .  Senate of i n s t i t u t i o n Head of n u r s i n g program Another a d m i n i s t r a t i v e person the i n s t i t u t i o n A p p e a l i n g student Board of G o v e r n o r s . I n s t i t u t i o n a l : committee R e g i s t r a r Board of Trustees No response  At  to  also  student  Student PERSONS  ( r e f e r  f o l l o w e d  d e c i s i o n  nursing  student,  i n f o r m a t i o n  to  i n s t i t u t i o n ,  i n s t i t u t i o n .  head  d e c i s i o n  these  Less  than  ( r e f e r reported  hearings  to that had  one-quarter  of  174 the  programs  r e s t r i c t e d  such  power  to  recommendations  o n l y .  Table  4 9 . - -  Make f i n a l d e c i s i o n 51 P r o v i d e recommendations r e g a r d i n g f i n d i n g s 18 Prepare a summary of the f i n d i n g s 2 No response 10  TOTAL  review l e v e l  or i n  Students' f i v e asked  the  d e c i s i o n  appeal the  s e c t i o n s whether  o p p o r t u n i t y c l i n i c a l d i r e c t i n g  i t  to  to  of  was  22.2  9  2.5 12.3  2 19  100.0  81  the  t h e i r  reported ( r e f e r  to  1 -  4.9  2.5 23.4  0 54  0.0 66.7  100.0  81  100.0  each  turn Table  However, the  to  l e v e l a  made due  5 0 ) .  In  three  were  r e g a r d i n g an  e r r o r  completion  of  the  an  of  e a r l i e r  the  were  given  to  answering  of  higher  respondents  students  d e c i s i o n s  respondents  4  d e c i s i o n s :  programs  i n  2 8 . 4  at  i n  at  23  11.1  q u e s t i o n n a i r e  q u e s t i o n  respondents  6 3 . 0  reached  q u e s t i o n  performance.  q u e s t i o n n a i r e ,  51  was  i n s t i t u t i o n  route  -  81  6 3 . 0  Panels  I N S T I TUT 1 L STUDENT APPEAL NUMBER %  APPEAL HEARING NUMBER* %  GRIEVANCE REVIEW NUMBER %  DECISION-MAKING P O W E R OF PANELS  Once  of  D e c i s i o n - m a k i n g Power Three Levels of Review  an t h e i r i n  Table  5 0 . - -  INDIVIDUAL  Persons  DECISION  REPORTED  to  GRIEVANCE  tudent l i n i c a l i n s t r u c t o r s ursing Program Head ean, D i v i s i o n , S c h o o l  R e g i s t r a r Nursing Program  Ctte.  Head of I n s t i t u t i o n Senate of i n s t i t u t i o n Board No  *  of  Governors  response  M u l t i p l e  Outcomes REVIEW  are  Reported  APPEAL  f o r  HEARING  TO NUMBER*  S C N D  Whom  TOTAL responses  68 58 49  % OF TOTAL  % OF NUMBER* PROG'M  27 . 3 23 . 3 19 . 7 11 . 6 8 .0  84 . 0 71 . 6 60 . 5  8 1 1 •  4 3 0 0  .9 .2 .4 .4  35 . 8 24 . 7 14 . 8 9 .9 1 .2 1 .2  3  1 .2  3 .7  29 20 12  249 are  100 . 0 requested.  57  % OF % TOTAL  26 25  24. 8 13. 5 23. 5 11. 3 10. 9  21 1  9. 1 0. 4  2 13  0. 8 5. 7  31 54  of  Levels  INSTIT'L  of  OF TOTAL  70 . 4 38 . 3 66 .7  3  3.7  4  4.9  32 .1 31 . 0  1  1.2  .9 .2 .5  11 7 2  13.6 8.6 2.5  .0  53  65.5  81  100.0  25 1 2 16  programs  i s  81.  Reviews  STUDENT  APPEAL OF NUMBER % PROG'M  100. 0  230 Number  Three  176 question  were  bypassing  directed  the  Level  I.  of  provided  81  valid  question  Therefore,  due  to  Table policies  and  students  have  receiving  The policies  and  data  procedures access  new  this  section,  thus  information  at  of  a  data  be  considered  cannot  population  error.  concerning  the  the  grievance  reviews  specific  time  intervals following  evaluation decisions.  of  procedures  a  governing  clinical  l a r g e number  to  respondents  noted  presents  their  25  Thus,  above  to  skip  seeking  only  data.  the  51  to  respondents were  not  who  indicated  specified  in  either  i n s t i t u t i o n a l , or  nursing  program  policies  and/or  procedures,  likely  nursing  programs  offered  within such,  independent the  offered their or  nursing  students.  hospitals  benefit  institutions program  l e a d i n g to  establish  for  were  of  their  such a  registered  Thus,  would  be  these the  policies  larger  program.  would  in hospitals.  be  the  nursing  governing  procedures  institution  setting  As  program  diplomas  independent  only  and  or  only  such  for  institutions bodies  without such  to the  controls  177 Table 5 1 . - - S p e c i f i c a t i o n of P o l i c i e s and Procedures Governing Duration of Time Student Has to I n i t i a t e Grievance Reviews F o l l o w i n g Receipt of C l i n i c a l E v a l u a t i o n SPECIFICATION AND/OR  OF  POLICIES  NUMBER  S p e c i f i e d i n i n s t i t u t i o n a l p o l i c y and/or procedures Not s p e c i f i e d S p e c i f i e d i n nursing program p o l i c y No  and/or procedures response  to  respondents  i n i t i a t e  l i k e l y  a  ( r e f e r  53  governing an  f o l l o w e d  formal outcome  by  the  where  p o l i c i e s  of  student  p r o v i d i n g  asked  i f i f  t h e i r  t h r e e - q u a r t e r s  time  of  students they  the  24 .7 3 .7  100 . 0  a  student  her of  and  are  l e v e l  respondents  most  c l i n i c a l  the  nursing  has  to  s p e c i f i e d  of  able  more  i n i t i a t e i n  review.  to  i n i t i a t e  d i s s a t i s f i e d  review,  the  wishing  procedures  student  were  were  informal  a  appeal  t h i s  or  head  shows  length  20 3  whom  h i s  5 2 ) .  appeals of  was  Table  i n s t i t u t i o n a l  When  TOTAL  45 .7 25 . 9  c o n t a c t e d ,  to  the  i n s t i t u t i o n s  asked  review  i d e n t i f i e d  i n s t r u c t o r ( s )  Table  were  grievance  person  program  OF  37 21  81  TOTAL When  %  PROCEDURES  with  the  than  i n d i c a t e d  they  c o u l d .  178 Table  PERSON  5 2 . - - Students' I n i t i a l Contact Grievance Reviews NUMBER  CONTACTED  C l i n i c a l i n s t r u c t o r ( s ) Head of n u r s i n g program R e g i s t r a r of i n s t i t u t i o n C h a i r p e r s o n of nursing program standing committee C o o r d i n a t o r of year or course Head of i n s t i t u t i o n Another a d m i n i s t r a t i v e person C h a i r p e r s o n of i n s t i t u t i o n a l standing committee Student does not i n i t i a t e No response  review  TOTAL  to  % OF  Request  TOTAL  29 24 7  35.8 29.6 8.6  6 4 3  7.5 4.9 3.7  3  3.7  2  2.5  1 2  1.2 2.5  81  100.0  Table 5 3 . - - S p e c i f i c a t i o n of P o l i c i e s and Procedures Governing the Duration of Time Student Has to I n i t i a t e : Appeal Heari ngs SPECIFICATION OF POLICIES AND. OR PROCEDURES  S p e c i f i e d i n i n s t i t u t i o n a l p o l i c y and/or procedures S p e c i f i e d i n nursing program p o l i c y and/or N o t s p e c i f i e d No response  procedures  TOTAL  NUMBER  %  OF  TOTAL  .39  4 5 . 3  29 6 12  33.7 7.0 14.0  86  100.0  179 Only  one-tenth  could  not  of  the  i n i t i a t e  presents  where  i n i t i a t e  appeal  respondents  such  an  d i r e c t i o n s hearings  stated  a p p e a l . f o r  Table  students  are  that 54  students also  w i s h i n g  to  s p e c i f i e d .  Table 5 4 . - - S p e c i f i c a t i o n of P o l i c i e s and Procedures Governing the Duration of Time a Student Has to I n i t i a t e an I n s t i t u t i o n a l Student Appeal SPECIFICATION OF POLICIES AND, OR PROCEDURES  NUMBER *  S p e c i f i e d i n i n s t i t u t i o n a l p o l i c y and/or procedures Not s p e c i f i e d S p e c i f i e d i n the L e g i s l a t i v e A c t governing the i n s t i t u t i o n S p e c i f i e d i n nursing and/or procedures No response  TOTAL responses are  * M u l t i p l e is 8 1 .  In  summary,  programs than  were  appeal  i n s t i t u t i o n a l l i k e l y  to  program  more  l i k e l y  hearings student  s p e c i f y  the  a n d ,  to  % OF PROGRAM  30 . 9 12.3  48.1 35.8  1  1.2  7.4  0 45  0.0 55.6  0.0 14.8  p o l i c y  requested.  respondents  25 10  % OF TOTAL  reported provide  l e s s  100.0 81 Number of  that  a p p e a l s .  Programs  length  time  of  t h e i r  grievance  f r e q u e n t l y ,  programs  to were  students  reviews provide more had  180 f o l l o w i n g  r e c e i p t  d e c i s i o n s  and  appeal  Table  5 5 . - -  WHERE T I M E STATED  S p e c i f i e d  i n  t h e i r  review  hearings  Students  of  c l i n i c a l  d e c i s i o n s  (refer  to  Table  S p e c i f i c a t i o n  Wishing  to  I n i t i a t e  to  e v a l u a t i o n i n i t i a t e  reviews  or  5 5 ) .  of  Time  Reviews  I n t e r v a l s or  f o r  Appeals  INTERVAL  GRIEVANCE APPEAL INSTITXL REVIEW HEARING STUDJT APPEAL NUMBER % NUMBER* % NUMBER %  i n s t i t -  u t i o n a l p o l i c y / procedures S p e c i f i e d i n nursing program p o l i cy/ procedures Not s p e c i f i e d S p e c i f i e d i n A c t No response  TOTAL * M u l t i p l e responses i s 81.  37  45 .7  39  45 . 3  25  30 . 9  20 21  24 .7 25 . 9  29 6  33 .7 7 .0  3  3 .7  12  14 . 0  0 10 1 45  12 . 3 1 . 2 55 . 6  100 . 0 Number  81 of  100 . 0 programs  81 are  86 100 . 0 requested.  181  CHAPTER  RESULTS:  This r e g a r d i n g  chapter c u r r e n t  procedures a g a i n s t to  i t s  from  w r i t t e n  d i s m i s s a l s .  Table  about  the  with  f i n d i n g s  56  p r e s e n t s  (n=8)  3  (N=81)25  i n  then  r e l a t i o n  t h i s  i n s t i t u t i o n s '  r e l a t e d a  of  to  student  comparison hearings  as  between compared  of the Frequency of Hearings Compared with t h i s Study  37 . 5 30.9  h i s  study.  INFORMAL HEARING NUMBER % OF TOTAL  Orchard  (1981)  f i n a l l y  analyzed  procedures  56. - - Comparison G o l d e n L s Study as  Golden  and  study.  frequency of  and  study  obtained  v a l i d i t y .  (1981)  and  data  p r a c t i c e s  Golden's  models  and  study  f i n d i n g s the  with  VALIDITY  analyze  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  Golden's  p o l i c i e s  AND  f u r t h e r  p r o t o t y p i c  G o l d e n ' s  Table  w i l l  r e l i a b i l i t y  V a r i a b l e s  RELIABILITY  i n i t i a l l y  the  6  FORMAL NUMBER  2 66  HEARING % OF TOTAL  25.0 81 . 5  i n  182  Thus, Canadian to  based  n u r s i n g  i n f o r m a l l y  than  did  s t u d i e d much  request  did i s  because  Golden  study.  of  American  students  r i g h t  an  to  a d v i s o r s  c o u l d  Golden's  formal  l e v e l s  G o l d e n ' s  study.  in  with  more  57.  students  reviews  than  than  one  of  of  both  did  of  f i r s t  in  had  the  of  the These  the a  comparison  study.  greater informal  those  a  by  (8)  h e a r i n g .  t h i s  a  The  o n e - t h i r d  provides  had  at  cases  had  l e v e l s  a r i s e  programs  only  those  a d v i s o r s  of  appeal  Table  formal  might  number  p r o f e s s i o n a l  lawyers  have  i t  programs  students  c o u n t e r p a r t s .  that  an  d e c i s i o n s  p r o f e s s i o n a l same  in  o p p o r t u n i t y  e v a l u a t i v e  these  that  during  students  less  i n s t i t u t e  small  in  n u r s i n g  of  to  reported  f i n d i n g s  to  of  American  enough  programs.  Canadian o p p o r t u n i t y  be  s l i g h t l y  American  the  a d v i s o r  p r o f e s s i o n a l of  the  t h e i r  a l s o  had  However,  small  chance  i n f o r m a t i o n ,  review  o p p o r t u n i t y  than  Golden  above  a  in  Golden.  g r e a t e r  d i f f e r e n c e  the  programs  students by  appeal  on  and  reported  in  183  Comparison of Use o f A d v i s o r s i n Golden's Study V e r s u s T h i s Study  Table 57. STUDY  Golden s Orchard's 1  STUDENT ADVISOR USE NUMBER 1 OF TOTAL (n- 8) (N= 8 1 )  3 56  LAWYER AS ADVISOR NUMBER % OF TOTAL 1 46j  37 .5 69.0  66*  12.5 57 .5 81.5  1.Reports t h e f r e q u e n c y o£ i n s t i t u t i o n s ' a l l o w i n g l a w y e r s t o be s t u d e n t s ' a d v i s o r a t i n f o r m a l h e a r i n g s and Z.at f o r m a l h e a r i n g s .  T a b l e 58 p r e s e n t s t h e u s e o f e v i d e n c e and w i t n e s s e s a t h e a r i n g s as compared between t h i s and G o l d e n ' s  study  study.  T a b l e 5 8 . -* C o m p a r i s o n i n U s e o f E v i d e n c e and W i t n e s s e s B e t w e e n G o l d e n ' s S t u d y and T h i s S t u d y 1  STUDY  USE OF EVIDENCE NUMBER % OF TOTAL  G o l d e n ' s (n=8) 3 O r c h a r d ' s (N=81) 6 1 i . 55*  l.denotes u s e o f e v i d e n c e ^denotes use o f evidence  37 .5 74.9 68.0  USE OF WITNESSES NUMBER 7o OF TOTAL 4 19  at informal hearings at formal hearings  A c c o r d i n g t o Golden's study respondents, c o u l d be p r e s e n t e d  50.0 24.3  at hearings  evidence  i n more t h a n o n e - t h i r d  184 of  p r o f e s s i o n a l  be  m i s l e a d i n g  " l i m i t e d  the  made  of  In  reported  t h i s  Canadian  also  data  to  proceedings"  for  r e c o r d i n g s  of  t r a n s c r i p t s  the  of  the  of  a  d e f i n i t i o n  s i m i l a r  o u t l i n e s  the  the  and/or  p r o c e e d i n g s . to  comparison  or  of  "documents  be  of  the  i n t e r v i e w e d of  were  to  the  d i s m i s s a l s .  He  for  tape  w r i t t e n  study  comparable data  frequency record  p r o v i d i n g  This  obtain  not  "adequate  p r o v i s i o n  proceedings  summaries  an  academic  proceedings  or  one-quarter  r e l a t e d  hearing  making  of  when  o n e - h a l f to  could  programs.  maintained  as  mean  w i t n e s s e s  i n s t i t u t i o n s  "adequate"  d e f i n i t i o n  allowed  only  n u r s i n g  obtained  be  witnesses  that  f i n d i n g  d e f i n i t i o n  that  study,  i n d i c a t e d  the  would  evidence  for  t h i s  legal  which  d e f i n e d  59  i t s  evidence  p r o v i s i o n  in  Golden  r e s t r i c t e d to  Golden  h e a r i n g s .  i n t e r v i e w e d  However,  defined  respondents  with  use"  study  However,  programs during  Golden  whether  t h i s  u s e d . "  as  evidence  determining w h i l e  programs.  w r i t t e n  also  u t i l i z e d  data.  obtained  Table  from  both  s t u d i e s .  Using Canadian  Go 1 d e n ' s  nursing  d e f i n i t i o n  programs  in  almost  the  a l l  present  of study  the provided  185 an  adequate  r e c o r d  p r o v i d e d  such  Canadian  n u r s i n g  of  hearings  5 9 .  i n  - -  Proceedings  informal  record  at  kept  Golden's  that  Thus,  than  from  of  Use  e x t e n s i v e  of  and  Recording the  during  academic  of  have  provided  p o l i c i e s  d i s m i s s a l  of  and  a  n u r s i n g  students  i n a d e q u a c i e s .  V a r i a n c e  G o l d e n L s  data  due  of  p r i n t e d on  a  student  to  handbooks  survey  of  actual  study  that  "the  given  i n s t i t u t i o n  of  suggest  vary  use  data  i n s t i t u t i o n s  p r a c t i c e s .  comments may  h i s  from  He that the  hearings h e a r i n g s .  procedures  performance be  Study  more  c l i n i c a l  may  Hearing  Present  37.5 98.8 100.0  study  assessment  the  ADEQUATE RECORD % OF TOTAL  3 80 81  t h i s  records  d i d  p r o v i s i o n o f an a d e q u a t e r e c o r d at informal p r o v i s i o n s o f an a d e q u a t e r e c o r d at formal  Data  programs  adequate  c o n s i s t e n t l y  G o l d e n ' s  USE OF NUMBER  G o l d e n ' s ( n = 8) (N = 8 1 ) O r c h a r d ' s  a l l  study.  Comparison  STUDY  and  h e a r i n g s .  ensured  more  Between  reviews  formal  programs  were  i n s t i t u t i o n s  Table  a  at  d i d  used  f o r from  based  rather note  p r a c t i c e p u b l i s h e d  i n at  on than h i s any  186  p r o c e d u r a l g u i d e l i n e s , , b u t such v a r i a t i o n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f more r a t h e r t h a n protection" his  (1981,  170).  less  i s usually i n  procedural  The a b o v e f i n d i n g s r e i n f o r c e  comment as t h e r e a p p e a r s t o be g e n e r a l l y g r e a t e r  procedural p r o t e c t i o n f o r students programs than h i s d a t a suggest  i n Canadian nursing  for their  American  counterparts. Prototypic The  Models  J u d g m e n t M o d e l was d e f i n e d i n c h a p t e r  c o n s i s t i n g of interdependent the d e c i s i o n m a k i n g performance.  process  3 as  elements i n v o l v e d d u r i n g about s t u d e n t s '  clinical  T h i s M o d e l was t h e n a p p l i e d t o b o t h t h e  i n f o r m a l and f o r m a l l e v e l s o f r e v i e w s :  Interdependent  or h e a r i n g s .  elements o f the Model i n c l u d e t h e  a c a d e m i c c o m p o n e n t , t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o m p o n e n t , and t h e component f o r t h e p r o v i s i o n o f n a t u r a l j u s t i c e . D a t a were o b t a i n e d  t o determine  i f the primary  e a c h l e v e l were r e f l e c t e d as o u t l i n e d (refer  i n the Model  to Table 6 0 ) .  The II),  f o c i at  primary  focus during grievance  reviews  a c c o r d i n g t o t h e p r o t o t y p i c m o d e l , was t h e  (Level  187 academic  d e c i s i o n .  responding component because  to  l e a s t  nursing  the  d e c i s i o n  about  6 0 . - - Model  30. 1 28. 4 23. 9  62 48 16  a  to  the  s t u d e n t ' s  a b i l i t y  n u r s i n g .  Component Review or  Emphasis Hearing  ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATIVE COMPONENT COMPONENT NUMBER % OF N U M B E R % OF TOTAL TOTAL  11  s i g n i f i c a n t l y ,  r e l a t e d  LEVEL  III IV  programs  academic  emphasized,  component  nurses'  p r a c t i c e  Table  the  i n  q u e s t i o n ,  academic  p r o f e s s i o n a l to  t h i s  was the  However,  70 57 24  at  Each  Level  of  NATURAL JUSTICE TOTAL COMPONENT OF NUMBER % OF RESPONSE TOTAL /PROG'M TOTAL  74 64 27  3 4 . 0 33.7 3 4 . 8  35 . 9 37 . 9 39 .1  206/81 169/81 67/81  o r i g i n a l val i di ty of made by t h e the o b s e r v a t i o n s e v a l u a t o r ; the procedures used during the e v a l u a t i o n of the student; the f a i r n e s s and reasonableness of the e v a l u a t i o n outcome.  P r o v i s i o n primary by  focus  the  at  natural appeal  procedures  r e f l e c t model  of  the  f o r  used.  primary  t h i s  l e v e l  f o c i of  j u s t i c e hearings Both  of  appears (Level these  i d e n t i f i e d review.  An  i n  to  be  I I I ) ,  the  followed  components the  p r o t o t y p i c  i n t e r e s t i n g  f i n d i n g  188 is  the  c o n t i n u i n g  emphasis  o b s e r v a t i o n s  made,  p r o f e s s i o n a l  judgment  At  the  s i m i l a r  p a t t e r n  (Level  IV),  academic l e v e l s  The  of  sequence  hearing  revi  ew.  Model  of  steps  to  above  that  by  was  l e s s  used  by  Figure  the  than  Reviews  previous 6,  page  with  v a r i o u s  in  on  to  l e v e l  the  a  a r r i v e of  at  review  Table  as  found  previous  or  61  respondents'"  steps  a  programs  o u t l i n e d  in  the  model.  The  g r i e v a n c e  which  programs.  review  c o n s i s t e n t l y Appeal  i s  the  occurs  hearings  are  only in  step  the  provided  t h r e e - q u a r t e r s  of  the  programs  w h i l e  than  of  the  programs  provide  o n e - t h i r d  student Flow  was  provides  81).  which  a p p e a l s ,  hearing  i n s t i t u t i o n s  each  the  emphasis  judgment  or  to  student  there the  the  i n s t r u c t o r .  appeal  Judgments  for  the  the  of  of  r e l a t e s  of  t h e ; f r e q u e n c y  p r o v i s i o n  v a l i d i t y  i n s t i t u t i o n a l  c o n c e r n i n g  ( r e f e r  o u t l i n e s  model  to  the  which  made  although  of  d e c i s i o n s  f a c t o r  of  component  Flow  made  l e v e l  a  on  a p p e a l s .  Model  of  It  appears  Judgments  or  from  Reviews  was  t h i s  responding in  only  these  in  more  than  s l i g h t l y  more  i n s t i t u t i o n a l data not  that being  the  1 89 c o n s i s t e n t l y  a p p l i e d ,  as  was  o u t l i n e d  i n  the  p r o t o t y p i c  model.  Table Reporting  FLOW  #1  61. - - Frequency of Program Respondents' the P r o v i s i o n of the Steps as O u t l i n e d i n Flow Model of Judgments or Reviews  JUDGMENT/REVIEW  Judgment  made  c l i n i c a l alone Judgment than one  NUMBER (N=81)  #5  data  not  In  by  number  of  o b t a i n e d . judgments the  34 . 6  51  63 . 0  11 81 71  13 . 6 100 . 0 87 . 0  30  36 . 8  *  p r o v i d e d .  the  p r o t o t y p i c  c o n s i s t e n t the  nursing  However, or  g r i e v a n c e  q u e s t i o n  28 made by more c l i n i c a l  summary,  r e l a t i v e l y  TOTAL  i n s t r u c t o r  i n s t r u c t o r Review o u t s i d e of nursing program Grievance review Appeal hearing I n s t i t u t i o n a l student appeal; External appeal  #2 #3 #4  % OF  the  review. as  to  the  programs  the  reviews  a r i s e s  with  judgment processes  provided  f o r  data  p r o t o t y p i c  was  only  Based whether  process  which flow  model  c o n s i s t e n t on  the  these  above  i n  was i n  a  were of  r e l a t i o n  f i n d i n g s ,  p r o t o t y p i c  to the  models  190 a p p r o p r i a t e l y s t u d e n t s should  c l i n i c a l  L  be  r e f l e c t models  or  legal  these  c u r r e n t the  what  then  a l t e r a t i o n  development s t u d e n t s ,  f a c u l t y ,  R e l i a b i l i t y  of  a n a l y s i s  w r i t t e n  responding  same  t h e i r  for  his  or  was  completed  her  by  documents.  process  were  program's  as  then  the  t o p i c .  would  indeed  the  more  should  be  based  on  serve  to  the  well  In  are  as l a t t e r  l i k e l y  at  variance  w r i t i n g s  f a c i l i t a t e  p r o t e c t  of  the  r i g h t s  of  Instrument  determined  p o l i c i e s  a  r e s e a r c h e r Data  respondent  with to  the  by  each  separate using  obtained  compared  were  questions  completed  Thus,  a  separate  procedures  documents  r e f l e c t e d  that  through  and/or  These  program.  w r i t t e n  same  was  which  q u e s t i o n n a i r e  as  to  i n s t i t u t i o n s .  programs.  c o n t e n t ,  c a s e ,  these  V a l i d i t y data  former  l i t e r a t u r e  the  reviews  a l t e r e d  i f  to  and  the  be  but  not  systems  and  for  on  p r a c t i c e s ,  R e l i a b i l i t y  by  the  governing  subsequent  should  In  models  would  and  models  in  p r a c t i c e s  of  of  the  w r i t i n g s  a l t e r i n g  p r a c t i c e s  e v a l u a t i o n s  r e p o r t s  with  the  p r a c t i c e s .  r e f l e c t  r e f l e c t  what  whether  c u r r e n t  secondary c a s e ,  r e f l e c t  the  through  data  analyzed w i t h i n  the  respondent  q u e s t i o n n a i r e program's the  provided  i n i t i a l  provided  above by  the  q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  191 These  two  s y n c h r o n i c agreement each was  found  the  mean  was  due  to  (a)  Faculty  in  (c)  F a c u l t y those  (d)  (e)  which  a  summary  of  the  data  or  not  Such  programs than  a  options used  can  for  f i n d i n g  and/or  to  be  question could  be  those  have  been in  in  which f o l l o w  the  are  w r i t t e n .  p o l i c i e s  r e v i s e d  more  t h e i r  unwritten  but  e x i s t i n g s p e c i f i c  program's  as  and/or  yet  have  documents. p r a c t i c e s  than  w r i t t e n  procedures. t h e i r  program's  w r i t t e n  procedures.  r e s e a r c h e r ' s  the  q u e s t i o n s ' of  f o l l o w  programs  f o l l o w  The  s e l e c t i o n  r e l i a b i l i t y  range.  developed  and,  p o l i c i e s  question process  nursing  documented  do  for  for  f a c t o r s :  have  f a c u l t y  mean  of  f r e q u e n c i e s  the  i n c o r p o r a t e d  p o l i c i e s  of  l e v e l  of  50%  nursing  been  t h e i r  for  example  the  F a c u l t y  not  The  s y n c h r o n i c  rather  procedures  t a b l e s  assessed  F.  procedures i;n  then  determining  the  several in  were  An  and  Appendix  G e n e r a l l y  by  o p t i o n s .  c a l c u l a t e d .  in  options  data  contingency  q u e s t i o n ' s then  of  r e l i a b i l i t y using  determine  (b)  sets  f a m i l i a r i t y  meaning o p t i ons  could  f rorn  with  the  lead  to  those  of  context v a r i a t i o n s  the  of in  respondents.  192 (f)  Respondents' of  o p t i o n s  for  should  be,  the  actual  p r a c t i c e -  f a c t  that  data  t h i s  It  would  (French)  d i f f e r e n c e s .  In  number  of of  the  data  might  be  were  random  about  one some  i s  the  due  to  to  n u r s i n g  terminology of  and  the  nursing  language  semantic  e r r o r s  v a l i d i t y  of  i n s t r u c t i o n s  were  q u e s t i o n n a i r e  in  a l l  the  or  attempt  develop  r e g i o n a l  be,  f a u l t y .  ambiguous  in  f i r s t  T h e r e f o r e ,  Respondents  q u e s t i o n s  incomplete  to  to  q u e s t i o n  p r a c t i c e s  to  the  what  in  throughout  due  there  through  q u e s t i o n s .  s e c t i o n  data  a d d i t i o n ,  measurement the  provinces  of  the  review  understood  and  p o r t i o n s  was  than  be  s e l e c t i o n s  to  b e l i e v e d  a l s o  d i f f i c u l t  programs  i s  into  due  rather  might  and  was  be  what  study  entered  e i t h e r  p r a c t i c e  e v a l u a t i v e  programs. which  of  have  q u e s t i o n s  r e p o r t i n g  analyze  of  may  respondent  V a l i d i t y the  bias  asked  rather  to  than  i n s t a n c e . aspects  of  to  in  some  skip to  This  of  a  skip e r r o r  a led  programs'  p r a c t i c e s .  Coding though  e r r o r s  several  are  a l s o  l i k e l y  a c t i o n s  were  taken  to  be  present  attempt  to  even  to  193 e l i m i n a t e data  such  twice  coded  data  computer  separate  by  independent  an  data  input any  a g a i n s t  F i n a l l y ,  c o r r e l a t i o n a l  the  Data  a n a l y s i s  Generation These  development  phase  q u e s t i o n n a i r e  the  s e c t i o n s  the  components was  a v a i l a b l e  w i t h i n  t h i s  p o p u l a t i o n  of  a  of  study  and  instrument and  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .  and  responses  the may  to  were  have  compared  of led  the  the  a n a l y s i s  the  the to  with  Process  b a s i s  of  data  of  w i t h i n  t r a n s l a t e d  l e v e l s , to  when  assessed  obtained  ambiguous  s i z e  s c o r i n g  s c o r e s .  as  were  an  most  in  during  Data  q u e s t i o n n a i r e  due  (d)  Judgment  t h i s  However,  v a r i e d  the  formulated  determine  r e - c h e c k i n g  was  obtained  and  In  of  of  v a l i d i t y  model  r e - c h e c k i n g (c)  were  the  of  p r i n t - o u t ,  development.  the  (b)  coding  v a r i a t i o n s  data  Model  of  the  computation  determined.  to  components.  of  models  the  r e s u l t s  the  (a)  coder,  s i g n i f i c a n t  during  Model.  the  forms,  o c c u r r e d  through the  i n c l u d i n g :  using  r e - a s s e s s i n g such  e r r o r s ,  into  t h e i r were  model i n s t r u c t i o n s respondent  i n a c c u r a c i e s  in  194  In  summary,  obtained due  through  to either  procedures their  own  problems at  reliability  and v a l i d i t y  the use of this  a lack  lead  p e r c e p t i o n of program with  terms  variance with  i n s t r u m e n t were  of specified  i n programs which  used  those  of data  policies  and  respondents  practices  or  to  in  programs..  relate  semantic  i n the instrument which  used  weak  were  195  CHAPTER 7 RESULTS: INCIDENCE OF GRIEVANCES AND This chapter w i l l obtained  i n s t r u m e n t and  and v a l i d i t y o f t h e  Fifty-five total  r e p o r t on t h e a n a l y s i s o f d a t a  from the second  reliability  o f 205  respondents  cases  APPEALS  assess  results.  provided data regarding a  i n which  their  s t u d e n t s g r i e v e d or a p p e a l e d  their  n u r s i n g program clinical  evaluation  d e c i s i o n s . Programs v a r i e d  i n p r o v i d i n g cases  requested.  ranged  This variation  c a n o n l y be  interpreted  institutions, (c)  cases  Thus, the a n a l y s i s of data  for the cases p r o v i d e d .  from t h e s e c a s e s were a n a l y z e d t o d e t e r m i n e : number o f l e v e l s  as  from a l l cases d u r i n g  t h e r e q u e s t e d p e r i o d o f time t o a sample o f d u r i n g the v a r i o u s y e a r s .  the  Data  (a) the  of review students used w i t h i n  these  (b) t h e o u t c o m e s o f e a c h l e v e l o f r e v i e w ,  the frequency which  these students  launched  e x t e r n a l a p p e a l s , (d) t h e a g e n c i e s i n v o l v e d  i n these  e x t e r n a l a p p e a l s , (e) t h e o u t c o m e s o f t h e s e  external  196 a p p e a l s ,  and  (f)  i n s t i t u t i o n s .  These  r e l a t i o n s h i p s the  type  nursing was  (a)  of  the  with  impact cases  the  these  outcomes  on  a l s o  analyzed  f o r  were  f o l l o w i n g  i n s t i t u t i o n ,  program,  of  and the  the  demographic  student  p r o v i n c e  which  t h e i r  v a r i a b l e s :  e n r o l l m e n t  i n  the  the  i n  the  program  l o c a t e d .  The  Table  number  62  of  o u t l i n e s  requested  reviews  l e v e l s the of  of  review  frequency t h e i r  used  with  c l i n i c a l  by  which  s t u d e n t s . students  e v a l u a t i v e  d e c i s i o n s .  Table  TYPE OF HEARING  Appeal  6 2 . - - Number of Reviews I n s t i t u t i o n s  REVIEW/  NUMBER*  or  Hearings  % OF  TOTAL  Hearing  156  4 8 . 6  Grievance Review I n s t i t u t i o n a l Student Appeal External Appeal  135  42.1  20 10  6 . 2 3.1  TOTAL * Respondents reported at one o r more l e v e l s .  i n  321 100.0 that s i n g l e cases were reviewed Number of c a s e s i s 2 0 5 .  197 Students hearings  more  than  frequently  either  grievance  I t was a l s o  were g r a n t e d reviews  student  appeals.  percent  o f t h e cases  were r e v i e w e d  student  appeal  or e x t e r n a l l y .  level  T a b l e 63 p r o v i d e s programs  offerring  data  noted  appeal  or i n s t i t u t i o n a l  that  less  than t e n  at the i n s t i t u t i o n a l  relating  the various levels  t o t h e number o f o f h e a r i n g s or  r eviews.  Table  63 -- Number o f P r o g r a m s P r o v i d i n g L e v e l s o f H e a r i n g s or Reviews INSTIT'L ST'D APPEAL  EXTERNAL APPEAL  GRIEVANCE REVIEW  APPEAL HEARING  35  44  10  7  28  6  5  9  7  NUMBER OF PROGRAMS GRIEVANCE REVIEW APPEAL HEARING  28  INSTIT'L ST'D APPEAL  6  APPEAL H. + INSTIT'L ST'D APPEAL  5  9  2  1  198 Programs than  other  provided  offered  levels  a p p e a l h e a r i n g s more  o f reviews.  grievance reviews,  Only  programs  a p p e a l h e a r i n g s , and  institutional  student  provided both  grievance reviews  total  five  frequently  a p p e a l s w h i l e 28 programs and a p p e a l h e a r i n g s .  A  o f n i n e programs p r o v i d e d a p p e a l h e a r i n g s and  institutional providing  student  for three levels  p r o g r a m s were  involved  (b) T h e outcome outlines  appeals.  in upholding  o f review,  i n external  o f each l e v e l  the incidence  Of t h e f i v e  or m o d i f y i n g  two o f t h e s e  appeals.  o f review.  o f reviews  programs  T a b l e 64  or h e a r i n g s  the i n i t i a l  resulting  evaluative  decision.  Table 64.T* TYPE OF REVIEW  Outcomes  DECISION UPHELD NUMBER  o f Reviews or H e a r i n g s DECISION MODIFIED NUMBER  %  TOTAL FOR LEVEL  G r i e v a n c e Review Appeal Hearing Institutional Student Appeal E x t e r n a l Appeal  120 96  88.9 61.5  15 60  11.1 38.5  135 156  13 10  65.0 100.0  7 0  35.0 00.0  20 10  TOTAL  236  80  316  199  It  was  r e s u l t e d Reviews the  s i g n i f i c a n t  i n  support  only  r e s u l t e d  d e c i s i o n s  w h i l e  I n s t i t u t i o n a l o n e - t h i r d  (c)  of  the  205  63  r e p o r t e d  1985,  the  was  i n s t i t u t i o n  Table  6 5 .  - -  both  that  the  of  time  Type  of  these  TYPE  OF  INSTITUTION  TOTAL  ten  one-tenth  Hearing  e x t e r n a l  students  and  cases  65  out  of  f o r  from  requests  Table  the  the  1978  f o r  o u t l i n e s  the  to  external the  type  o c c u r r e d .  From  Which  External  Arose  N U M B E R OF EXTERNAL REVIEWS  6 2 1 1 0  10  of  appeal%.  Thus,  i n t e r v a l  I n s t i t u t i o n  C o l l e g e I n s t i t u t e of Technology H o s p i t a l Independent Nursing School U n i v e r s i t y  of  m o d i f i e d .  student  Appeals  Grievance  approximately  a p p e a l s .  per y e a r .  where  l e v e l s  only  appeals  d e c i s i o n .  l a u n c h i n g  the  e x t e r n a l  Appeal  were  e x t e r n a l  rate  the  a l t e r a t i o n  Appeal  during  1.25  the  students  o v e r a l l  a l l  i n i t i a l  d e c i s i o n s  launched  cases  of  at  i d e n t i f i e d  cases  appeals  of  the i n  Student  Incidence  Table  of  that  % OF  6 0 . 2 0 . 10. 10. 0 0 .  TOTAL  0 0 0 0 0  100.0  200  (d)  Agencies  Table  66  o u t l i n e s  requested  Table  i n v o l v e d  t h e i r  6 6 .  - -  i n  the  student  agency  external  Agency  AGENCY  appeals  Hearing  a c t u a l l y  a  respondent  a d j u d i c a t e d f i v e  students  requested  c o m p l a i n t s ,  i n  Respondents  d i d  out  of  student; f u r t h e r  c o u r t data f i v e  Commissioners  were  these that  c o u r t s . that  the  three  and  not were three  TOTAL  case  provided  d i d  not were  was withdrawn about  p r o v i n c i a l  the by  not  were  although  hear  cases  i n v e s t i g a t e d by  r e v i e w s ,  reviews  courts  Appeals  which  T h e r e f o r e ,  that  f u r t h e r  asked  the  report  cases  OF  external  hearings  were  %  100 . 0  such  a  before.  External  OF APPEALS  r e a l i t y  and  heard  10  reported the  students  50 . 0 30 . 0 20 . 0  conducted  before  be  Students'  respondents  agencies  to  ten  5  TOTAL  when  the  a p p e a l s .  3 2  Courts Human R i g h t s Branch P r o v i n c i a l Ombudsman  s i n g l e  which  NUMBER EXTERNAL  However,  e x t e r n a l  t h e i r occur. s e t t l e d by  f i n a l  Human  the case.  Rights  ombudsmen.  A  201 (e)  Outcome  of  the  the  i n s t i t u t i o n s ' "  students  requested  in  67.  Table  Thus, appeals  the  was  Table  these  primary  6 7 . - -  was  to  TOTAL * Some students a p p e a l i n g .  f)  Impact  of  i n s t i t u t i o n s .  u n f a i r  Reasons Appeal  REASON  by  t h e i r or  ten  cases  The  reasons  are  presented  requested  p e r c e p t i o n  f o l l o w e d  a l l  appeals  students  t h e i r  Students'"  In  upheld.  external  e i t h e r  D i s c r i m i n a t i o n on a h i b i t e d Ground Denial of Natural J u Educational M a l p r a c t Defamation of Charac Breach of C o n t r a c t Not known  were  reason  a g a i n s t  e v a l u a t i o n  appeals.  d e c i s i o n s  r e l a t e d  d i s c r i m i n a t e d the  external  of  such  being  p e r c e p t i o n  b i a s e d .  f o r  Requesting  NUMBER*  % OF TOTAL  7 5 2 0 0 0  5 0 . 0 35.7 14.3 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 • 0 0 . 0  External  % OF CASES  Pros t i c e i c e ter  gave  d e c i s i o n  more  14 than  outcomes  Respondents  d i d  one  of not  that  1 0 0 . 0 reason  3.4 2 . 4 1.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0  f o r  e d u c a t i o n a l report  that  any  202 changes were would that by  i n  t h e i r  undertaken be  an  none  of  of  the  or  cases  by  province  r e s u l t  of  f i n d i n g  i n s t i t u t i o n s '  Data  appeals  of  68  a  p o l i c i e s  or  procedures  external  reviews.  c o n s i d e r i n g d e c i s i o n s  the  were  This f a c t  a l t e r e d  reviews.  c a s e s .  reviews  Tables  as  a n t i c i p a t e d  external  Rate  i n s t i t u t i o n s '  per  100  were  f r e q u e n c i e s  77). of  T a b l e - 6 8 . - -  T Y P E OF INSTITUTION  the  Rate  BC  AB  each  from  Using  these  above  were  Cases in  PROVINCE ON MB  0 0 0 0 0  .85 .0 .00 .00 .00  .00 .035 .00  .85  .22 .00 .00 .00 .00  . . . . .  0 0 0 0 0  TOTAL  .22  .00  1978  i n c i d e n c e to  o b t a i n  type  of  to  1985  data,  the  of the  rate  i n s t i t u t i o n ( r e f e r  to  expected  c a l c u l a t e d .  p e r 100 1978  SK  00 H o s p i t a l 63 C o l l e g e 27 U ni ve r Tech Inst . 00 I n d e p e n d n t . 00  . 9 0  i n  years  of  the  summarized  students  a n d by  to  c o n c e r n i n g  Student  Enrollments  TOTAL NS  NB  .00 .00  .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  .15 '.00 .00 .00 .00  . 0 3 5  .00  .15  PE  NF  .00 .00  . . . . .  00 00 00 00 00  1.22 .665 .27 .00 .00  .00  .00  2.155  .00 .00 .00  203 During  1978  the  launched  by  h o s p i t a l  programs  programs  i n  a l s o  only  the  u n i v e r s i t y o v e r a l l  students  cases  6 9 . - - Rate  of  the  BC  AB  SK  C o l l e g e H o s p i t a l U ni ve r Tech Inst Independnt  ,63 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00  .00  ,00 .00 ,36 ,26 ,00  .40  .22 .00 .00 .00  ,24 ,00 ,00 ,00  TOTAL  ,63  .22  62  .64  C o l l e g e g r i e v a n c e s  of  change  a  Again  was the  programs h o s p i t a l r e v e r s a l  g r e a t e s t  MB  showed  number  of  100  the  student  programs.  Student  Enrollments  NB  PE  NF  ,17 ,00 ,00 ,00 00  .00 ,00 ,00 ,00 00  ,00 ,15 ,00 ,00 00  ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00  ,00 ,00 .00 ,00 00  17  ,00  .15  . 0 0  . 0 0 2 . 4 3  twice  rates  i n  PROVINCE ON NS  programs of  per  100  was  However,  r e p o r t i n g  Cases per in 1979  c o l l e g e  g r i e v a n c e s  2.16  i n  Columbia  y e a r .  only  were by  B r i t i s h  t h i s  was  grievances  f o l l o w e d  r e p o r t i n g  during  of  programs  M a n i t o b a ,  throughout  T Y P E OF INSTITUTION  nursing  province  of  number  Columbia.  programs  rate  i n  i n  B r i t i s h  e n r o l l m e n t s  Table  g r e a t e s t  TOTAL  the  during from  cases  the was  i n c i d e n c e 1979.  of  This  previous i n  1.20 .61 .36 .26 .00  year  Manitoba  204 programs. cases  i n  cases  f o r  than  i n  from due  Saskatchewan u n i v e r s i t y t h i s  the  the  p r e v i o u s  to  a  This  and  year  cases  T Y P E OF INSTITUTION  This  i n c r e a s e  u n i v e r s i t y  a l s o  Rate  The  the  f i r s t  r e p o r t e d  of  1980  r e p o r t i n g  rate  g r e a t e r  of (.27)  i n c r e a s e d  i n c r e a s e i n  the  a l s o year  was  by  p r i m a r i l y  rate  of  Both  the  showed that  127%  cases  i n  o v e r a l l  i n c r e a s e s .  New  B r u n s w i c k ' s  cases.  Cases per in 1980  100  Student  PROVINCE ON NS  AB  SK  MB  Univer C o l l e g e  .27 .84  .00 . 0 0  2 . 5 0 .00  . 0 0 .40  .00 .10  H o s p i t a l Independnt Tech Inst  .00 .00 . 0 0  .44 .00 . 0 0  .00 .00 .00  .12 .00 .00  .44  2 . 5 0  .52  1.11  o v e r a l l  s l i g h t l y  BC  TOTAL  p r o v i n c e  programs.  programs  programs  70.--.  during  y e a r .  h o s p i t a l  was  independent  Table  of  only  only  y e a r .  s i g n i f i c a n t  Saskatchewan's c o l l e g e  was  previous  rate  the  programs.  year  The  was  Enrollments  TOTAL NB  PE  NF  .00 .00  .00 .00  .00 .00  .00 .00  2.77 1.34  .00 .00 .00  .00 . 5 5 .00  .29 . 0 0 .00  .00 . 0 0 .00  . 0 0 . 0 0 .00  .85 . 5 5 .00  .10  . 5 5  .29  .00  . 0 0  5.51  205  from  The  rate  the  p r e v i o u s  B r i t i s h same  rate  was  a l s o  the  programs  of  T Y P E OF INSTITUTION  C o l 1ege H o s p i t a l U ni ve r Independnt Tech Inst  TOTAL  1982 the  e i g h t  was  i n  i n  of  western  of  Cases per in 1981  y e a r .  S c o t i a ' s  .00 .00  .40 .12 .00 .00 .00  .14 .00 .00 .00 .00  . 44  .00  .52  .14  the  both had  1981  u n i v e r s i t y  The  programs,  and  with  the  c o n t r i b u t e d  A t l a n t i c to  an  TOTAL NF  .00 .00 .00 .36 .00  .00 .15 .31 .00 .00  .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  1. 38 71 58 36 •0 0  .36  .46  .00  .00  3 . 03  of  cases  through out  s i g n i f i c a n t  the  1982  Enrollments  PE  most  programs. during  Student  NB  rate  h i g h e s t  s t u d i e d .  100  PROVINCE NS ON  .00 .00 .00  p r o v i n c e s  r a t e s  y e a r ,  cases.  Newfoundland's  O n t a r i o  by 5 5 %  programs  previous  Nova  00 44 00 00 00  marked  western  that  t h i s  c o l l e g e  the  MB  u n i v e r s i t y  found  i n  SK  . . . . .  years  as  decreased  during  AB  BC  1 .11  A l s o ,  year  Rate  .84 .00 .27 .00 .00  1981  and M a n i t o b a ' s  cases  f i r s t  7 1 . - -  during  y e a r .  reported  Table  those  cases  C o l u m b i a ' s  the  the  of  h i g h e s t  Rates  of  c o n t i n u e d p r o v i n c e s .  o v e r a l l  i n c r e a s e  rate cases to  be  being i n above  These  i n c r e a s e d  rate  206 of  157%  87%  of  over that  programs to  that  Table  of  7 2 . - -  Tech Inst H o s p i t a l Independnt  showed  Rate  an  y e a r , During  i n c r e a s e  of  Cases per in 1982  rates  only  u n i v e r s i t y almost  equal  TOTAL NF  .00 .00 .00  1 .69 1 .56 .78  .00 .00  .00 .18  .00 .00  .00 .00  .00 .00  .56 .18  .28  .18  .00  .00  .00  4 .77  .00 .44 .00  .40 .30 .00  .28 .00 .00  .00 .0  .12 .00  1.03  .71  .82  case.  Enrollments  .00 .00 .00  .00 .71 .00  programs  Newfoundland  Student  .00 .00 .00  .59 .00  h o s p i t a l  100  .00 .00 .00  .42 .55 .78  program  i n  year  was  PE  MB  with  t h i s  rate  NB  SK  1983  t h i s  PROVINCE ON NS  AB  1 .75  but  programs.  BC  .00 .00  During  h o s p i t a l  1980.  c o l l e g e  C o l l e g e Univer  i n c r e a s e ,  p r e v i o u s  during  a l s o  T Y P E OF INSTITUTION  TOTAL  the  a l s o  r e p o r t i n g  showed  i t s  f i r s t  an  207 Table  TYPE  7 3 . - -  Rate  100  Student  Enrollments  PROVINCE BC  AB  Univer C o l l e g e H o s p i t a l Tech Inst  . . . .  Independnt  . 0 0  .00  1 . 6 3  .81  TOTAL M u l t i p l e  is  Cases per in 1983  OF  INSTITUTION  *  of  82 42 0 0 39  . . . .  0 5 2 0  0 9 2 0  SK  MB  36 00 00 26  .61 .40 .24 .00  . . . .  .00  .00  .00  .36  1.25  .46  .36  . . . .  .62  responses  are  ON  TOTAL  NS  22 24 00 00  . . . .  0 0 0 0  NB  0 0 0 0  . . . .  9 0 2 0  2 0 9 0  .00  PE  . . . .  0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0  . . . .  .00  1.21  r e q u e s t e d .  NF  . 0 0  Number  8 0 3 0  3.91 1.65 1.08 . 6 5  .00  .36  1.31  7 . 6 5  of  9 0 3 0  programs  8 1 .  Table  TYPE  7 4 . - -  a  BC  .21 .00 .55 .00 .39  g e t a l r endnt Inst  1.15  AB  SK  .59 .44 .00 .00 .00  .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  1 . 0 3  .00  The  o v e r a l l  87%  of  u n i v e r s i t y was  Cases per in 19 8 4  100  Student  Enrollments  PROVINCE  TOTAL  only  of  OF  INSTITUTION  C o l l e Hospi Unive Indep Tech  Rate  the  rate rate  programs  c o n t i n u i n g  MB  TOTAL  ON  NS  NB  PE  NF  .80 .49 .30 .00 .00  .45 .00 .22 .00 .00  .00 .00 .00 .55 .00  .00 .44 .31 .00 .00  .00 .00 .00 .59 .00  .00 .33 .00 .00 .00  1.59  .67  . 5 5  .75  .5  .33 6 . 6 6  of f o r  cases 1983.  appeared  i n c r e a s e  during  i n  to the  The  1984  rate  l e v e l rate  o f f of  2 1 1 1  .05 .70 . 38 .14 .39  r e p r e s e n t e d  of  cases  w h i l e cases,  i n there  w i t h i n  208 both  h o s p i t a l  showed  t h e  Table  TYPE  and c o l l e g e  h i g h e s t  7 5 . - -  Rate  c a r r i e d  the  .39  .18  .15  .00  not  requested  a r e  provided 1985 .  with  a l l  previous  provided  f a l l s  .73  during  out  compared  during  s p e c i f i e d cases  data  some- p r o g r a m s  Cases  .00  .33 .98 .00 .00 .00  were  1985  be  .00  .00 .00 .00 .00  .00  .00  however,  .00  .00 .00 .00  .00  . 0 0  The  .15  .00 .00 .1 .00  .11 .28 .00  TOTAL  shown  w i t h i n  f o r i n the  TOTAL  .00  .00  .00  Enrollments  NF  .73 .00 .00 .00  .00 .00 .00  Student  PE  .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  .00  0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0  again  NB  MB  . 0 0  100  PROVINCE ON NS  SK  . . . .  cases  Cases per in 1985  AB  H o s p i t a l  Manitoba  cases.  BC  U n i v e r C o l l e g e Independnt Tech Inst  cannot  of  of  OF  INSTITUTION  cases  rate  programs.  t h i s  i n f o r m a t i o n Thus,  the  for  2.76  study;  r e l a t e d  o v e r a l l  the  programs  1 .31  1.21 1.09 .28 .18 .00  to rate  r e p o r t i n g  y e a r s .  which Table  the 76.  u n i v e r s i t y  year The  was  not  h i g h e s t  programs.  rate  of  209 Table  TYPE  7 6 . - -  OF BC  AB  SK  MB  .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  .22 .00 .00 .43 .00  .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  .00  .65  .00  .00  INSTITUTION  H o s p i t C o l l e g Tech Univer Indepe  a l e Inst ndnt  TOTAL  Table for  a l l  Table  TYPE  Rate of Cases per in U n s p e c i f i e d  77  p r o v i d e s  e i g h t  y e a r s .  77.--:  Rate  of  a  BC  .4  2 .7 C o l l e g e 4 .0 .0 Hospi t a l .0 Independnt Tech Inst 1 .6  1.8 2.6 .0 .0  8 .3  4.8  Univer  TOTAL  U n i v e r s i t y i n c i d e n c e  of  SK  AB  NB  PE  .00 .00 .00 .22 .00  .00 .00 .00 .00 .36  .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  .00 .00 .00 .49 .00  .22 .00 .00 1.14 .36  .22  .36  .00  .00  .49  1.72  of  p e r 100 Years  OF  INSTITUTION  the  rates  Student  PROVINCE ON NS  MB  Enrollments  PROVINCE NS ON  summary  Cases in A l l  100 Student Years  TOTAL NF  of  Enrollments  TOTAL PE  NB  NF  .0 .0 .5  1.2 2.8 2.9 .0 .0  .8 1.7 .0 .0 .0  .0 .0 .0 2.5 .0  1.5 .0 1.6 .0 .0  .0 .0 .0 .6 .0  2.5 .0 1.0 .0 .0  4.5  6.9  2.5  2.5  3.2  .6  3.4  3.9 .0  programs  reported  presented  student  cases  the  13 10 8 3 2  . 1 .3 .2 . 1 . 1  36 .7  h i g h e s t  g r i e v a n c e s ,  f o l l o w e d  by  210 college by  programs.  respondents  cases  p e r 100  period rate  was  technical province  Thus,  cases  above  presenting since  only  not  represent  the  nine  through  be  limited  an o v e r a l l showed  rate  mean o f  rates of  provinces However,  provided  sample  they  as they  do  f o r a l l programs i n  the interval  from  1978  1985.  and V a l i d i t y  the r e l i a b i l i t y this  second  relationships institution, outcome  The lowest  a haphazard  population  during  f o l l o w e d by  t h e mean.  t o the cases  a total  provinces  Reliability  using  represent  year  was t h e  the remaining below  of  the highest  of cases,  with  rate  and t h e l o w e s t i n  provinces  o f cases  findings  can  with  and Saskatchewan. Island  provided  the eight  Columbia  rate  t h e mean w i t h  these  over  programs  British  the western  rates  the overall  per year,  the highest  Alberta,  on t h e r e p o r t s  enrollments  i n university  with  based  survey,  o r 4.59  i n P r i n c e Edward  4.07.  of  student  institutes.  Manitoba, was  to this  36.68  being  Thus,  of the Instrument.  and v a l i d i t y instrument  between number  of reviews.  was  variables  of cases, This  of the data limited  Assessment obtained  to that  of: province,  levels  limitation  type  o f review, was  of the of  and  necessary  due  211 to  the haphazard  previously  i n this  c o r r e c t i o n was rates  throughout  than of  chapter.  used  o f c a s e s by  required  sample o f t h e d a t a as d i s c u s s e d  to determine  type  five.  The Y a t e s  was  a Yates  or n o t t h e similar  correction  w i t h i n many o f t h e c e l l s  The outcome  significance.  whether  o f i n s t i t u t i o n were  the p r o v i n c e s .  as numbers  C h i square w i t h  were  reported using a  T a b l e 78 o u t l i n e s  was  .05  the f i n d i n g s  less level by  type o f program.  T a b l e 78. TYPE OF INSTITUTION  -- S i m i l a r i t y i n R a t e o f C a s e s A c r o s s P r o v i n c e s by T y p e o f I n s t i t u t i o n RATE OF CASES 7100 ENROLLM'T  A l l types of 36,.68 Institutions University 13,.06 10,.25 College Hospital 8,.16 Independent Sch 3,.13 2,.08 Technical Inst  The p r o v i n c i a l exception  x*+ YATES CORRECTION  x*@ 8 d f + .05 L E V E L OF SIGNIFICANCE  4 .92 13 .81 15 .•69 22 .04 28 .58 116 .73  15,.51 15,.51 15,.51 15,.51 15,.51 15,.51  r a t e s i n a l l programs w i t h t h e  o f u n i v e r s i t y - b a s e d programs  statistically  the  significant  differences.  showed Therefore,  212 there  is a  various  d i f f e r e n c e i n the rate  provinces  for hospital-based,  institute^based, school*based  cases  A  grievance  and  appeals  i s similar  these  i n a l l of  Island)  contrast,  (116.73)  rate  There  i s not  i n the r a t e  drawn  that  a of  the r a t e  the p r o v i n c e s .  a l lbut  provide  of  i n university-based  one  of  nursing  of  technical institute  statistically  student  between  the various  outcome  as  Columbia, programs  the  This  is  provinces  programs  only  i n these  throughout  a l l types the nine  evaluation  provinces.  three  of  programs  significant  clinical  Saskatchewan,  When  Yates  independent  in  settings.  In large  Edward  the  for university-based  can be  as  among  technical  difference  for students  a n t i c i p a t e d outcome  (Prince  the  conclusion  and  reported.  the provinces  programs.  an  as  significant  across  programs  college-based,  programs  statistically  of cases  This  and  Ontario)  difference in grievances  i s an  the provinces  showed  anticipated  (British  provide  nursing  institutions.  o f programs provinces,  c o r r e c t i o n showed  no  were  assessed  the c h i square  statistically  with  a  significant  a  213 difference  i n t h e r a t e o f c a s e s among t h e p r o v i n c e s .  T h u s , i t c a n be a s s u m e d , b a s e d  on t h e c a s e s  assessed,  t h a t the r a t e of cases of student c l i n i c a l e v a l u a t i o n grievances i s s u f f i c i e n t l y that they occur  similar  t h a t i t c a n be  as f r e q u e n t l y i n one  said  p r o v i n c e as i n  another. Summary In  c o n c l u s i o n , s t u d e n t s more f r e q u e n t l y s o u g h t  f o r m a l a p p e a l h e a r i n g s i n o r d e r t o have t h e i r e v a l u a t i o n d e c i s i o n s reviewed grievance reviews. participated  An  than they d i d i n f o r m a l  e v e n s m a l l e r number o f  in institutional  clinical  students  student appeals.  Table  79 p r o v i d e s a summary o f t h e f r e q u e n c y w i t h  which  d e c i s i o n s were e i t h e r u p h e l d  type  or m o d i f i e d by  of  institution. Students  in university  reviews of t h e i r frequently by  clinical  t h a n i n any  n u r s i n g programs  sought  e v a l u a t i v e d e c i s i o n s more  o t h e r type o f programs f o l l o w e d  students i n c o l l e g e programs, h o s p i t a l programs,  independent  s c h o o l programs.  The  s m a l l e s t number  s t u d e n t s r e q u e s t i n g such r e v i e w s were i n t e c h n i c a l institute  programs.  of  and  214  Table  TYPE  79. Summary o f R e v i e w s o r H e a r i n g s i n a l l T y p e s of Institutions Throughout the Provinces OF R E V I E W  T Y P E OF I N S T I T U T I O N DECISION TOTAL H C TI U 0 U P H E L D MODIF'D NO % NO %  Appeal Hearing Grievance Review Institutional Student Appeal E x t e r n a l Appeal  TOTAL  In  1  than  these the  7 6  34 28  11 11  2 1  10 6  1 2  6 0  1 1  88  125  16  68  24  reviews,  o f the cases  one-tenth  hearing  and  cases.  External appeals  decisions  being  reported,  students  clinical appeals.  modified  modified. were  60 15  13 68.4 10100.0  239  and m o d i f i e d  institutional  61.5 88.9  79.7  not s u c c e s s f u l  evaluation decisions modified  20 10  i n only  student  based  7 35.0 0 00.0  21.2  321  than  appeal  than  on  slightly  at both  the  levels  one-third of  d i d not r e s u l t  Thus,  156 135  82  However,  i n more  38.5 11.1  clinical  i n more  o f the cases.  d e c i s i o n s were  96 120  the i n i t i a l  d e c i s i o n s were u p h e l d  nine ^tenths  appeal  55 54  grievance  evaluative  more  49 36  the  i n any cases  i n having through  their  external  215  CHAPTER  SUMMARY,  8  RECOMMENDATIONS,  AND  CONCLUSIONS  Summary  The  study  processes  used  e v a l u a t i o n s a v a i l a b l e students d i s p u t e  was by  of  i n  nurse  these to  obtain  outcomes  of  s.uch  any  from  the  analyzed  1978  data  r e f l e c t i v e  to  models  i n s t i t u t i o n s l i t e r a t u r e  actual  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g  and  which  and  and  the  they  a d d i t i o n , the  appeal had  c l i n i c a l systems  i n s t i t u t i o n s  that  concerning  developed  reviewed.  wish  the  which  to  study  i n c i d e n c e  was  and  hearings  occurred  or  p r a c t i c e s nursing  provided p r a c t i c e s  f o r  Data  whether  p r o v i d i n g  a l s o  during  the  during  the  1984.  determine of  event In  grievance  l i t e r a t u r e to  the  l i t i g a t i o n  P r o t o t y p i c from  programs  e v a l u a t i o n s .  designed  p e r i o d  i n  determine  performance  same  access  to  educators  students'  these  can  i n c l u d i n g  undertaken  study  c o l l e c t e d  not  w i t h i n  these the  education  i n f o r m a t i o n i n  t h i s  were  models  were  e d u c a t i o n a l programs.  p e r t a i n i n g  e d u c a t i o n a l  evolved  The  to  i n s t i t u t i o n s  216 and  n u r s i n g  what  are  programs.  n u r s i n g  c o n c e r n i n g  Data  programs'  n u r s i n g  were  c o l l e c t e d  to  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g  students''  c l i n i c a l  determine  p r a c t i c e s  e v a l u a t i o n  d e c i s i o n s .  A  t o t a l  programs  p r e p a r i n g  examinations programs l e g a l  was  because  in  c o n c e r n i n g  the  e v a l u a t i o n  of  Two t h i s  assess used  data  of  the  in  was  f i r s t  The  c l i n i c a l  programs  as  formal  p e r t a i n i n g  to  the  r e g i s t r a t i o n  exception  chosen  of  v a r i a t i o n  to  as  survey  provide  for  Quebec  between  law  d e s c r i p t i v e  p r a c t i c e s  study.  i n s t i t u t i o n s  nursing  n u r s i n g  using  a  data  c l i n i c a l  s t u d e n t s .  programs.  intended  A  were  and  Canadian  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  1).  c u r r e n t  for  p o t e n t i a l  of  design  of  (with  instruments  the  informal these  i n c l u d e d  Chapter  c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l  for  students  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s  d i s c u s s e d  (N=94)  p o p u l a t i o n  developed  as  reviews  Questions to  four  s t u d i e d . assess  instrument  e v a l u a t i o n well  the  obtain was  p r a c t i c e s  the  various  a v a i l a b l e were  l e v e l s The  to  to  second  i n c i d e n c e  review  and  to  procedures  l e v e l s  of  students to  in  obtain  w i t h i n  instrument of  data  intended  s t r u c t u r e d of  the  the  was  g r i e v a n c e s  and  217 appeals  r e g a r d i n g  a g a i n s t  nursing  p e r i o d  from  A  set  c l i n i c a l  f a c u l t y  1978  of  u n t i l  these  heads  of  Three  f o l l o w - u p s  by  n u r s i n g  two  in  t h i s  i n i t i a l  Respondents  were  p o l i c i e s  procedures  r e l a t e d  as  to  or  e v a l u a t i o n ,  well  as  students  instruments  the  a l s o  n u r s i n g  d e c i s i o n s  brought  for  the  1984.  programs to  e v a l u a t i o n  was  m a i l e d  s t u d y ' s  m a i l i n g  requested  to  were  student  g r i e v a n c e  and  the  p o p u l a t i o n .  provide  to  to  used.  any  w r i t t e n  c l i n i c a l appeal  h e a r i n g s .  F i n d i n g s Instrument 86.2%  1 . - -  (81/94  The  response  programs).  rate  to  O v e r a l l ,  the  there  survey were  was  f i v e  major  f i n d i n g s : 1.  There  i s  g e n e r a l l y  g u i d e l i n e s c l i n i c a l 2.  In  for  lack  f a c u l t y  of  standards  e v a l u a t i o n s  of  or students  in  s e t t i n g s .  o n e - t h i r d  alone  a  makes  of a  the  programs  s t u d e n t ' s  a  c l i n i c a l  c l i n i c a l  i n s t r u c t o r  e v a l u a t i v e  d e c i s i o n . 3.  In  some  more  of  than  the one  programs l e v e l  of  the  same  reviews.  members  serve  on  218 4.  5.  Procedures  employed  in  and  hearings  are  formal  Grievance  and  p r o f e s s i o n a l through  2  - -  g r i e v a n c e s  respondents. data  be  a  be  of the  d e c i s i o n s  hearing l e v e l  (60/135) request  a  to  d e c i s i o n s .  i n s t i t u t i o n a l  the  t h e i r  student  non-nurses.  of  student  by  the  programs other  provided  programs  r e s u l t s  reported  about  can  cases  t h e i r  before the  only only and  only  grievance  l e v e l  11.1%  (15/135)  of  represent  i f  e v a l u a t i o n panels  review  informal  c o n t r a s t ,  S t i l l ,  c l i n i c a l  f i r s t  i n s t i t u t i o n )  appeal  even  programs.  In  panels  are  the  the  taken  m o d i f i e d .  of  of  to  program)  w i t h i n  review  while  represent  review the  f a c u l t y  a l l  Thus,  informal  a l t e r  provided  other  were  (these  to  r e p o r t s  not  g r i e v a n c e s  the  were  panels  of  r e l a t i o n  panels  w i t h i n  nurse  appeals  them.  d e c i s i o n s  (these  review  in  s t u d e n t s '  e v a l u a t i o n panels  of  tend  205  of  w r i t t e n .  f r e q u e n t l y  reviews  g e n e r a l i z e d  When  of  were  or  such  sample  i n t e r p r e t e d  cannot  r a r e l y  N e v e r t h e l e s s ,  c o n c e r n i n g  provided  members  There  conducting  panels  judgments  panel  Instrument i n i t i a t e d  appeal  the  the  appeal f i r s t  m o d i f i e d students  d e c i s i o n (these  formal 44.4%  chose to  panels  to  219 r e p r e s e n t  the  i n s t i t u t i o n ) m o d i f i e d .  35.0%  The  subsequently d e c i s i o n s found  that  d e c i s i o n s which  were  f i n a l  formal (7/20)  l i m i t e d  sought  through t h e i r  of  reviews  rate  in  of  was  of  these  number  external  m o d i f i e d heard  l e v e l  of  of  students  these  success  c o u r t ) .  (that  in  d e c i s i o n s  agencies  zero  review  in  were  (10)  nursing such  as  having  i s ,  of  the  who f a c u l t y  the  c o u r t s ,  the  those  cases  220 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n When  p o l i c i e s  respondents)  p r a c t i c e s  that  w r i t t e n  by  w r i t t e n  form.  have  c l e a r ,  a g a i n s t This  measurement  could of  could  e v a l u a t i o n s .  The  by  e v a l u a t i v e  c l i n i c a l  were  to  be  a c t u a l l y  in  and  f o r m a l l y  recorded  the  the  not  students'  i n t e r p r e t e d  to  seem  imply  that  the  personal  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  course  c l i n i c a l  o b j e c t i v e s .  This  students'"  charges  p r a c t i c e  i n d i c a t e s  a  to  during  be  the  was of  i n s t r u c t o r s '  support  standards  to  performance.  performance  the  a  standards  c l i n i c a l  a g a i n s t  i n s t r u c t o r s  l i t t l e  reported  did  performance  s u b j e c t i v i t y  was  programs  be  of  procedures  measured  on  c l i n i c a l  there  respondents  students'  dependent  programs'  by  these  f a c u l t y  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  c l i n i c a l  81  (provided  analyzed,  and  o b j e c t i v e ,  which  students''  of  Thus,  f i n d i n g  t o t a l l y  out  nursing  were  p o l i c i e s  78  F i n d i n g s  procedures  c o n c e r n i n g  e v a l u a t i o n evidence  and  of  need  l e v e l  of  of  biased  for  developed c l i n i c a l  and  used  e v a l u a t i o n  p r o c e s s .  A  f u r t h e r  a p p r a i s a l s the to  r e l a t e s  programs whether  concern  or  a  to  s i n g l e not  r e g a r d i n g the  f i n d i n g  i n s t r u c t o r  students  the  pass  f a i r n e s s  that makes  t h e i r  in the  of  o n e - t h i r d  of  d e c i s i o n  as  c l i n i c a l  c o u r s e s .  221 objective other to  appraisals of  instructors.  students  and  Tornyay  In  assessing  failing  evaluated  by  a  these  their  was,  was  the  above to  "that  The  use  the  student by  were  biased  student  an  be  a  impartial  independently  only  De  for  failing of  lead  problems  adopt  every  before  313).  reported  by  factors could  policy  instructor  evaluates  undertaken  evaluations  overcome sound  (1985,  area,  students  of  students  second  who  clinical  to  that  course"  instructor the  a  that  order  reported  clinical  Either  charging  unfair.  these  in  three  respondents.  Respondents heads  of  the  decisions that  nursing  regarding  these  review  also  program  and  appeal  reported programs  students' heads  also  hearing  responsibility  instructors,  i t i s appropriate  during  students' these  the  heads  of  judgment  on  could  readily  be  the  charged  the  of  the  had  both  these  performance  of  their  is  input  decision  regarding  sat  i f in  d e c i s i o n , then should  and  grievance  of  already  students  the  in  Notwithstanding,  evaluation by  on  cases,  performance  Because  that  programs  initial  involved  served  evaluation.  nursing  i n most  clinical  for  formulation  clinical  were  panels.  individuals'  sought  that,  these  bias same  222 individuals  s i t on s u b s e q u e n t  following  level  "overlap"  o f members  represent  a higher  the  o f review  review  should  and each  level  panels.  have  panel  panels  Each without  membership  an  should  of the administration within  institutions.  Table  8 0 . •> - H e a d o f N u r s i n g P r o g r a m a s Member H e a r i n g or Review Panels PROGRAM REVIEW  PROGRAM REVIEW  GRIEVANCE REVIEW  10  APPEAL HEARING  INSTITUTIONAL STUDENT A P P E A L  2  3  0  GRIEVANCE REVIEW  2  6  1  0  APPEAL HEARING  3  0  31  0  0  0  INSTIT'L STUDENT APPEAL  In  a total  program  was  panel.  Membership  grievance  a member  review  0  o f s i x programs o f more  on b o t h  panels  of the nursing  one r e v i e w  the program  occurred  0  the head  than  i n two  of  review  of hearing and t h e  programs.  223  Three o t h e r programs r e p o r t e d t h a t t h i s s e r v e d on b o t h t h e p r o g r a m r e v i e w and h e a r i n g p a n e l s and  individual  the  a s i n g l e p r o g r a m r e p o r t e d membership  on b o t h t h e g r i e v a n c e r e v i e w and  appeal hearing panels.  I n s t i t u t i o n s need t o e v a l u a t e t h e i r g r i e v a n c e and  appeal systems t o ensure  b i a s does n o t o c c u r . structures t h a t each  appeal  Failure  f o r g r i e v a n c e and  total  t h a t t h e above  to review current appeal hearings to  s u c c e s s i v e s e t o f p a n e l members i s t r u l y  o b j e c t i v e could increase student l i t i g a t i o n c o u r t s based within  ensure  on c h a r g e s  of u n f a i r  through  and b i a s e d  the  reviews  institutions.  Respondents r e p o r t e d t h a t grievance reviews, a p p e a l h e a r i n g s , and primarily  institutional  student appeals  d i r e c t e d at a review of the n a t u r a l  component ( t h e f a i r n e s s and decision),  and  reasonableness  s e c o n d a r i l y at the  component ( t h e p o l i c i e s  and  r e v i e w s were l e s s concerned  justice the  administrative  procedures  followed).  w i t h the academic  ( p r o f e s s i o n a l judgment) than w i t h the other The  of  were  All  component  two.  d i s c u s s i o n o f the Judgment Model i n Chapter  (69-78) p r o v i d e s a framework f o r the r e v i e w o f  the  3  224 above  three  grievance would to  be  the  review  study  suggests  study, model  at  of  two  i s not  roles of  the  foci. a  the even  and  academic  present  on  that  the  review  of  discussions.  Respondents  programs.  The  model  of  appeal  used"  the  Respondents such  of  Rased  on  can  be  there  is a  the  panels.  be  institutional that  i s used  in  during  institutional responses  lack  of  could to  to  Either  in relation  panels  the  reported  reached.  conclusion  of  and  direction 40%  and  also  d e c i s i o n " should  hearing  the the  clarity  as  to  to  assessment  be  demonstrated  continue  decisions  professional nursing these  foci  the  review  component  a l l three  were  panels  latter  the  foci  i n only  or  At  a l l three  hearings.  valid  The  review.  that  levels.  persistence  though  the  conclusions  the  by  of  programs  appeal  of  the"procedures  both  hearings  student  during  reasonablness  appeal  18.8%  appeal  only  and  level  i t i s expected  i n 57.7%  considered  each  reported  that  "fairness  student  at  considered  considered  only  foci  at  expertise  to  assess  a l l levels may  not  of  be  Table  8 1 . ^* C o m p a r i s o n o f Number o f F o c i R e v i e w s Directed at f o r Three Levels of Hearings GRIEVANCE REVIEW (N=78)  V A L I D I T Y OF OBSERVATIONS + PROCEDURES USED FAIRNESS  INSTITUTIONAL APPEAL H E A R I N G STUDENT A P P E A L (N=30) (N=64)  45  41  12  +  V A L I D I T Y OF OBSERVATIONS PROCEDURES  +  1  1  1  V A L I D I T Y OF OBSERVATIONS FAIRNESS  +  3  5  1  9  12  9  V A L I D I T Y OF OBSERVATIONS  1  0  0  PROCEDURES  1  0  2  FAIRNESS  3  2  3  PROCEDURES FAIRNESS  +  Policies for  and p r o c e d u r e s  the various levels  guidelines  were  ( p r o v i d e d by  o f reviews  f o r s t u d e n t s who  wished  respondents)  frequently  provided  to i n i t i a t e  such  226  reviews  i n c l u d i n g the time i n t e r v a l s v/ithin which  must e x e r c i s e t h e o p t i o n . policies  or p r o c e d u r e s  R a r e l y , however, d i d  provide clear  those conducting these reviews. specified  documentation s t u d e n t s and reviews.  The  s u b m i t t e d was clinical  They f r e q u e n t l y o n l y  obviously result  to ensure  instructors  and  that a l l  provided to both  absence of f u r t h e r  these  guidelines for  the composition of the review panels  provided d i r e c t i o n to the c h a i r  they  the  i n v o l v e d i n the process guidelines  i n a wide v a r i e t y  of p r a c t i c e s  being  e x e r c i s e d d u r i n g the conduct  of reviews.  variations  i s i n t e r v i e w e d , what  evidence  c o u l d i n v o l v e who  Such  i s presented, which witnesses are  called,  w h e t h e r a d v i s o r s c a n accompany t h e g r i e v i n g his  or h e r  clinical  i n s t r u c t o r s , how  the  can  student  and  proceedings  a r e d o c u m e n t e d , and w h a t a s p e c t s o f t h e j u d g m e n t c o m p o n e n t s members o f t h e p a n e l a d d r e s s . of  outcome  such v a r y i n g p a t t e r n s i s a g r e a t e r chance t h a t  d e c i s i o n s made a t t h i s at  The  l e v e l o f r e v i e w c o u l d be  altered  higher l e v e l s of review. G e n e r a l l y , n u r s i n g programs p r o v i d e s t u d e n t s w i t h  opportunities  to question e v a l u a t i v e d e c i s i o n s  regarding their  clinical  performance.  Programs  also  227 commonly  have  policies  conduct  of  used  criteria  as  appear  students  to have  process  of  of  grieving less  conducting  student  prepared  states,  records clinical  area  assessment from  some  making  of  frequently  h i s or  i n the of  "every  about  standards  identified  Use  the  form  clinical such  day"  the can  most  for the  be  do  not  actual  notes  which would  be  most  made b y  the  were  anecdotal  the by  each The be  by  Adams  anecdotal  student lower  in  notes  meaningful  the  frequency  speculated to  making  to  at a  use  of  students' written  frequently  their  is  interesting  also  an  referring  to  previous  students'  clinical  finding previous  assignments evaluation  because  a l l or third  more reports  programs  clinical  in  result  party.  The  A  clinical  i s supported  of  not  at  instructor.  maintains  might  not  utilized  clinical  (1979) .  evaluators either  notes  Yet,  setting  notes  performance  these  which  submissions  her  instructor  each  settings  evaluations.  were w r i t t e n and  governing  the e v a l u a t i o n s .  most  reviews  instructors. who  the  established  frequently  notes  procedures  in clinical  for  Documentation levels  and  not  performance  228 were  more  (Bondy,  1983)  clinical for  likely  considered  only and  student's  theory might  entire  grades  inadequate  care  or  also  files receive  their  files  appeal lead  of  justice.  made  students'  faculty  poor  for  frequently  problems are  assessment  entire  Though, must  copies prior  by  Support  of  from  are ignored. of  related of  review  ensure  that  a l l the of  students such  of  the  of  poor to  panels the  charges  students' knowledge  their do  stems  patient  utilize students  within  content  such  a breach  least  both  grieving  files'  provide  the  students  documentation  these to  to  theory  i f hearing  Failure  for  to  was  d e c i d i n g whether  were  to use  files  performance  application  they  charges  for  failure  relevant  deficits  Failure  clinical  processes.  to  are  or  for  file.  and  delivery.  these  be  support  promotion  students  similar  performances  to  performance"  further  performance  selected choice.  preclude  bases  current  may  of  is particularly  Such  previous  Assessment commonly  above  comment  provide  recommending  students.  when  similar  The  "consistency  would  instructors  borderline  A  miss  which  students.  missed  to  of  in  copies  could  natural  from Kane  v.  229 Board  o f Governors  (1980)  1 1 0 D.L.R.  of University ( 3 r d ) 311  It  i s a cardinal  or  by n e c e s s a r y  parte,  with  witnesses  impugned  and under  affected  varying  usually  of their  processes  be c o n s t r u e d  Findings suggest  respect  have  clinical  the overlapping focus  that  program)  usually  uphold  private  hear  whose  conduct  party  to a  i s  o f , a n d t o make  to evidence  which  o f the case.  of panel  to  initiate  membership, t h e  of hearings,  and t h e other  i n conducting  students  grievance  not hold  evaluation decisions.  utilized  concerning  t o a c t ex  the opportunity  o f reviews  by  Each  t o be informed  with  expressly  or, a fortiori,  of a party  the disposition  Students  changeable  empowered  scrutiny.  i s entitled  representations  However,  that, unless  implication  i n the absence  hearing  may  principle  evidence  Columbia  (S.C.C.)...  an a p p e l l a t e a u t h o r i t y must  interviews  reviews  of British  as u n f a i r  these  and b i a s e d .  the incidence of reviews  reviews  (within the nursing  the c l i n i c a l  evaluative  decisions  made b y c l i n i c a l  instructors.  increased  rate  modifications at  of decision  reviews  Howbeit, the appeal  230  hearings  (outside  question  the  the  validity  r e q u e s t e d d i d not d e t e r m i n e why B a s e d on  nursing of the  provide  program) appears grievance  sufficient  reviews.  biased  d i s c u s s i o n s , however, t h r e e  on p r e v i o u s other  by  issues  i n v o l v i n g i n d i v i d u a l s who  l e v e l s o f r e v i e w and  who  might  members i n a r r i v i n g a t d e c i s i o n s ,  d e c i s i o n s m i g h t h a v e b e e n made by (c) the  lack of s u f f i c i e n t  to  occurred.  m i g h t c a u s e s u c h a l t e r a t i o n s : (a) m e m b e r s h i p on m i g h t be  Data  information  such a l t e r a t i o n s i n d e c i s i o n s  earlier  to  panels  have been influence  (b)  initial  a s i n g l e person,  d i r e c t i o n for  h e a r i n g s might have l e d t o c r i t i c i s m o f  or  conducting previous  r e v i e w s as h a v i n g b e e n u n f a i r . Institutional therefore,  the  s t u d e n t a p p e a l s w e r e few  fact that a large percentage led  modifications  of previous  significant.  Respondents r e p o r t  panels at the  institutional  three  components of the  i n c l u d i n g the view of the would not consider  academic.  f a c t the  have the that  i n number;  r u l i n g s may that  not  be  these  review  l e v e l did consider a l l  clinical This  evaluative  appropriate  decisions,  i s somewhat s u r p r i s i n g i n  some or most o f t h e  component. . The  to  p a n e l members  academic e x p e r t i s e question  a r i s e s as  to to  231 whether these c i r c u m s t a n c e s might cause r e v i e w e r s alter the  d e c i s i o n s b a s e d on a l a c k o f  to  understanding of  s i g n i f i c a n c e of the observations  to professional  practice. Implications It  of the Findings  c a n be s p e c u l a t e d  that  failure to c l a r i f y  components o f c l i n i c a l  evaluation  judgments should  reviewed a t each l e v e l  of hearing  might l e a d t o  i n c o n s i s t e n t and i n v a l i d redress  f o r the i n i t i a l  performance.  r u l i n g s as s t u d e n t s decisions  As c o n c l u d e d  clinical  section,  t h e p r o b l e m s w i t h m e m b e r s h i p on p a n e l s m i g h t a l s o to decreased E f f e c t i v e n e s s on more t h a n one l e v e l  of reviews.  to clarify  adopted during  o f r e v i e w c a n n o t be  considered decision.  i n w r i t i n g t h e p r o c e s s e s t o be  h e a r i n g s might a l s o l e a d t o i n c o n s i s t e n t  methods o f r e v i e w f r o m one l e v e l given  institution.  to another  i n any  Any o f t h e s e f a c t o r s c o u l d  a d e c r e a s e i n t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f r e v i e w s and hear ings.  lead  Members who s i t  i m p a r t i a l a f t e r p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n an e a r l i e r Failure  be  seek  about t h e i r  i n the previous  which  lead to  232 On t h e b a s i s o f t h e a b o v e c o n c l u s i o n s , should the  develop a comprehensive f o r m a l i z e d  evaluation  delineates This  that  clinical  a l l the i n s t i t u t i o n ' s  formal  least,  of students'  institutions system f o r  performance which  levels  process would ensure that  of review.  the structure, at  o f a l l review panels i s unbiased at a l l l e v e l s ,  the aspects of the d e c i s i o n being  appropriate  reviewed are  f o r t h e e x p e r t i s e on p a n e l s ,  and t h a t t h e  p r o c e s s t o b e a d o p t e d a t e a c h l e v e l w o u l d be specified  i n published  i s recommended current the  that  grievance  formal  institutions  :  three  structure of reviews, outcome o f  In a l l ,  re-evaluate  and a p p e a l mechanisms  following guidelines.  separated int o  procedures.  relating  i t  their  i n relation to  These g u i d e l i n e s  sections  clearly  could  be  to:the  the review process,  and t h e  reviews.  I . STRUCTURE ** T h e r e s h o u l d b e w r i t t e n p o l i c i e s o u t l i n i n g the s t r u c t u r e of a l l levels of reviews provided w i t h i n the i n s t i t u t i o n s . These p o l i c i e s s h o u l d b e a v a i l a b l e t o s t u d e n t s and s h o u l d i n c l u d e statements about t h e f o l l o w i n g :  1.1. T i m e - i n t e r v a l : t h e l e n g t h o f t i m e s t u d e n t s h a v e from t h e r e c e i p t o f t h e i r e v a l u a t i v e d e c i s i o n s t o t h e t i m e when t h e y must e x e r c i s e t h e i r o p t i o n t o i n i t i a t e reviews.  233 I.  STRUCTURE  (continued)  1.2  R e a s o n f o r r e q u e s t : d a t a s t u d e n t s must p r o v i d e support t h e i r reasons for i n i t i a t i n g reviews.  1.3  C o n t a c t p e r s o n : d i r e c t i o n t o s t u d e n t s as t o - 3.1. w h e r e r e q u e s t s f o r r e v i e w s s h o u l d be directed, 3.2 i f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n has an e s t a b l i s h e d p r i n t e d f o r m t o i n i t i a t e r e v i e w s , i t s name a n d w h e r e i t can be o b t a i n e d , 3.3 i f t h e r e i s a charge f o r reviews, the c o s t s for each l e v e l of review.  1.4  A p p r o v a l o f r e q u e s t : how and expect n o t i f i c a t i o n i f their has been approved,  1.5  Interviewing: w h i c h p a r t i e s may b e i n t e r v i e w e d a t each l e v e l of the review p r o c e s s . I n d i v i d u a l s c i t e d by s t u d y r e s p o n d e n t s as b e i n g i n t e r v i e w e d , include: 5.1 grieving students. 5.2 grieving students' peers. 5.3 their clinical instructors. 5.4 the c o o r d i n a t o r of t h e i r program year. 5.5 t h e h e a d o f t h e n u r s i n g p r o g r a m . 5.6 i n d i v i d u a l s who conducted previous levels of reviews. Documents: i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the v a r i o u s documents s t u d e n t s are r e q u i r e d to submit for each l e v e l of r e v i e w , i n c l u d i n g t h e number o f c o p i e s t o b e p r o v i d e d a n d who i s r e s p o n s i b l e for the c o s t . Documents f r e q u e n t l y c i t e d by s t u d y respondents include: 6.1 students' c l i n i c a l evaluation reports, 6.2 a n e c d o t a l n o t e s p r e p a r e d by clinical i n s t r u c t o r s about students' performance, 6.3 students' w r i t t e n assignments for courses, 6.4 students' previous evaluations, 6.5 students' entire f i l e s , 6.6 w r i t t e n s u b m i s s i o n b y students, 6.7 w r i t t e n s u b m i s s i o n b y s t u d e n t s ' a d v i s o r s .  1.6  to  when s t u d e n t s should request for reviews  234  I. 1.7  STRUCTURE  (continued)  A d v i s o r s : w h e t h e r or not s t u d e n t s a n d / o r c l i n i c a l i n s t r u c t o r s may b e a c c o m p a n i e d b y a d v i s o r s . If they can: 7.1 who t h e s e a d v i s o r s may o r may not be, (e.g., lawyers), 7.2  what 7.2.1 7.2.2  r o l e t h e s e a d v i s o r s may perform: as a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t s , as p a s s i v e p a r t i c i p a n t s , or 7.2.3 as a c t i v e o n l y i f r e q u e s t e d t o by the review chairperson.  1.8  O u t c o m e o f r e v i e w s : i n s t r u c t i o n s a s t o -8.1 how t h e outcome o f r e v i e w s w i l l be r e p o r t e d t o the students, 8.2 w h e n t h e o u t c o m e w i l l b e r e p o r t e d t o t h e students, 8.3 who w i l l r e p o r t t h e o u t c o m e t o t h e s t u d e n t s , 8.4 w h e t h e r or n o t t h e o u t c o m e w i l l be p l a c e d on t h e s t u d e n t s ' f i l e s and, i f so, i n what form.  1.9  Membership o f Review P a n e l s : s p e c i f i c a t i o n the composition of review panels.  as  to  I I . PROCESS T h e r e s h o u l d be w r i t t e n g u i d e l i n e s o u t l i n i n g how e a c h l e v e l o f r e v i e w s h o u l d be implemented, i n c l u d i n g statements regarding:  II.1  S e l e c t i o n o f Members: outlining-1.1 the composition of review panels, 1.2 who s e l e c t s members, 1.3 who chairs review panels, 1.4 c r i t e r i a f o r s e l e c t i o n o f members: 1.4.1 t h e y must be objective, 1.4.2 t h e y must n o t h a v e b e e n p a r t o f t h e i n i t i a l decision concerning the grieving students' complaint, 1.4.3 t h e y must n o t h a v e s e r v e d on any p r e v i o u s review panels where the g r i e v i n g s t u d e n t s ' c o m p l a i n t had been heard.  235  II.  PROCESS  II.2  Pre-review Preparation: an o r i e n t a t i o n f o r p a n e l members r e g a r d i n g * 2.1 t h e d e c i s i o n s w h i c h n e e d t o b e made c o n c e r n i n g d o c u m e n t a t i o n t o be reviewed, i n t e r v i e w s t o be conducted, and t h e r o l e o f advisors ( i f advisors are allowed), 2.2  2.3 2.4  (continued)  the focus of the reviews i n r e l a t i o n to: 2.2.1 the validity o f o b s e r v a t i o n s made b y the c l i n i c a l instructors, 2.2.2 t h e procedures used t o a r r i v e a t the decisions, 2.2.3 t h e f a i r n e s s and reasonableness o f the decisions, The e s t a b l i s h e d c r i t e r i a t o judge each focus of the reviews, T h e d e c i s i o n m a k i n g power o f t h e r e v i e w panel, 2.4.1 t o make a f i n a l decision, 2.4.2 t o change s t u d e n t s ' c l i n i c a l marks, 2.4.3 t o make r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e findings, 2.4 .4 t o make a summary o f t h e f i n d i n g s . The documentation o f reviews, 2.5.1 t o make a w r i t t e n summary o f t h e proceedings, 2.5.2 t o make a w r i t t e n t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e proceedings, 2.5.3 t o make a t a p e r e c o r d i n g o f t h e proceedings, 2.5.4 t o prepare minutes o f the hearing. :  2.5  II.3  The Review Process: s p e c i f y i n g the sequence t o be c a r r i e d o u t d u r i n g r e v i e w s , including: 3.1 the role of the chairperson, 3.2 t h e r o l e o f r e v i e w p a n e l m e m b e r s , 3.3 the instructions for interviewing grieving s t u d e n t s , t h e i r c l i n i c a l i n s t r u c t o r s , and witnesses, 3.4 t h e u s e o f s u b m i t t e d d o c u m e n t s d u r i n g t h e review.  236  I I I . OUTCOME H- T h e r e s h o u l d b e w r i t t e n g u i d e l i n e s o u t l i n i n g t h e f o r m u l a t i o n , d o c u m e n t a t i o n , and r e p o r t i n g o f t h e outcomes o f r e v i e w s i n c l u d i n g : 111.1  F o r m u l a t i o n o f t h e outcomes: s p e c i f y i n g -H 1.1 what power r e v i e w e r s have i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e decision-making process. 1.2 t h e t i m e * l i m i t from when t h e r e v i e w i s c o m p l e t e d t o when a r e p o r t o r d e c i s i o n must be r e a c h e d .  111.2  D o c u m e n t a t i o n o f t h e outcomes: d e s c r i b i n g how t h e outcome i s t o be documented.  111.3  R e p o r t i n g o f t h e outcomes: describing the following: 3 .1 t o whom 3 .2 i n what 3 .3 t o whom t h e p r o c e e d i n g s i s t o be s u b m i t t e d . Faculty  follow  need t o become aware o f t h e need t o  institutionally  prescribed  procedures  r e l a t e d to student  do  likely  so w i l l  evaluative well be,  result  decisions.  prescribed i f they  will  component  o f t h e judgment  to  policies  are not followed  study's  F a i l u r e to  I n o t h e r w o r d s , no m a t t e r  decisions  The  evaluation.  i n a modification of  evaluation  occur  p o l i c i e s and  how  and p r o c e d u r e s  reversals  may  o f such  because the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e could  prototypic  n o t be  demonstrated.  models p r o v i d e d a s t r u c t u r e  a s s e s s what a r e t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l  practices for  237 assessing evaluative decisions concerning c l i n i c a l performance. theoretical reviews  These models served  v i e w s o f how  s h o u l d be  conducted  t o h a v e any of reviews.  positive And  The  decisions  impacts  n e e d t o be  on  i n nursing education.  the  outcome  the  to provide a  I t transcends  new  d i s c i p l i n e s , those  of:  through  education education  i t p r o v i d e s a more c o o r d i n a t e d v i e w o f  components o f judgments from those potentially  likely  undertaken.  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , n u r s i n g e d u c a t i o n , and such,  theoretical  v i e w o f the components t o e v a l u a t i o n  three separate  As  literature  i f so, whether changes t o  Judgment Model i s l i k e l y  theoretical  nursing  i f these d e v i a t i o n s are  or n e g a t i v e  s t r u c t u r e s , or p r o c e s s e s  and  w i t h i n and w i t h o u t  Programs d e v i a t i n g from these  models need t o d e t e r m i n e  as  e v a l u a t i v e judgments  e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s and w e r e b a s e d on t h e reviewed.  students'  disciplines  h a v e t h e power t o i m p a c t  decision-making  processes.  nursing  law. the who  education  238  Limitation  This  study  administrative Canadian failure study the  of  their  population  the  to  to  explore  procedures deal  with  Thus,  cannot data  number  Study  be  for  the utilized  the  clinical  i t i s an  explorator  generalized the  by  beyond  study.  r e p o r t i n g was  86.2%  of  the  defined.  method  methods  limitations  of  as  survey  i n time  collection  possible  i f the  program  and  program  heads.  and of  of  This  However,  consistent  pattern  registration  observation  would  costs. perhaps  interviews  with  the  of  the  to  be  to  been  visit  to  did  reduced and  intent  provide  diploma  from  eac  respective  analyzed.  leading  data  more  have  method  study  programs permit  doubt,  su  to  have  instructions,  survey  data  of  no  over  due  A  able  the  not  chosen  been  nursing did  was  had  would,  limitation  baccalaureate  data  terminology,  questions.  and  research  researcher  conduct  ambiguities  research  interview  fruitful  The  and  students.  providing  Nonetheless,  other  programs  i t s findings  programs  the  undertaken  structures  nursing  and  The  was  of  to  and  nurse  a l l nursing  a  239 programs  in  programs  prevents  Quebec  sample  use  was  of  any  the  total  to  be  to  the  much  area  clarity  to  (1981).  the  thus  findings  to  to  understanding system  similar  previous  to  rate  of  a  validity  86.2%,  research,  though  is  caution  of  short  in  research  are  Quebec  whether  differences  the  others  are  and  in  area to  study  whether  surveyed.  do such  further Golden that  the in place  also  programs  differences  by  this  ensure  with  procedures This  of  provides  the  needed  nursing  or  opening  and  compatible  programs.  the  initial  i n Canada  structures  of  Research  studies  models  education  extended  versus  increase  requiring  the  research  Subsequent  administrative nursing  to  qxiestionnaire  represents  to  prototypic  legal  Quebec  findings.  study  subject  be  of  of  programs  response  Further  The  of  important  population  generalizing  the  exclusion  extrapolation  population  However,  compared  the  a  felt  findings.  of  Also  programs.  The  high  Canada.  to  occur  in  needs  to  gain  an  based  programs  on  are  240 The  Judgment Model r e q u i r e s f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h t o  determine the v a l i d i t y judgment p r o c e s s .  o f t h e t h r e e components i n t h e  This  s t u d y was n o t d e s i g n e d  to  d e t e r m i n e t h e model's e f f e c t i v e n e s s b u t o n l y t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e components were e v i d e n t e v a l u a t i o n d e c i s i o n reviews research  and h e a r i n g s .  i s needed t o determine:  f a c u l t y members p l a c e on t h e s e decision-making  process  p e r f o r m a n c e , and (b) are overturned Further  components d u r i n g  regarding  at different  students'  their  clinical  levels of reviews/hearing.  the impact o f the s i x f a c t o r s which decision-making  regarding  p e r f o r m a n c e , and t h e i m p a c t o f u s i n g  e v a l u a t i o n standards  t o support  appraisals of students.  objective  baccalaureate  nursing  faculty  clinical  These s t u d i e s ' f i n d i n g s should  t h e development o f formal  procedures f o r students' and  ( a ) what w e i g h t  why f a c u l t y members' d e c i s i o n s  influence instructors'  facilitate  Specifically,  r e s e a r c h a l s o n e e d s t o be u n d e r t a k e n t o  determine both  students'  during  clinical  assessment  p r a c t i c e i n diploma  programs.  241  BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, E d a , G l o r i a C o r b o , L o u i s e D e B l o i s , D a n d r a DeYoung, and G l o r i a J u s t . 1979. Legal c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n e v a l u a t i n g the c l i n i c a l performance o f students. I n Considerations i n C l i n i c a l Evaluations: I n s t r u c t o r s , Students, Legal Issues, D a t a . P u b l i c a t i o n No. 1 6 - 1 7 6 4 . New Y o r k : N a t i o n a l L e a g u e for Nursing. A d d e r l y , B e a t r i c e V . , and A n n a M. B r o c k . 1 9 7 7 . E v a l u a t i n g c l i n i c a l performance i n n u r s i n g . J o u r n a l o f Advanced Nursing 2 ( 7 ) : 355*63. Alexander, Kern. 1980. School P u b l i s h i n g Co.  Law. S t . P a u l , M i n n . : West  Alexander, Kern. 1978.A d m i n i s t r a t i v e prerogative: R e s t r a i n t s of n a t u r a l j u s t i c e on s t u d e n t d i s c i p l i n e . J o u r n a l o f Law and Education 7(3):  331-358.  A l l i s o n , D e r e k , Mark H o l m e s , a n d B r i a n S h a r p i e s . 1 9 8 3 . The e v a l u a t i o n of teachers: Developing p r o f e s s i o n a l s or e l i m i n a t i n g incompetents? The Y e l l o w P a p e r s 2 ( 2 ) . E d u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , OISE. A n g u s , M o n i c a D. 1 9 8 0 . A n a l y s i s o f s t u d e n t p e r f o r m a n c e r a t i n g s . N u r s i n g Papers 1 2 ( 2 ) : 5-16. B a r n e s , C a r o l . 1 9 7 8 . The s p e c t e r 10(5):  o f academic m a l p r a c t i c e .  Change  10*11.  B a r r i t t , E v e l y n R., and L o u Anne I r i o n . 1 9 7 0 . A d v a n t a g e s a n d d i s a d v a n t a g e s o f n o n g r a d i n g . N u r s i n g O u t l o o k 18 ( 4 ) : 40*41.  Beam, S h e i l a , a n d E d w a r d R. H i n e s . 1 9 8 1 . P r o v i s i o n s and consumer expectations. J o u r n a l o f College Student Personnel 22(1): 36*41.  B e r d i e , D o u g l a s R., a n d J o h n F. A n d e r s o n . 1 9 7 4 . Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s : D e s i g n a n d U s e . M e t u c h e n , New J e r s e y : The S c a r e c r o w P r e s s Inc. Bergen, John J . 1982. Should schools provide appeal procedures for d i s c i p l i n e d students? Challenge i n Educational Administration  21 (2) : 1 7 - 2 5 .  B e v i l , . W . , and L.C. G r o s s . 1 9 8 1 . A s s e s s i n g c l i n i c a l learning s e t t i n g s . Nursing  t h e adeqiaacy o f O u t l o o k 29 ( 1 1 ) :  658-661.  B e s a g , F r a n k P., and P e t e r L . B e s a g . 1 9 8 5 . S t a t i s t i c s f o r t h e H e l p i n g P r o f e s s i o n s . B e v e r l y H i l l s : Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s .  B l a c k , H.C. 1979. B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y . 5 t h E d i t i o n . M i n n i s o t a : West P u b l i s h i n g Co. B o m f o r d , P h y l , and Win L e w i s . 1980. L e a r n , 11 ( 2 ) : 1*3.  1980. S c h o o l s  242 St. Paul,  and t h e Law  Bondy, K a t h l e e e n Nowak. 1983. C r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d d e f i n i t i o n s for r a t i n g s c a l e s i n c l i n i c a l e v a l u a t i o n . Journal o f N u r s i n g E d u c a t i o n 2 2 ( 9 ) : 376-382. Borg,  W a l t e r R., and W a l t e r D. G a l l . An I n t r o d u c t i o n , 4 t h e d i t i o n .  1983. E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h : New Y o r k : Longman.  Brock,  A l l a n D. 1979. B o a r d o f c u r a t o r s o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f M i s s o u r i v . H o r o w i t z : s t u d e n t due p r o c e s s r i g h t s and j u d i c i a l d e g e r e n c e t o a c a d e m i c d i s m i s s a l s . W i l l a m e t t e Law R e v i e w 15 ( 3 ) : 577-590.  B r o o k s , James H. L e g a l I s s u e s and P o s t s e c o n d a r y Students. Monograph 84-9. I n s t i t u t e f o r H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n Law and Governance. Houston: U n i v e r s i t y o f Houston. B r o z e n e c , S a l l y , J u l i e R. M a r s h a l l , C h a r l e n e Thomas, and M a r i a n W a l s h . 1987. E v a l u a t i n g b o r d e r l i n e s t u d e n t s . J o u r n a l o f N u r s i n g E d u c a t i o n 1 ( 2 6 ) : 42-44. B r u n e i , E . S . 1978. D e t e r m i n i n g how t o b e g i n . I n E v a l u a t i n g C l i n i c a l Competence i n t h e H e a l t h P r o f e s s i o n s , M. K. Morgan, S t . L o u i s : C.V. Mosby Co. C a l o g e r o , S t e f a n o . 1979. C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Law -'-p r o c e d u r a l due p r o c e s s -- u n i v e r s i t y h e a r i n g s r e g a r d i n g a c a d e m i c d i s m i s s a l -* * B o a r d o f C u r a t o r s o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f M i s s o u r i v . Horowitz. New Y o r k Law S c h o o l Law R e v i e w 2 5 ( 1 ) : 133-149. C a n f i e l d , J u d i t h S. 1983. A l l i e d h e a l t h s t u d e n t and f a c u l t y attitudes regarding faculty evaluation. Journal of A l l i e d H e a l t h 1 2 ( 1 ) : 43-47. Carmack, B e t t y J . 1983. R e s o l v i n g an i n c i d e n t o f a c a d e m i c dishonesty: Plagarism. N u r s e E d u c a t o r 8 ( 1 ) : 9-12. C a r p e n i t o , L y n d a J u a l l . 1983. T h e f a i l i n g or \insat i s f a c t o r y student. N u r s e E d u c a t o r 8 ( 4 ) : 32-33. C o l l i n g s w o r t h , T e r r e n c e P. 1982. A p p l y i n g n e g l i g e n c e d o c t r i n e t o t h e t e a c h i n g p r o f e s s i o n . J o u r n a l o f Law and E d u c a t i o n 1 1 ( 4 ) : 479* 505. C r e i g h t o n , H e l e n . 1975. Law E v e r y T o r o n t o : W.B. S a u n d e r s .  Nurse Should  Know. 3 r d E d i t i o n .  243  Curry, Margaret Ann. 1981. C l i n i c a l e v a l u a t i o n of the n u r s i n g i n s t r u c t o r . Nursing Forum 22 ( 1 ) : 63-71. Connors, Eugene T. 1981. E d u c a t i o n a l T o r t L i a b i l i t y and M a l p r a c t i c e . Bloomington, Indiana: P h i D e l t a Kappa. Darragh, R i t a , Grace Jacobson, Beth Sloan, and G l o r i a S t a n d q u i s t . 1986. Unsafe student p r a c t i c e : P o l i c y and procedures. N u r s i n g Outlook 4 (34): 176*8. D a v i d h i z a r , Ruth E., and Angela McBride. 1985. How n u r s i n g students e x p l a i n t h e i r success and f a i l u r e i n c l i n i c a l experiences. J o u r n a l o f Nursing Education 7 (24): 284-90. Del Bueno, D.J. 1983. Doing the r i g h t t h i n g : Nurses' a b i l i t y to make c l i n i c a l d e c i s i o n s . Nurse Educator 8 ( 4 ) : 7-11. D e M i t c h e l l , Todd A. 1980. J u d i c i a l n o n - i n t e r v e n t i o n i n s c h o l a s t i c matters. C o l l e g e Student J o u r n a l 14(Summer): 146*148. deTornyay, Reba. 1985. Second o p i n i o n s : When needed? J o u r n a l of N u r s i n g E d u c a t i o n 8(24): 313. El^Khawas, E l a i n e . 1979. To assure E d u c a t i o n Record 60(Summer):  f a i r p r a c t i c e toward 282-294.  students.  E l k i n s , C a r o l M. 1983. A c c r e d i t a t i o n : D i s p e l l i n g the myths. J o u r n a l o f A l l i e d H e a l t h 12(4): 249-261. E l s o n , John. 1978. A common law remedy f o r the e d u c a t i o n a l harms caused by incompetent or c a r e l e s s t e a c h i n g . Northwestern U n i v e r s i t y Law Review 73 ( 4 ) : 641-771. Evans, J.M., H.N. J a n i s c h , David J . Mullan, and R.C.B. R i s k . 1984. A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law: Cases, Text, and M a t e r i a l s , 2nd Edition. Toronto: Emond Montgomery P u b l i c a t i o n s L i m i t e d . F i e l d i n g , N i g e l 0., and Jane L. F i e l d i n g . 1986. L i n k i n g Data. V o l . 4, Q u a l i t a t i v e Research Methods. Beverly H i l l s : Sage Publications. F l y g a t e , Thomas J . 1982. Another s t a t e r e j e c t s " e d u c a t i o n a l m a l p r a c t i c e " l a w s u i t . P h i D e l t a Kappan 63(9): 631*632. F o l g e r , Joseph, and J a n e l l e Shubert. 1981. Who cares about student complaints? E d u c a t i o n a l Record 6 2 ( F a l l ) : 31-33. Fowler, F l o y d J . 1984. Survey Research Methods. V o l . 1, A p p l i e d S o c i a l Research Methods S e r i e s . Beverly H i l l s : Sage Publications.  244 F r i s b i e , D.A. 1979. E v a l u a t i n g S t u d e n t A c h i e v e m e n t : P r i n c i p l e s , T r e n d s and P r o b l e m s , p u b l i c a t i o n no. 23-1766, New Y o r k : N a t i o n a l League for N u r s i n g . F o w l e r , G e r r a r d , and B a r b a r a H e a t e r . 1983. G u i d e l i n e s f o r c l i n i c a l evaluation. J o u r n a l of Nursing Education 22(9):  402*404.  G a r b e r , M i l t o n B. educational  281*306.  1980. Damages a c t i o n s f o r d e n i a l o f e q u a l opportunities. M i s s o u r i Law R e v i e w 4 5 ( 2 ) :  G r e e n , J o a n L . 1974. A c c r e d i t a t i o n i n n u r s i n g e d u c a t i o n : New t r e n d s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Journal of A l l i e d Health 1 3 ( 1 ) : 4. G o l d e n , Edward J . 1981. P r o c e d u r a l Due P r o c e s s f o r A c a d e m i c and D i s c i p l i n a r y D i s m i s s a l s a t T a x - S u p p o r t e d P o s t s e c o n d a r y I n s t i t u t i o n s : A f t e r G o s s and H o r o w i t z . Ph.D. d i s s . , U n i v e r s i t y of V i r g i n i a . G o l d e n , Edward J . 1982. P r o c e d u r a l due p r o c e s s f o r s t u d e n t s a t p u b l i c c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s . J o u r n a l o f Law and E d u c a t i o n 1 1 ( 7 ) : 331-359. G o l d e n , Edward J . 1981-2. C o l l e g e s t u d e n t d i s m i s s a l s and E l d r i d g e f a c t o r s : What p r o c e s s i s due? Journal of and U n i v e r s i t y Law 8 ( 4 ) : 495-509.  the College  G o l e m b i e c k i , B o n i t a L . , and N a n c i e E t h i n g t o n . 1979. Legal i m p l i c a t i o n s of c l i n i c a l e v a l u a t i o n . In C o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n C l i n i c a l E v a l u a t i o n : I n s t r u c t o r s , Students, Legal Issues, D a t a . P u b l i c a t i o n No. 16-1764. New Y o r k : N a t i o n a l L e a g u e for Nursing. G o r d o n , M.J. 1978. A s s e s s m e n t o f s t u d e n t a f f e c t : A c l i n i c a l a p p r o a c h . E d i t e d by M.K. Morgan, E v a l u a t i n g C l i n i c a l Competence i n t h e H e a l t h P r o f e s s i o n s . S t . L o u i s : C.V. Mosby Co. G r i f f i t h , J a n e t W., and A u d r e y J . B a k a n a u s k a s . 1983. Student* i n s t r u c t o r r e l a t i o n s h i p i n nursing education. J o u r n a l o f N u r s i n g E d u c a t i o n 2 2 ( 3 ) : 104-107. Gunne, G.Manny. 1980. C o l l e g e autonomy and Today 109 ( S e p t e m b e r ) : 54*57. G u r a l n i k , D a v i d B., ed. 1982. W e b s t e r ' s New C o l l e g e E d i t i o n . New Y o r k : Simon and  the  courts.  USA  World D i c t i o n a r y , Schuster.  2nd  245 H a z a r d , W i l l i a m R. 1978. E d u c a t i o n and t h e Law, C a s e s and M a t e r i a l s on P u b l i c S c h o o l , 2nd e d i t i o n . New Y o r k : The Free Press. H i l t o n , Ann. 1980. R e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n c l a s s r o o m t h e o r y and c l i n i c a l practice. N u r s i n g P a p e r s 1 2 ( 3 ) : 20-23. H o r v a t h , F r a n c e s L . 1983. R i g h t s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n t h e accreditation process. Journal of A l l i e d Health 12(4):  245-248.  H u s t o n , C a r o l J . 1986. Preparing O u t l o o k 6 ( 3 4 ) : 304.  for student  I n f a n t e , Mary Sue. 1986. The c o n f l i c t i n g educator. Nursing Outlook 2(34):  grievances.  roles  94-96.  of nurse  Nursing and  nurse  I o v a c c h i n i , E r i c V. 1981. The impact o f r e c e n t a c a d e m i c due p r o c e s s d e c i s i o n s on c o u n s e l l o r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s . C o u n s e l l o r E d u c a t i o n and S u p e r v i s i o n , 2 0 ( 3 ) : 163-171. I r b y , D a v i d M., J a n e I . F a n t e l , S t e v e n D. M i l a m , and M. Roy S c h w a r z . 1981. L e g a l g u i d e l i n e s f o r e v a l u a t i n g and dismissing medical students. New E n g l a n d J o u r n a l o f M e d i c i n e 3 0 4 ( 3 ) : 180-184. I r b y , D a v i d M. 198-1. F a c u l t y r i g h t s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n e v a l u a t i n g and d i s m i s s i n g m e d i c a l s t u d e n t s . Journal of C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y Law 8 ( 1 ) : 102-119. I r b y , D a v i d M. 1978. Trends i n c l i n i c a l e v a l u a t i o n . In E v a l u a t i n g C l i n i c a l Competence i n t h e H e a l t h P r o f e s s i o n s . M.K. M o r g a n , e d . S t . L o u i s : C.V. Mosby Co. J e n k i n s , H.M. 1985. I m p r o v i n g c l i n i c a l d e c i s i o n making i n n u r s i n g . J o u r n a l o f N u r s i n g E d u c a t i o n 6 ( 2 4 ) : 242-243. J e n n i n g s , E i l e e n K. 1980. B r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t s u i t s by s t u d e n t s a g a i n s t p o s t s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n i n s t i t u t i o n s : Can t h e y s u c c e e d ? P h . D. d i s s . , U n i v e r s i t y o f N e b r a s k a . J e n n i n g s , E i l e e n K. 1 9 8 0 - 1 . B r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t s u i t s by s t u d e n t s a g a i n s t p o s t s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s : Can t h e y succeed? J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y Law 1980*1  (3*4):  191*221.  J o h n s o n , D a l e M., and Mary J . W i l h i t e . 1973. R e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y o f s u b j e c t i v e e v a l u a t i o n o f b a c c a l a u r e a t e program nursing students. N u r s i n g R e s e a r c h 2 2 ( 3 ) : 257-262.  246  J o r g e n s e n , C y n t h i a A. 1 9 7 9 . Donohue v . C o p i a g u e U n i o n F r e e S c h o o l D i s t r i c t : New Y o r k c h o o s e s n o t t o r e c o g n i z e " e d u c a t i o n a l m a l p r a c t i c e . " A l b a n y Law R e v i e w 4 3 ( 2 ) : 3 3 9 - 3 5 9 . J u d i s , J o s e p h . 1 9 8 2 . C a u t i o n s on t h e u s e o f s t u d e n t of teaching. Journal of A l l i e d Health 11(1):  evaluations 43-48.  J u n g , S t e v e n , and Susan L. McBain. 1980. P r o t e c t i n g s t u d e n t s e d u c a t i o n a l m a l p r a c t i c e : F o c u s on NCA. N o r t h C e n t r a l A s s o c i a t i o n Q u a r t e r l y 5 4 ( W i n t e r ) : 344-348.  from  K a p p , M a r s h a l l B. 1 9 8 1 . L e g a l i s s u e s i n f a c u l t y e v a l u a t i o n o f student c l i n i c a l performance. Journal of Medical Education 56(7):  559-564.  K a r u h i j e , H a r r i e t t F. 1 9 8 6 . E d u c a t i o n a l p r e p a r a t i o n f o r c l i n i c a l teaching: Perceptions o f the nurse educator. Journal of N u r s i n g E d u c a t i o n 4 ( 2 5 ) : 137-144. K e l l y , L u c i e Young. 1977. C r e d e n t i a l i n g o f h e a l t h care N u r s i n g Outlook 2 5 ( 9 ) : 562-569. Kelly,  personnel.  S i s t e r Margaret John. 1981. H o s p i t a l - c o l l e g e education c o n t r a c t s e n s u r e m u t u a l p r o t e c t i o n . H o s p i t a l s 55 ( J a n u a r y 16):  95T96+.  K i r k , J e r o m e , a n d M a r c L . M i l l e r . 1 9 8 6 . R e l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y i n Q u a l i t a t i v e Research. V o l . 1, Q u a l i t a t i v e R e s e a r c h M e t h o d s . B e v e r l y H i l l s : Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s . K l e i n , A l i c e J . 1 9 7 9 . E d u c a t i o n a l m a l p r a c t i c e : Can t h e j u d i c i a r y remedy t h e g r o w i n g p r o b l e m o f f u n c t i o n a l i l l i t e r a c y ? Suffolk  University  Law R e v i e w 1 3 ( 1 ) :  K o w a l s k i , C . J . 1 9 7 7 . Some l e g a l a s p e c t s College Student Journal 1 1 ( F a l l ) :  27-62.  of higher  education.  277-284.  K r i v y , G a r y J o s e p h P a u l . 1 9 8 2 . The l e g a l r i g h t s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s i n Canada. P h D. d i s s . , U n i v e r s i t y o f A r i z o n a . L a M o r t e , M i c h a e l W., and R o b e r t B. Meadows. 1 9 7 9 . E d u c a t i o n a l l y s o u n d due p r o c e s s i n a c a d e m i c a f f a i r s . J o u r n a l o f Law and Education 8(4):  197-214.  L a m p k i n , N o v e t a , Thomas m. C a n n o n , J r . , and S. L o u i s F a i r c h i l d . 1 9 8 5 . C r i s i s i n t e r v e n t i o n : When t h e c l i e n t i s a n u r s i n g student. J o u r n a l o f N u r s i n g E d u c a t i o n 4 ( 2 4 ) : 148-150. L e f t w i c h , R o b e r t E. 1 9 8 3 . The n u r s e as g r i e v a n c e Journal  of Nursing Education 22(7):  301-3.  officer.  247 L e n n i n g e r , M a d e l e i n e M. e d . 1 9 8 5 . Q u a l i t a t i v e R e s e a r c h Nursing. Orlando: Glrune & Stratton, Inc. Leja,  Methods  in  A l f r e d E . , a n d Don S i k k i n k . 1976. D e v e l o p i n g a g r a d i n g appeals p o l i c y . Improving C o l l e g e U n i v e r s i t y Teaching 2 4 ( S p r i n g ) : 91*92.  L e r b l a n c e , P e n n . 1979. L e g a l and e d u c a t i o n a l a s p e c t s o f s t u d e n t d i s m i s s a l s : A v i e w f r o m t h e Law S c h o o l . Southwestern Law J o u r n a l 3 3 ( 2 ) : 605*633. L o g s d o n , J a n n B., P a t r i c i a K. L a c e f i e l d , a n d M a r y J o C l a r k . 1979. T h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f an a c a d e m i c g r i e v a n c e p r o c e d u r e . N u r s i n g O u t l o o k 2 7 ( 3 ) : 184-190. M a c K a y , A. Wayne. 1984. E d u c a t i o n Law I n C a n a d a . Emond-Montgomery P u b l i c a t i o n s L i m i t e d . M a g s i n o , Romulo t h e U.S.:  Toronto:  F . 1980. S t u d e n t r i g h t s i n N e w f o u n d l a n d and A comparative study. MORN W a t c h 7 ( 3 - 4 ) : 1 1 - 1 9 .  M a g s i n o , Romulo F. upon s t i l t s ?  1978. Student r i g h t s Interchange 112(52):  i n Canada: 77*78.  M a j o r o w i c z , K a r e n . 1986. C l i n i c a l g r a d e s and process. N u r s e E d u c a t o r 2 ( 1 1 ) : 36-40.  the  Nonsense  grievance  M a n c u s o , J o h n H e n r y . 1976. L e g a l r i g h t s t o r e a s o n a b l e r u l e s , g r a d e s , and q u a l i t y c o u r s e s . I n P r o m o t i n g Consumer P r o t e c t i o n f o r S t u d e n t s . J . S t a r k , ed. San F r a n c i s c o : Jossey-Bass Inc. M a n c u s o , J o h n H e n r y . 1 9 7 8 . C o n s u m e r i s m o n c a m p u s : An a n a l y s i s the student's l e g a l r i g h t s to accurate grades, fair a c a d e m i c t r e a t m e n t , and q u a l i t y e d u c a t i o n a l s e r v i c e s . P h . D., d i s s . , Syracuse U n i v e r s i t y . M a r i e n f e l d , R. D e n n i s , a n d J o h n C. R e i d . 1 9 8 0 . objective evaluation of c l i n i c a l clerks. J o u r n a l of Medicine 302(18): 1036-1037.  fair  of  Subjective vs. New England  Marx,  C h a r l e s A. 1983. A s t u d y o f t h e l i t i g a t i o n concerning a c a d e m i c d i s m i s s a l and t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r s c h o l a s t i c requirements p o l i c i e s at selected i n s t i t u t i o n s of higher education in Mississippi. P h . D. diss., The U n i v e r s i t y o f M i s s i s s i p p i .  Mason,  G r e g , B r i a n M c p h e r s o n , D e r e k Hum, and L a n c e R o b e r t s . 1983. S u r v e y R e s e a r c h M e t h o d s , 2nd e d i t i o n . I n s t i t u t e f o r S o c i a l and E c o n o m i c R e s e a r c h , F a c u l t y o f A r t s . The U n i v e r s i t y o f Manitoba.  248 Mass,  M i c h a e l A . 1 9 8 0 . Due p r o c e s s r i g h t s o f s t u d e n t s : l i m i t a t i o n s on G o s s v . L o p e z - - a r e t r e a t o u t o f t h e " t h i c k e t . " J o u r n a l o f Law and E d u c a t i o n 9(4): 449-462.  M a t t i n g l y , Stephen L., e d u c a t o r and t h e 478*483.  a n d D o n a l d D. G e h r i n g . 1 9 8 0 . T h e d e n t a l law. Journal of Dental Education 44(8):  M a z z a r e l l a , J o A n n . 1982. Self*defense out of c o u r t . P r i n c i p a l 62(2):  for principals: 22*26.  On  staying  M c C a r t h y , M.M. 1985. L e g a l c h a l l e n g e s t o a c a d e m i c d e c i s i o n s i n higher education. C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y 6 0 ( 2 ) : 99-112. M c F a d d e n , E l l e n A. 1986. C l i n i c a l d e c i s i o n m a k i n g and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o l e a r n i n g s t y l e and p e r s o n a l i t y type. P h . D. d i s s . , U n i v e r s i t y o f Maryland. M c G h e h e y , M.A. ed. 1980. S c h o o l Law i n Contemporary S o c i e t y . K a n s a s : N a t i o n a l O r g a n i z a t i o n on L e g a l P r o b l e m s o f Education. M i l i a m , S.D. a n d R.D. M a r s h a l l . 1987. Impact o f r e g e n t s o f the U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n v . E w i n g on a c a d e m i c d i s m i s s a l s f r o m g r a d u a t e and p r o f e s s i o n a l s c h o o l s . J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y Law 1 3 ( 4 ) : 335*352. M i l l e r , S i s t e r P a t r i c i a . 1982. Student grade appeals - * procedure and p r o c e s s . J o u r n a l o f N u r s i n g E d u c a t i o n 2 1 ( 6 ) : 34*38. M i l l e r , S i s t e r P a t r i c i a . 1981. F a c i l i t a t i n g student h e a r i n g s . N u r s i n g O u t l o o k 2 9 ( 3 ) : 186-188.  grade  Moore,  1980. education: 44(12):  R o b e r t N., D a v i d A. N a s h , a n d J o h n 0. A n d e s . A c a d e m i c and d i s c i p l i n a r y d i s m i s s a l i n d e n t a l The l e g a l b a s i s . Journal of Dental Education 705-711.  appeal  Murphy, J u a n i t a F., and R o s e m a r i e S a n d l i n g . 1978. Educational a d m i n i s t r a t i o n : Due p r o c e s s f o r s t u d e n t g r i e v a n c e s . J o u r n a l o f N u r s i n g A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 8 ( 1 1 ) : 39-43. Nadelson, C a r o l . 1983. Emerging issues for c o l l e g e students i n t h e 1 9 8 0 s ' . J o u r n a l o f A m e r i c a n C o l l e g e H e a l t h 31 (Feb.): 177-84. Nash,  D a v i d A . , R o b e r t N. M o o r e , a n d J o h n 0. A n d e s . 1981. Academic d i s m i s s a l for c l i n i c a l reasons: I m p l i c a t i o n s of the Horowitz case. Journal of Dental Education 45(3): 150-155.  249 N a t i o n a l League for Nursing. 1977 . A c c o u n t a b i l i t y : T h e O b l i g a t i o n o f t h e E d u c a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t i o n t o t h e Consumer. P u b l i c a t i o n N o . 2 3 * 1 6 9 0 , New Y o r k : N a t i o n a l L e a g u e f o r N u r s i n g . New  England Journal of Medicine. 1980. S u b j e c t i v e evaluation of clinical clerks. New E n g l a n d M e d i c i n e 303(15): 890-891.  vs. objective Journal of  N i e d r i n g h a u s L i n d a , and D o r o t h y L . O ' D r i s c o l l . 1983. S t a y i n g w i t h i n t h e law - * academic p r o b a t i o n and d i s m i s s a l . Nursing Outlook 31(3): 156*159. N o r d i n , V i r g i n i a D a v i s . 1981*2. The c o n t r a c t t o e d u c a t e : Towards a more w o r k a b l e t h e o r y o f t h e s t u d e n t * u n i v e r s i t y r e l a t i o n s h i p . J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y Law 8 ( 2 ) : 141*181. O r l i c h , Donald Redgrave  C. 1 9 7 8 . Designing Sensible P u b l i s h i n g Company.  Surveys.  New  Owens, H i l d a F. 1980. T h e y ' l l t a k e y o u t o c o u r t i f y o u w a t c h o u t . Community and J u n i o r C o l l e g e J o u r n a l 51(0ctober): 12-16.  York:  don't  Ozimek, D o r o t h y , and H e l e n Y u r a . 1977. S t u d e n t s Have R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s as W e l l as R i g h t s . P u b l i c a t i o n No. 15*1666. New Y o r k : N a t i o n a l L e a g u e f o r N u r s i n g . P a b i a n , J a y M. 1 9 7 9 * 8 0 . E d u c a t i o n a l m a l p r a c t i c e a n d m i n i m a l c o m p e t e n c y t e s t i n g : I s t h e r e a l e g a l remedy a t l a s t ? E n g l a n d Law R e v i e w 1 5 ( 1 ) : 101-127. Patterson, Arlene but growing  H. 1 9 8 0 . bigger.  P r o f e s s i o n a l malpractice: Small cloud P h i D e l t a Kappan 62(3): 193*196.  P a v e l a , G a r y . 1978. J u d i c i a l after Horowitz. N0PLE Polit,  New  review School  o f academic Law J o u r n a l  decisionmaking 8 ( 1 ) : 55*75.  D e n i s e , and B e r n a d e t t e H u n g l e r . 1983. N u r s i n g Research: P r i n c i p l e s and M e t h o d s , 2nd e d i t i o n . P h i l a d e l p h i a : J.B. L i p p i n c o t t Company.  Pollok,  C l e m e n t i n e S., G a y e W. P o t e e t , a n d W a y n e L . 1983. D i m i n i s h i n g f a c u l t y l i a b i l i t y . Nurse 8 ( 1 ) : 31*34.  Whelan. Educator  P o l l o k , C l e m e n t i n e S., G a y e W. P o t e e t , a n d W a y n e L . W h e l a n . 1977. F a c u l t y have right's t o o . American J o u r n a l of Nursing 77(4): 636-638. P o l l o k , C l e m e n t i n e S., G a y e 1976. S t u d e n t r i g h t s .  76(4):  600*603.  W. P o t e e t , a n d W a y n e L . W h e l a n . American Journal of Nursing  250  P o t e e t , Gaye W., a n d C l e m e n t i n e S. P o l l o k . 1 9 8 1 . T h e l e g a l s i d e : When a s t u d e n t f a i l s c l i n i c a l . A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l o f N u r s i n g 8 1 ( 1 0 ) : 1889*1890. P y l e r , C h r i s P a r n e l l . 1 9 7 8 . The g r i e v a n c e a p p e a l s p r o c e s s i n t h e S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y o f F l o r i d a : A c a s e s t u d y . P h . D. d i s s . , The F l o r i d a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . Ray,  L a u r a Krugman. 1 9 8 1 . Toward c o n t r a c t u a l r i g h t s f o r c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s . J o u r n a l o f Law and E d u c a t i o n 1 0 ( 2 ) : 1 6 3 - 1 8 9 .  R e g a n , W i l l i a m A n d r e w . 1 9 8 3 . S t u d e n t n u r s e s : A c c i d e n t s and n u r s i n g s c h o o l l i a b i l i t y . R e g a n R e p o r t on N u r s i n g Law 24(7).  R e g a n , W i l l i a m A n d r e w . 1 9 8 3 . N u r s i n g e d u c a t i o n and s t u d e n t s ' r i g h t s : L e g a l i t i e s . R e g a n R e p o r t on N u r s i n g Law 2 4 ( 3 ) . R e g a n , W i l l i a m A n d r e w . 1 9 8 3 . N u r s e e d u c a t o r s : S u p e r v i s i o n and liability. R e g a n R e p o r t on N u r s i n g Law 1 9 ( 2 ) . Repp, Susan e l a i n e C l a r k s . 1 9 8 0 . F a c t o r s w h i c h d i f f e r e n t i a t e b e t w e e n s u c c e s s f u l and d i s m i s s e d s t u d e n t s on a c a d e m i c p r o b a t i o n a t C e n t r a l M i c h i g a n U n i v e r s i t y . P h . D. d i s s . , Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y . R i c h a r d s o n , R i c h a r d C. J r . , and E d w a r d J o h n s o n . 1 9 8 0 . N a r r o w i n g the l i m i t s o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d i s c r e t i o n . Peabody J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n ( O c t o b e r ) : 2 2 - 26 R o b e r t s , R.N. 1 9 8 6 . P u b l i c u n i v e r s i t y r e s p o n s e s t o a c a d e m i c d i s h o n e s t y : D i s c i p l i n a r y or academic. J o u r n a l o f Law and Education  15(4):  369*384.  R o b i n s o n , K a r e n , a n d S h a r o n Br i d g e w a t e r 1 9 7 9 . Named i n a g r i e v a n c e : I t happened t o u s . N u r s i n g O u t l o o k 2 7 ( 3 ) : 191*194.  R o z o v s k y , L o m e E. 1 9 7 3 . The h o s p i t a l ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r students i n t r a i n i n g . Canadian H o s p i t a l 50(17):17-8. S a d l e r , D.R. 1 9 8 3 . E v a l u a t i o n and t h e i m p r o v e m e n t o f a c a d e m i c learning. J o u r n a l o f Higher E d u c a t i o n , 5 4 ( 1 ) : 60*79. S a y l o r , C o l e e n R a e . 1 9 8 7 . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l e v a l u a t i o n and p r o f e s s i o n a l education: C l i n i c a l evaluation of nursing s t u d e n t s . P h . D. d i s s . , S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y . S c h u r r , G e o r g e M. 1 9 8 2 . T o w a r d a c o d e o f e t h i c s f o r a c a d e m i c s . J o u r n a l o f Higher E d u c a t i o n 5 3 ( 3 ) : 318-334. S c o t t , N.W. 1977 . L e g a l i m p l i c a t i o n s o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n s . Saskatchewan A d m i n i s t r a t o r 9 ( 4 ) : 11*21.  251 S e p l e r , Harvey J . 1981. A comparative a n a l y s i s o f m a l p r a c t i c e l i t i g a t i o n . P h i D e l t a Kappan 6 3 ( 3 ) : 1 9 1 . Shaffer, Roberta. 1984. "Legal Resources for Higher Education Law: A R e v i e w E s s a y " . M o n o g r a p h 8 4 - 3 . I n s t i t u t e f o r H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n Law and G o v e r n a n c e . H o u s t o n : U n i v e r s i t y o f Houston. Sherman, M o r r i s , and P e r r y Z i r k e l . 1 9 8 0 . S t u d e n t d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n : A review o f t h e law. J o u r n a l o f Law and  Education 9  (8):  301041.  S h u b e r t , J a n e l l e , and J o s e p h F o l g e r . 1980. H a n d l i n g s t u d e n t grievances i n higher education. I n Resolving C o n f l i c t i n Higher Education. New D i r e c t i o n s f o r H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n No. 32: 4 3 * 4 8 . San F r a n c i s c o : Jossey-Bass I n c . S n y d e r , J o h n R., and J a n a C. W i l s o n . 1 9 8 3 . F a c u l t y d e v e l o p m e n t f o r c l i n i c a l i n s t r u c t o r s i n A l l i e d H e a l t h : An i n s e r v i c e approach. J o u r n a l o f A l l i e d H e a l t h 12 ( 1 ) : 3 1 - 4 0 . S o r e n s o n , G a i l P a u l u s . " T e a c h i n g H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n Law: A R e v i e w E s s a y . " M o n o g r a p h 8 4 * 2 . I n s t i t u t e f o r H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n Law and G o v e r n a n c e . H o u s t o n : U n i v e r s i t y o f H o u s t o n . S p i n k , L i n d a Muh. 1 9 8 3 . Due p r o c e s s i n a c a d e m i c d i s m i s s a l . J o u r n a l of N u r s i n g E d u c a t i o n 2 2 ( 7 ) : 305-306. S p i r o , G e o r g e W. 1 9 7 8 . L e g a l p r o c e s s i n e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s : A proposal for strengthening intra-university legal systems.  N 0 P L E S c h o o l Law J o u r n a l  8(1):  40-54.  S t a h l , A d e l l e G. 1 9 7 4 . S t a t e B o a r d s o f N u r s i n g : L e g a l a s p e c t s . N u r s i n g C l i n i c s o f N o r t h America 9 ( 3 ) : 505-512. S t a i n t o n , M. C o l l e e n . 1 9 8 3 . A f o r m a t f o r r e c o r d i n g t h e c l i n i c a l performance o f nursing students. J o u r n a l o f Nursing Education 22(3):  114*6.  S t a r k , J o a n S,. 1 9 7 6 . P r o m o t i n g Consumer P r o t e c t i o n f o r S t u d e n t s . New D i r e c t i o n s f o r H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n . San F r a n c i s c o : Jossey*Bass I n c . S t r a d e r , M a r l e n e K. 1 9 8 5 . M a l p r a c t i c e and n u r s e e d u c a t o r s : Defining legal responsibilities. Journal of Nursing Education 9(24):  363*367.  Thor ne, G a y l o r d L. 1 9 8 3 . M e a s u r i n g s t u d e n t Educator 8 ( 3 ) : 7-10.  learning.  Nurse  T u r a b i a n , K a t e L . 1 9 8 7 , A M a n u a l F o r W r i t e r s o f Term P a p e r s , T h e s e s , and D i s s e r t a t i o n s , 5 t h e d i t i o n . C h i c a g o : The U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago Press.  252 V e r n o n , E n i d L . 1 9 7 9 . Due p r o c e s s f l e x i b i l i t y i n a c a d e m i c d i s m i s s a l s : H o r o w i t z and beyond. J o u r n a l o f Law a n d E d u c a t i o n 8 ( 1 ) : 45^54. Wood,  V i v i a n . 1971. The b o r d e r l i n e P a p e r s 3 ( 2 ) : 15-26.  student  nurse.  Nursing  Woodside, Donna J e a n . 1981. C o n c e r n and knowledge o f b a c c a l a u r e a t e nurse educators f o r the l e g a l aspects o f s t u d e n t e v a l u a t i o n a n d f a i l u r e . E d . D. d i s s . , University of Cincinnati. W o o l l e y , A l m a S. 1 9 7 7 . T h e l o n g a n d t o r t u r e d h i s t o r y evaluation. N u r s i n g O u t l o o k 2 5 ( 5 ) : 308-315. Yogis,  J . A . 1 9 8 3 . C a n a d i a n Law D i c t i o n a r y . Educational Series, Inc.  Young,  D.P. e d . 1 9 8 1 . Y e a r b o o k o f H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n L a w . N a t i o n a l O r g a n i z a t i o n on L e g a l Problems o f E d u c a t i o n . Topeka, Kansas.  LEGAL  CASES  Brookins  v. Bonnell  (1973),  v. U n i v e r s i t y  of Regina  District,  (1979),  Kane  v. Board o f governors U n i v e r s i t y 110 D.L.R. ( 3 d ) 311 ( S . C . C . )  Peter  W. v . S a n F r a n c i s c o U n i f i e d 3d 8 1 4 , 131 C a l . R p t r . 854  P o l t e n v. Governing Council 8 O.R. ( 2 d ) 7 4 9 .  York:  Barron's  362 F . S u p p . 3 7 9 .  Donohue v . Copiague U n i o n F r e e S c h o o l N . Y . S . ( 2 d ) 8 7 4 , A . D . 2 d 29 Harelkin  New  of clinical  (1978)  96 D.L.R.  of British  (3d) 14.  Columbia,  School D i s t r i c t ,  of University  407  (1976)  of Toronto  (1980)  60  (1976) ,  CA.  253  APPENDIX INSTRUMENT-1: TO  ASSESS  A  ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES  PROCEDURES  AND  A SURVEY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES AND PROCEDURES DEALING WITH C L I N I C A L F A I L U R E OF STUDENTS I N CANADIAN NURSING PROGRAMS  255  INTRODUCTION  The purpose of this survey is to gain an understanding of the student evaluat ion and review mechanisms in placr* in both y p u r n u r s i n g program and your overall institution. You, -as head of the nursing program are requested to complete this survey. If you d e l e g a t e c o m p l e t i o n of this survey to another member of your program, please ensure that that individual has sufficient knowledge of both program and institutional student appeal systems to respond accurately to the questions. The ANONYMITY of the nursing program, the the students will be preserved. Program numbers only for the purpose of follow up' of respondents researcher. NOTE:  THIS STUDY IS BACCALAUREATE  RESTRICTED TO DIPLOMA AND NURSING PROGRAMS ONLY.  SECTION A 1.  only  ( ( ( ( 2.  GEN ER f •':  located?  one.  ) ) ) )  BRITISH COLUMBIA ALBERTA SASKATCHEWAN MANITOBA  ( ( ( ( (  ) ) ) ) )  ONTARIO NEW BRUNSWICK NOVA SCOTIA PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND NEWFOUNDLAND  In what type o f i n s t i t u t i o n i s your n u r s i n g program Check  only  ( ( ( ( (  and used  GENERAL INFORMATION  I n which p r o v i n c e i s your i n s t i t u t i o n Check  institution, will be by the  ) ) ) ) )  one.  HOSPITAL COLLEGE TECHNICAL INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY OTHER -- P l e a s e e x p l a i n :  located?  What i s t h e t o t a l s t u d e n t e n r o l l m e n t o f y o u r ( i f your n u r s i n g program i s p a r t o f a l a r g e r i n s t i t u t i o n ) Check only one. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )  0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 4000  -• -• -• -• •••-  5000 5999 6000 6999 7000 7999 8000 8999 9000 9999 10000 - 14999 15000 + NOT A P P L I C A B L E  499 999 1499 1999 2499 2999 3999 4999  What t y p e ( s ) o f n u r s i n g p r o g r a m ( s ) offer? Check ALL which apply. ( ( ( ( (  institution? educational  does  your  institution  ) DIPLOMA ) GENERIC BACCALAUREATE ) P O S T R.N. B A C C A L A U R E A T E ) MASTERS ) OTHER Please specify:  What i s t h e a p p r o x i m a t e n u r s i n g programs? Fill ( ( ( ( (  ) ~) ) ~) ~)  student in space  enrollment i n each o f your next to each program.  DIPLOMA GENERIC BACCALAUREATE NON-GENERIC BACCALAUREATE MASTER'S OTHER  What i s t h e a v e r a g e a g e o f n u r s i n g s t u d e n t s e n t e r i n g y o u r n u r s i n g p r o g r a m ( s ) d u r i n g t h e 1984-1985 academic y e a r ?  DIPLOMA ( ( ( ( ( ( (  ) ) ) ) ) ) )  BACCALAUREATE 1 6 1 9 22 25 28 3 1 34  - 1 8 YEARS - 2 1 YEARS - 24 Y E A R S - 27 Y E A R S - 30 Y E A R S - 3 3 Y-EARS + YEAR'S  .( ( ( ( ( ( (  ) ) ) ) ) ) )  SECTION B - ASSESSMENT OF STUDENTS' C L I N I C A L  PERFORMANCE  Are your n u r s i n g program p o l i c i e s and/or procedures d e a l i n g w i t h the e v a l u a t i o n o f students' c l i n i c a l performance: Check  ALL  which  ( ( ( (  apply.  ) ) ) )  WRITTEN? UNWRITTEN? A P P L I E D CONSISTENTLY TO A L L NURSING STUDENTS? ADAPTED TO INDIVIDUAL NURSING STUDENT SITUATIONS? ) OTHER? Please describe:  (  A t t h e end o f t h e c l i n i c a l e x p e r i e n c e f o r a c o u r s e , a r e t h e d e c i s i o n s a b o u t n u r s i n g s t u d e n t s ' p e r f o r m a n c e made I N THE NURSING PROGRAM BY: ( (  ) )  MORE THAN ONE INSTRUCTOR ONLY.ONE INSTRUCTOR Go  The by  d e c i s i o n about a s t u d e n t ' s  clinical  apply.  (  )  (  )  ( ( ( ( (-  ) ) ) ) )  )  ALL  which  REGISTERED NURSES SUPERVISING THE STUDENT I N THE C L I N I C A L SETTING AN INDIVIDUAL EVALUATOR, WHO I S NOT THE INSTRUCTOR THE IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR OF THE INSTRUCTOR THE PROGRAM HEAD A NURSING FACULTY COMMITTEE THE TOTAL FACULTY ( o f t h e n u r s i n g p r o g r a m ) OTHER Please explain:  Are the c l i n i c a l performance d e c i s i o n s reviewed f a c u l t y members i n t h e n u r s i n g p r o g r a m ? (  Q .10  p e r f o r m a n c e i s made  t h e s t u d e n t ' s c l i n i c a l i n s t r u c t o r and: check :  to  YES  (  )  NO  b y any o t h e r  258  During t h i s review, t h e c l i n i c a l performance o f which ^ j ° . i j j o c h e c k ALL which apply. students i s considered? (  )  (  )  (  )  (  )  A L L STUDENTS P A R T I C I P A T I N G I N THE SAME C L I N I C A L COURSE THOSE STUDENTS WHO ARE BEING CONSIDERED FOR A F A I L U R E .IN THE C L I N I C A L COURSE THOSE STUDENTS WHO HAVE HAD D I F F I C U L T Y IN MEETING THE C L I N I C A L COURSE OBJECTIVES OTHER Please describe:  Are n u r s i n g program p o l i c i e s and/or procedures f o r the e v a l u a t i o n o f student c l i n i c a l performance: <=* ALL which CHE  apply.  (  )  (  )  (  )  (  )  (  )  (  )  ( (  ) )  IDENTICAL TO INSTITUTIONAL P O L I C I E S AND/OR PROCEDURES? DIFFERENT FROM INSTITUTIONAL P O L I C I E S AND/OR PROCEDURES? A MODIFICATION OF INSTITUTIONAL P O L I C I E S AND/OR PROCEDURES? MORE S P E C I F I C THAN INSTITUTIONAL P O L I C I E S AND/OR PROCEDURES? LESS S P E C I F I C THAN INSTITUTIONAL P O L I C I E S AND/OR PROCEDURES? THE ONLY P O L I C I E S AND/OR PROCEDURES WITHIN THE INSTITUTION? NON-EXISTENT? OTHER? Please describe:  A r e a n y s t u d e n t c l i n i c a l p e r f o r m a n c e d e c i s i o n s made i n y o u r n u r s i n g p r o g r a m ROUTINELY r e v i e w e d o u t s i d e o f y o u r n u r s i n g program ( b u t s t i l l w i t h i n t h e i n s t i t u t i o n ) ? (  )  YES  (  p  NO SECTION  C  259 14.  When does t h i s ( ( ( ( ( (  15.  ) ) ) ) ) )  During this clinical  (  AT THE AT THE AT THE AT THE AT THE OTHER  ALL which  apply.  END OF A TERM OR SEMESTER END OF AN ACADEMIC YEAR MID-POINT OF A TERM OR SEMESTER MID-POINT OF AN ADADEMIC YEAR END OF THE NURSING PROGRAM Please describe:  institutional  review which nursing Check  AZL  students' which  apply.  )  ( (  A L L STUDENTS P A R T I C I P A T I N G I N THE SAME C L I N I C A L COURSE ) THOSE STUDENTS WHO ARE BEING CONSIDERED FOR A F A I L U R E I N THE C L I N I C A L COURSE ) THOSE STUDENTS WHO HAVE HAD D I F F I C U L T Y I N MEETING THE C L I N I C A L COURSE OBJECTIVES ) OTHER Please describe:  These.students' by:  check  performance are considered?  (  16.  review occur?  Check  ALL  clinical which  performance d e c i s i o n s are reviewed  apply.  ( ( (  ) ) )  DEAN OF D I V I S I O N , SCHOOL, OR FACULTY DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM, OR SCHOOL INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE, whose m e m b e r s h i p includes:  (  )  A REVIEW PANEL, composed o f :  (  )  OTHER  Please  explain:  260 17.  I s a s t u d e n t g i v e n an o p p o r t u n i t y clinical evaluation? (  )  YES  to question  ( .)  h i s or her  NO SECTION  SECTION  who is referred  18.  19.  20.  C - INFORMAL G R I E V A N C E REVIEW PERFORMANCE D E C I S I O N S  OF  STUDENT  In this survey a n informal appeal initiated by dissatisfied with his or her clinical evaluation to as a GRIEVANCE REVIEW.  a  D  CLINICAL  student is  T h e l e n g t h o f t i m e b e t w e e n when a s t u d e n t r e c e i v e s h i s o r h e r c l i n i c a l e v a l u a t i o n a n d when h e o r s h e must r e q u e s t a GRIEVANCE REVIEW i s : Check only one. (  )  (  )  (  )  S P E C I F I E D I N NURSING PROGRAM P O L I C Y AND/OR PROCEDURES S P E C I F I E D I N I N S T I T U T I O N A L P O L I C Y AND/OR PROCEDURES NOT S P E C I F I E D  When a s t u d e n t w i s h e s t o i n i t i a t e a G R I E V A N C E R E V I E W , s h o u l d he o r she i n i t i a l l y c o n t a c t ? Check only one. ( (  ) )  ( ( ( (  ) ) ) )  Procedures apply. ( ( ( ( (  H I S OR HER C L I N I C A L I N S T R U C T O R C H A I R P E R S O N OF A NURSING PROGRAM COMMITTEE HEAD OF T H E N U R S I N G PROGRAM R E G I S T R A R OF T H E I N S T I T U T I O N HEAD OF T H E I N S T I T U T I O N . OTHER Please explain:  f o r a GRIEVANCE REVIEW ) ) ) ) )  are:  Check  WRITTEN UNWRITTEN FOLLOWED C O N S I S T E N T L Y A D A P T E D TO I N D I V I D U A L S I T U A T I O N S OTHER - - - P l e a s e e x p l a i n :  whom  STANDING  ALL  which  261  W h i c h documents a r e a s s e s s e d Check  ALL  which  ( (  ) )  ( (  ) )  ( (  ) )  during  t h e GRIEVANCE REVIEW?  apply.  THE STUDENT'S C L I N I C A L EVALUATION REPORT ANECDOTAL NOTES ABOUT THE STUDENT'S C L I N I C A L PERFORMANCE THE STUDENT'S WRITTEN ASSIGNMENTS FOR THE COURSE THE STUDENT'S PREVIOUS C L I N I C A L EVALUATION REPORTS THE STUDENT'S ENTIRE F I L E OTHER Please describe:  Who c o n d u c t s t h i s GRIEVANCE REVIEW? ( ( ( ( ( (  ) ) ) ) ) )  Check  only  one.  THE STUDENT'S C L I N I C A L INSTRUCTOR AN IMPARTIAL NURSING INSTRUCTOR A NURSING PROGRAM STANDING COMMITTEE A S P E C I A L GRIEVANCE REVIEW PANEL A HEARING OFFICER OTHER Please explain:  To what a s p e c t :of t h e s t u d e n t ' s c l i n i c a l p e r f o r m a n c e d e c i s i o n i s t h e GRIEVANCE REVIEW d i r e c t e d ? check ALL apply.  ( ( ( (  )  THE V A L I D I T Y OF OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ORIGINAL EVALUATOR AND WHICH ARE USED TO DETERMINE THE EVALUATION OUTCOME ) THE FAIRNESS AND REASONABLENESS OF THE EVALUATION OUTCOME ) THE PROCEDURES USED DURING THE EVALUATION OF THE STUDENT ) OTHER Please describe:  Are i n d i v i d u a l s process? (  which  )  YES  interviewed  as p a r t o f t h i s GRIEVANCE REVIEW (  ) N O n  ~> n  262  25.  Who  i s usually  ( ( ( (  26.  ) ) ) )  interviewed?  Check  ALL  which  THE STUDENT THE STUDENT'S PEERS THE STUDENT'S C L I N I C A L INSTRUCTOR(S) OTHER Please explain:  I s t h e s t u d e n t a b l e t o b r i n g an a d v i s o r t o a REVIEW? (  apply.  )  YES  (  )  GRIEVANCE  NO Q .28  27.  T h i s a d v i s o r may  ( ( ( ( ( (  28.  be:  Check  ALL  which  apply.  ) ) ) )  A LAWYER NOT A LAWYER AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT I N THE GRIEVANCE REVIEW ONLY A P A S S I V E PARTICIPANT I N THE GRIEVANCE REVIEW ) AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT I F REQUESTED TO BE BY THE PERSON CONDUCTING THE GRIEVANCE REVIEW ) OTHER Please explain:  I s t h e s t u d e n t ' s c l i n i c a l i n s t r u c t o r a b l e t o b r i n g an a d v i s o r ' t o t h e GRIEVANCE REVIEW? (  )  YES  (  )  NO  L  —  _ Q.30  29.  T h i s a d v i s o r may  ( ( ( (  ) ) ) )  (  )  (  )  be:  check  ALL  which  apply.  A LAWYER NOT A LAWYER AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT I N THE GRIEVANCE REVIEW ONLY A P A S S I V E PARTICIPANT I N THE GRIEVANCE REVIEW AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT I F REQUESTED TO BE BY THE PERSON CONDUCTING THE GRIEVANCE REVIEW OTHER Please explain:  263 30.  I s the s t u d e n t a b l e t o , p r o v i d e a w r i t t e n s u b m i s s i o n t o s u b s t a n t i a t e h i s or h e r reasons f o r requesting the review to the g r i e v a n c e r e v i e w e r ( s ) ? (  31.  )  )  which  apply  NO  YES  (  )  NO  .  TAPE RECORDING OF THE GRIEVANCE REVIEW PREPARING A WRITTEN TRANSCRIPT OF THE GRIEVANCE REVIEW ) PREPARING A WRITTEN SUMMARY OF THE GRIEVANCE REVIEW ) OTHER Please explain:  (  I n what f o r m i s t h e outcome o f a GRIEVANCE REVIEW Check  ALL  ) )  (  only  ( ( ( (  34.  )  D o c u m e n t a t i o n o f a GRIEVANCE REVIEW i n v o l v e s : Check ( (  33.  (  I s the s t u d e n t ' s c l i n i c a l i n s t r u c t o r a b l e t o p r o v i d e a written submission i n support of h i s or her reasons f o r making the c l i n i c a l e v a l u a t i o n d e c i s i o n ? (  32.  YES  one.  ) ) ) )  reported?  AS A RECOMMENDATION AS A SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AS A DECISION OTHER Please describe:  The outcome of a GRIEVANCE REVIEW i s r e p o r t e d t o : Check which  apply.  ( (  I ( ( ( (  THE STUDENT THE STUDENT'S C L I N I C A L INSTRUCTOR(S) A NURSING PROGRAM STANDING COMMITTEE HEAD OF THE NURSING PROGRAM HEAD OF THE INSTITUTION REGISTRAR OF THE INSTITUTION DEAN OF D I V I S I O N , SCHOOL, OR FACULTY OTHER --- P l e a s e e x o l a i n :  ALL  264 35.  I f a s t u d e n t d i s a g r e e s w i t h t h e outcome o f h i s o r h e r GRIEVANCE REVIEW i s ' t h e r e a FORMAL APPEAL PROCESS i n y o u r n u r s i n g program? (  )  YES  (  )  NO  I  .  ^ SECTION  E  SECTION D - FORMAL APPEAL HEARING OF STUDENT C L I N I C A L PERFORMANCE DECISIONS I n this survey a formal reconsideration of a student's clinical evaluation is referred to as an APPEAL HEARING . This hearing involves the p r e s e n t a t i o n o f materials related to the evaluation by all parties involved in the dispute. - This presentation is generally made to either a hearing officer or an impartial panel composed of both nurses and non-nurses.  36.  The l e n g t h o f t i m e b e t w e e n when a s t u d e n t r e c e i v e s h i s o r h e r c l i n i c a l e v a l u a t i o n o r outcome o f a GRIEVANCE REVIEW and when h e o r s h e may r e q u e s t an APPEAL HEARING i s : Check ALL which  apply.  ( ( ( 37.  S P E C I F I E D I N NURSING PROGRAM POLICY AND/OR PROCEDURES ) S P E C I F I E D "IN INSTITUTIONAL POLICY AND/OR PROCEDURES ) NOT-SPECIFIED  P r o c e d u r e s f o r an APPEAL HEARING a r e :  ( ( ( ( (  38.  )  ) ) ) ) )  .  (  )  (  )  ( ( (  ) ) )  ALL  which  Check  ALL  apply  WRITTEN UNWRITTEN FOLLOWED CONSISTENTLY ADAPTED TO INDIVIDUAL SITUATIONS OTHER Please describe:  P r o c e d u r e s f o r t h e APPEAL HEARING apply  Check  include:  which  INTERVIEWING THE STUDENT I N THE PRESENCE OF THE C L I N I C A L INSTRUCTOR(S) INTERVIEWING THE C L I N I C A L INSTRUCTOR(S) I N THE PRESENCE OF THE STUDENT INTERVIEWING THE C L I N I C A L INSTRUCTOR(S) ALONE INTERVIEWING THE STUDENT ALONE OTHER Please describe:  265 The  APPEAL HEARING PANEL f o r a n u r s i n g s t u d e n t ' s  evaluation  ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (  i s usually  ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )  composed  of:  check  ALL  clinical  which  apply.  STUDENTS NURSING FACULTY FROM THE NURSING PROGRAM NURSING EDUCATOR FROM OUTSIDE THE INSTITUTION NON-NURSING FACULTY MEMBERS A HEARING OFFICER THE HEAD OF THE INSTITUTION IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR OF THE NURSING PROGRAM HEAD THE HEAD OF THE NURSING PROGRAM OTHER Please describe:  To what a s p e c t o f t h e s t u d e n t ' s c l i n i c a l d e c i s i o n i s t h e APPEAL HEARING d i r e c t e d :  performance check ALL which  apply.  ( ( ( (  Are  )  THE V A L I D I T Y OF OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ORIGINAL EVALUATOR AND USED TO DETERMINE THE EVALUATION OUTCOME ) THE FAIRNESS AND REASONABLENESS OF THE EVALUATION OUTCOME ) THE PROCEDURES USED DURING THE EVALUATION OF THE STUDENT ) .OTHER Please describe:  individuals (  )  i n t e r v i e w e d as p a r t o f t h i s APPEAL HEARING? YES  (  )  NO Q .47  Who  i s usually  ( ( ( ( ( (  ) ) ) ) )  interviewed?  check  ALL  which  apply.  THE STUDENT THE STUDENT'S PEERS THE STUDENT'S C L I N I C A L INSTRUCTOR(S) THE HEAD OF THE NURSING PROGRAM I N D I V I D U A L ( S ) WHO CONDUCTED THE GRIEVANCE REVIEW ) OTHER --- P l e a s e e x p l a i n :  266 43.  Has a s t u d e n t t h e r i g h t (  )  t o an a d v i s o r a t an APPEAL  YES  (  )  HEARING?  NO 0.45  44.  45.  This  a d v i s o r may  ( ( ( ( (  ) ) ) ) )  (  )  be:  check  ALL  which  A LAWYER NOT A LAWYER AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT I N THE HEARING ONLY A P A S S I V E PARTICIPANT I N THE HEARING AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT I F REQUESTED TO BE BY THE PANEL OR HEARING OFFICER OTHER Please explain:  I s the student's c l i n i c a l i n s t r u c t o r a d v i s o r t o t h e APPEAL HEARING? (  )  apply.  YES  a b l e t o b r i n g an (  )  NO Q . 47  46.  This  a d v i s o r may  ( ( ( ( (  ) ) ) ) )  (  )  be:  check  ALL  which  apply.  A LAWYER NOT A LAWYER AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT I N THE APPEAL HEARING ONLY A P A S S I V E PARTICIPANT I N THE APPEAL HEARING AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT I F REQUESTED TO BE BY THE PERSON CONDUCTING THE APPEAL HEARING OTHER Please describe:  267 What d o c u m e n t s a r e p e r m i t t e d t o b e a s s e s s e d HEARING?  Check  (  )  (  )  ( ( ( (  ) ) ) )  ( ( ( (  ) ) ) )  Evidence Check  which  Witnesses  a t t h e APPEAL  apply.  A WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY THE HEAD OF THE NURSING PROGRAM A WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY THE C L I N I C A L INSTRUCTOR(S) A WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY THE STUDENT A WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY THE STUDENT'S ADVISOR THE STUDENT'S EVALUATION REPORT ANECDOTAL NOTES ABOUT THE STUDENT'S C L I N I C A L PERFORMANCE THE STUDENT'S WRITTEN ASSIGNMENTS THE STUDENT'S PREVIOUS EVALUATION REPORTS THE STUDENT'S ENTIRE F I L E OTHER Please describe:  which i s permitted  ALL  HEARING  ALL  which  apply.  ( ( ( ( ( (  ) INVITED ) INVITED ) INVITED ) INVITED ) INVITED ) :OTHER  (  )  a hearing i s :  BY THE HEARING OFFICER BY THE HEARING PANEL BY THE STUDENT BY THE C L I N I C A L INSTRUCTOR(S) BY THE HEAD OF THE NURSING PROGRAM Please describe:  NOT S P E C I F I E D  who a r e p e r m i t t e d  are:  i n such  Check  ALL  t o be p r e s e n t  which  ( ( ( ( ( (  ) ) ) ) ) )  INVITED INVITED INVITED INVITED INVITED OTHER  (  )  NOT S P E C I F I E D  apply.  a t a n APPEAL  BY THE HEARING OFFICER BY THE HEARING PANEL BY THE STUDENT BY THE C L I N I C A L INSTRUCTOR(S) BY' THE HEAD OF THE NURSING PROGRAM Please describe:  268  50.  S u c h a n APPEAL HEARING i s :  ( ( C  ALL  ( ( ( (  52.  1  which  ) ) ) )  I n w h a t f o r m i s t h e o u t c o m e o f a n APPEAL HEARING r e p o r t e d ? .Check o n l y one. ) )  AS A RECOMMENDATION AS A SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AS A DECISION OTHER P l e a s e describe*.  T h e o u t c o m e o f a n APPEAL HEARING i s r e p o r t e d t o : which  54.  involves:  apply.  TAPE RECORDING OF THE HEARING PROCEEDINGS PREPARING A WRITTEN TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING PREPARING A WRITTEN SUMMARY OF THE HEARING OTHER Please describe:  ( (  53.  one.  OPEN TO THE P U B L I C CLOSED TO THE P U B L I C NORMALLY OPEN, CAN BE CLOSED AT THE STUDENT S REQUEST ) NORMALLY CLOSED, CAN BE OPEN AT THE STUDENT'S REQUEST  D o c u m e n t a t i o n o f an APPEAL HEARING Check  only  ) ) )  ( 51.  check  app  ALL  THE STUDENT THE STUDENT'S C L I N I C A L INSTRUCTOR(S) HEAD OF THE NURSING PROGRAM REGISTRAR OF THE INSTITUTION DEAN OF D I V I S I O N , SCHOOL, OR FACULTY HEAD OF THE INSTITUTION OTHER Please specify:  The s t u d e n t by t h e : ( ( (  Check  i s informed  Check  ) ) )  only  o f t h e outcome o f t h e APPEAL HEARING  one.  CHAIRPERSON OF THE APPEAL HEARING PANEL HEARING OFFICER HEAD OF THE INSTITUTION IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR OF NURSING PROGRAM HEAD OTHER Please describe:  269 55.  The APPEAL HEARING o f f i c e r or panel have the power t o : Check  only  (  )  ONLY MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE NURSING FACULTY TO CONSIDER ) ONLY MAKE A DECISION AS TO THE FAIRNESS OR REASONABLENESS OF THE CLINICAL EVALUATION ) CHANGE A NURSING STUDENT'S CLINICAL MARK ) OTHER Please describe:  ( ( (  56.  one.  The outcome o f the APPEAL HEARING i s p l a c e d on the student's file. (  )  YES  (  )  NO  I  ——  ^ Q .57  57.  R e s u l t i n g documentation from the APPEAL HEARING which Is p l a c e d on t h e student's f i l e i n c l u d e s : c h e c k ALL which apply. ( ( ( (  58.  ) ) ) )  A COPY OF A COPY OF A SUMMARY OTHER  THE HEARING DECISION THE HEARING PROCEEDINGS OF THE HEARING PROCEEDINGS Please describe:  I f a student d i s a g r e e s w i t h the APPEAL HEARING outcome, i s t h e r e another l e v e l o f appeal w i t h i n the i n s t i t u t i o n ? (  )  YES  (  )  NO END  OF  QUESTIONS  SECTION E - INSTITUTIONAL STUDENT APPEAL the  59.  This FORMAL  section APPEAL  refers to appeal HEARING.  procedures  which  are  beyond  I s the requirement f o r t h i s INSTITUTIONAL STUDENT APPEAL s p e c i f i e d i n the L e g i s l a t i v e A c t governing your i n s t i t u t i o n ' (  )  YES  (  )  NO ~ 1 Q . 60  270 60.  What i s the t i t l e of t h i s ACT?  61.  Students, i n your i n s t i t u t i o n , are made aware that such an INSTITUTIONAL STUDENT APPEAL i s a v a i l a b l e through: cho..-which  apply. (  INSTITUTION'S CALENDAR STUDENT HANDBOOK STUDENT NEWSPAPER STUDENT ORIENTATION MATERIALS INSTITUTION'S POLICY AND/OR PROCEDURE MANUAL STUDENTS ARE NOT MADE AWARE OF SUCH AN APPEAL OTHER Please describe:  )  ( ( ( (  62.  The l e n g t h o f time between when a student r e c e i v e s h i s or her c l i n i c a l . e v a l u a t i o n , outcome of a GRIEVANCE REVIEW, or outcome of an APPEAL HEARING and when he or she may request an INSTITUTIONAL STUDENT APPEAL i s : check only one. ( ( (  63.  )  SPECIFIED IN THE LEGISLATIVE ACT GOVERNING THE INSTITUTION ) SPECIFIED IN INSTITUTIONAL POLICY AND/OR PROCEDURES ) NOT SPECIFIED  Documentation used d u r i n g the.INSTITUTIONAL STUDENT APPEAL i s r e s t r i c t e d t o the t r a n s c r i p t s and summaries of the GRIEVANCE REVIEW and t h e APPEAL HEARING. ' (  )  )  YES  (  )  NO  271 W h i c h a d d i t i o n a l documents a r e a s s e s s e d :  Check  ALL  which  apply.  ( (  ) )  ( ( (  ) ) )  (  )  (  )  THE STUDENT S C L I N I C A L EVALUATION REPORT ANECDOTAL NOTES ABOUT THE STUDENT'S C L I N I C A L PERFORMANCE THE STUDENT'S V7RITTEN ASSIGNMENTS FOR THE COURSE THE STUDENT'S ENTIRE F I L E A WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY THE HEAD OF THE NURSING PROGRAM A WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY THE C L I N I C A L INSTRUCTOR(S) A WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY THE STUDENT 1  Who c o n d u c t s t h i s INSTITUTIONAL STUDENT APPEAL? Check  only  C ( ( ( (  one.  ) HEAD OF THE INSTITUTION ) SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE ) SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS ) SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES ) OTHER Please describe:  To what a s p e c t s o f t h e e v a l u a t i v e d e c i s i o n i s t h i s INSTITUTIONAL STUDENT APPEAL d i r e c t e d ? Check  apply.  ( ( ( (  )  which  THE V A L I D I T Y OF OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE, ORIGINAL EVALUATOR AND WHICH ARE USED TO DETERMINE THE EVALUATION OUTCOME ) THE FAIRNESS AND REASONABLENESS OF THE EVALUATION OUTCOME ) THE PROCEDURES USED DURING THE EVALUATION OF THE STUDENT ) OTHER Please explain: y  D o c u m e n t a t i o n o f s u c h an a p p e a l i n v o l v e s : apply.  ( ( ( (  ALL  ) ) ) )  TAPE RECORDING THE PROCEEDING PREPARING A WRITTEN TRANSCRIPT PREPARING A WRITTEN SUMMARY OTHER Please'describe:  check  ALL  which  27 2 The outcome o f t h e INSTITUTIONAL STUDENT APPEAL i s r e p o r t e d as  a;  Check  only  ( ( ( (  RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY OF FINDINGS DECISION OTHER Please describe:  ) ) ) )  one.  The INSTITUTIONAL STUDENT APPEAL r e v i e w e r s h a v e t h e power to:  Check  ( ( ( (  only  one.  )  ONLY MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE NURSING FACULTY TO CONSIDER ) ONLY MAKE A DECISION AS TO THE FAIRNESS OR REASONABLENESS OF THE C L I N I C A L EVALUATION ) CHANGE A NURSING STUDENT'S C L I N I C A L MARK ) OTHER Please describe:  The outcome o f t h e INSTITUTIONAL STUDENT APPEAL i s r e p o r t e d to  the:  ( ( ( ( (  Check  ) > ) ) )  only  one.  HEAD OF THE INSTITUTION SENATE OF THE INSTITUTION BOARD OF GOVERNORS BOARD OF TRUSTEES OTHER Please describe:  The s t u d e n t i s i n f o r m e d  STUDENT A P P E A L b y t h e :  ( ( ( ( ( (  ) ) ) ) ) )  o f t h e outcome o f t h i s check  only  one.  INSTITUTIONAL  HEAD OF THE INSTITUTION ' CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES REGISTRAR OF THE INSTITUTION OTHER Please describe:  The o u t c o m e o f t h i s INSTITUTIONAL STUDENT APPEAL on t h e s t u d e n t ' s f i l e . (  )  YES  (  )  i s placed  NO END  OF  QUESTIONS  273 73.  Resulting  documentation placed  includes:  check  ( (  ) )  (  )  (  )  ALL  which  on t h e s t u d e n t ' s  file  apply.  A COPY OF T H E D E C I S I O N A COPY OF T H E P R O C E E D I N G S OF T H E INSTITUTIONAL STUDENT A P P E A L A SUMMARY OF T H E P R O C E E D I N G S OF T H E I N S T I T U T I O N A L STUDENT A P P E A L OTHER Please describe:  Would you please now f i l l in the enclosed REPORT OF STUDENT CLINICAL, EVALUATION COMPLAINT FORMS. You are requested to complete ONE FORM FOR EACH NURSING STUDENT who has launched a GRIEVANCE REVIEW, an APPEAL HEARING, and/or an INSTITUTIONAL STUDENT APPEAL regarding his or her CLINICAL EVALUATION during the time period FROM JANUARY 1, 1978 UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 1984. If NO STUDENTS in your program have launched such actions your task Is done! Thank you for your help. Please refer to * on page 19 for further instructions• To ensure that the anonymity of students is preserved, you a r e r e q u e s t e d t o EXCLUDE names of students on your reports EXCEPT i n cases which have been judged in the courts. In this latter case, the names of a l l individuals Involved are public Information and will be needed to collect data about the court decisions. If you require more forms than provided, please make copies of the original form. Y o u a r e i n v i t e d t o make a n y a d d i t i o n a l c o m m e n t s w h i c h y o u f e e l would be o f v a l u e t o t h i s s t u d y on t h e back page o f t h i s survey.  *  P l e a s e i n c l u d e a n y W R I T T E N NURSING STUDENT C L I N I C A L E V A L U A T I O N , G R I E V A N C E , A P P E A L P O L I C I E S AND/OR PROCEDURES U S E D I N YOUR PROGRAM a n d / o r I N S T I T U T I O N with the c o m p l e t e d s u r v e y and r e p o r t s .  Please self-addressed  place all envelope  these documents and return these  In the to:  enclosed  MRS. C A R O L E ORCHARD, F A C U L T Y OF E D U C A T I O N , DEPARTMENT O F A D M I N I S T R A T I V E , A D U L T AND H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N , O F F I C E 1 1 , SOUTH S T A F F O F F I C E BLOCK., 2 1 2 5 MAIN M A L L , T H E U N I V E R S I T Y OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA, VANCOUVER, B . C . , V 6 T 1 Z 5 .  APPENDIX B INSTRUMENTS-2 TO ASSESS FREQUENCY OF STUDENT COMPLAINTS  275 REPORT PROGRAM  O F STUDENT  CLINICAL  EVALUATION  COMPLAINT  NO:  C A S E NUMBER:  ( P l e a s e j u s t number y o u r 1 to n)  cases  from  Y E A R : 19  1.  F o r e a c h r e v i e w t h e s t u d e n t ' s c o m p l a i n t was t a k e n t h r o u g h , p l e a s e c o m p l e t e t h e f o l l o w i n g s e t o f b o x e s b y c h e c k i n g 4/ t h e t y p e o f r e v i e w and t h e r e v i e w outcome I n t h e a p p r o p r i a t e box.  OUTCOME  LEVEL  GRIEVANCE  APPEAL  V  OF REVIEW  ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT UPHELD  ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT M O D I F I E D  REVIEW  HEARING  INSTITUTIONAL STUDENT A P P E A L  2.  I f t h e s t u d e n t ' s c l i n i c a l e v a l u a t i o n d e c i s i o n was MODIFIED at any l e v e l , p l e a s e b r i e f l y s t a t e , i n t h e space p r o v i d e d , the r e a s o n f o r t h e change. GRIEVANCE REVIEW  APPEAL  :  HEARING:  INSTITUTIONAL  STUDENT  APPEAL:  276  Did the student launch to an o u t s i d e agency? (  )  a l e g a l or a d m i n i s t r a t i v e appeal ( i . e . outside of the i n s t i t u t i o n )  YES  (  )  NO  1  J  PLEASE FORM FOR What  kind  of external appeal  was  USE NEW NEXT CASE  launched? Check  ALL  which  apply. ( ( ( (  ) ) ) )  J U D I C I A L THROUGH T H E COURTS C O M P L A I N T TO T H E HUMAN R I G H T S BRANCH C O M P L A I N T TO T H E P R O V I N C I A L OMBUDSMAN OTHER Please specify:  On w h a t b a s i s Check  Was  If of  only ( ( ( ( ( (  this  ) ) ) ) ) )  d i d the student  request  this  external  one. D E N I A L OF NATURAL J U S T I C E D I S C R I M I N A T I O N ON A P R O H I B T E D DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER B R E A C H OF CONTRACT EDUCATIONAL MALPRACTICE NOT KNOWN  review?  GROUND  case: ( ( (  ) ) )  ( (  ) )  Check ALL which apply. A D J U D I C A T E D B E F O R E T H E COURT S E T T L E D OUT OF COURT WITHDRAWN BY T H E STUDENT P R I O R TO A T R I A L H E A R I N G WITHOUT A S E T T L E M E N T I N V E S T I G A T E D BY T H E HUMAN R I G H T S BRANCH I N V E S T I G A T E D BY T H E P R O V I N C I A L OMBUDSMAN  t h i s c a s e went t o t r i a l o r a p p e a l t h e p l a i n t i f f and t h e d e f e n d a n t .  please  state  OR  t h e names  277 Was  this  case: ( ( ( (  ) ) ) )  (  )  Check  ALL  that  apply  T R I E D I N A COURT A P P E A L E D TO A H I G H E R COURT S E T T L E D OUT OF COURT S T O P P E D BY T H E STUDENT P R I O R TO A T R I A L H E A R I N G WITHOUT A S E T T L E M E N T HEARD B E F O R E A HUMAN R I G H T S COMMISSION  7.  I f t h i s c a s e went t o t r i a l o r a p p e a l of t h e p l a i n t i f f and t h e defendant.  8.  W h a t was t h e o u t c o m e o f t h e t r i a l , Check ALL that apply.  ( 9.  hearing,  state  or  t h e names  appeal?  I N S T I T U T I O N A L D E C I S I O N WAS UPHELD I N S T I T U T I O N A L D E C I S I O N WAS OVERTURNED I N S T I T U T I O N A L H E A R I N G WAS ORDERED I N S T I T U T I O N WAS R E Q U I R E D TO R E A D M I T STUDENT I N S T I T U T I O N WAS R E Q U I R E D TO ADVANCE STUDENT N E X T L E V E L OF PROGRAM NOT. KNOWN  TO  I f t h e o u t c o m e o f t h e t r i a l , h e a r i n g o r a p p e a l was n e g a t i v e f o r t h e I n s t i t u t i o n , has t h i s d e c i s i o n caused you t o change p o l i c i e s or procedures dealing with student clinical evaluation? (  10.  )  please  OR  )  YES  I f y o u a n s w e r e d Y E S t o q u e s t i o n 9, on what c h a n g e s were i n s t i t u t e d ?  Please further Thank refer  (  )  NO  could you please  comment  y o u r r e p o r t f o r t h i s s t u d e n t ' s complaint is completed. use a new form for your next student. If there are no student complaints to report, your task is now completed! you for y o u r assistance with this data collection. Please to the asterisk * on page 17 for further instructions•  APPENDIX C COVER LETTER  279  DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE, ADULT AND HIGHER EDUCATION TMI! UNIVKRSITY OI-'HHITISH COLUMBIA  The p u r p o s e o f t h i s l e t t e r i s t o r e q u e s t your a s s i s t a n c e i n the c o l l e c t i o n o f data about p r a c t i c e s used i n your n u r s i n g p r o g r a m a n d y o u r i n s t i t u t i o n when d e a l i n g w i t h s t u d e n t s who q u e s t i o n n e g a t i v e e v a l u a t i v e d e c i s i o n s made a b o u t t h e i r clinical performance. I am a d o c t o r a l c a n d i d a t e i n t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f A d m i n i s t r a t i v e , A d u l t , and H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a and a l s o a n u r s e e d u c a t o r and former a d m i n i s t r a t o r . W h i l e i n my a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o s i t i o n I b e c a m e concerned about'how-the r i g h t s o f students, nurse educators, n u r s i n g programs, and e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s were i n f l u e n c e d by the law, and t h e l a t i t u d e c l i n i c a l i n s t r u c t o r s had i n making judgments about a student's performance. The question with which I was c o n s t a n t l y f a c e d was w h a t k n o w l e d g e m u s t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s have i n order- t o a v o i d p r o b l e m s r e s u l t i n g from student evaluations? As a d o c t o r a l s t u d e n t I h a v e s e a r c h e d f o r i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t student/academic r i g h t s and found t h a t t h e r e i s v e r y limited r e s e a r c h i n t h i s a r e a . T h e r e f o r e , I am u n d e r t a k i n g , a s my d i s s e r t a t i o n study, a survey o f Canadian n u r s i n g programs t o d e t e r m i n e what a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e s and p r o c e d u r e s with r e s p e c t t o c l i n i c a l f a i l u r e o f n u r s i n g s t u d e n t s e x i s t and t o determine aspects o f their effectiveness. The survey w i l l also provide data about the frequency with which nursing students l a u n c h c o m p l a i n t s about e v a l u a t i v e d e c i s i o n s and s t u d e n t s ' success i n o v e r t u r n i n g such d e c i s i o n s . Data from t h i s survey a r e expected t o p r o v i d e the b a s i s f o r recommendations about a s e t o f s t r u c t u r e s and p r o c e d u r e s which w i l l p r o t e c t t h e r i g h t s o f s t u d e n t s , e d u c a t o r s , and i n s t i t u t i o n s , w h i l e a t t h e same t i m e e n s u r i n g t h a t t h e b a s i c l e g a l p r o v i s i o n s and t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e i n v o l v e d p a r t i e s a r e p r e s e r v e d .  ADMINISTRATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION  2125 MAIN MALL  VANCOUVER B.C.  V6T 125  (604) 22B-6349  280  the i n v o l v e d p a r t i e s are preserved. You, as t h e head o f a n u r s i n g program, a r e r e q u e s t e d t o complete t h e enclosed survey f o l l o w i n g the d i r e c t i o n s p r o v i d e d w i t h i n the survey t o o l . I N ADDITION YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PROVIDE ANY WRITTEN STUDENT EVALUATION, GRIEVANCE AND/OR APPEAL P O L I C I E S AND/OR PROCEDURES USED I N YOUR NURSING PROGRAM AND I N YOUR I N S T I U T I O N . I t w o u l d a l s o be h e l p f u l , t o t h e s t u d y , i f y o u w o u l d i n c l u d e an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c h a r t o f y o u r i n s t i t u t i o n . A l l d a t a s u p p l i e d b y y o u w i l l r e m a i n CONFIDENTIAL and w i l l o n l y be u s e d f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h i s s t u d y . S t u d e n t s , n u r s i n g p r o g r a m s , and i n s t i t u t i o n s w i l l r e m a i n ANONYMOUS. be to in 25  Once t h e s t u d y i s c o m p l e t e d , a summary o f t h e f i n d i n g s w i l l p r o v i d e d t o a l l respondents o f the survey. You a r e r e q u e s t e d c o m p l e t e t h e e n c l o s e d s u r v e y a s s o o n a s p o s s i b l e and r e t u r n i t t h e s e l f - a d d r e s s e d e n v e l o p e ( p o s t a g e p r o v i d e d w i l l c o v e r up t o pages o f m a t e r i a l s ) .  I n a p p r e c i a t i o n o f t h e t i m e y o u w i l l need t o d e v o t e t o c o m p l e t i o n o f t h i s s u r v e y , p l e a s e a c c e p t t h e p i n e n c l o s e d as a s m a l l t o k e n o f ray t h a n k s f o r y o u r p a r t i c i p a t i o n .  S incerely, C a r o l e O r c h a r d , RN, BSN, MEd. Doctoral Candidate  V  281  APPENDIX D DATA COLLECTION TOOL FOR  INSTRUMENT-1  CODING INSTRUMENT  282  CARD NO.---[01] COLUMN NO. [01] [02]  PROGRAM NO. SECTION A - GENERAL INFORMATION 1.  Province i n s t i t u t i o n  located  NO RESPONSE 1.01 BRITISH COLUMBIA -1.02 ALBERTA -1 .03 SASKATCHEWAN 1.04 MANITOBA --1.05 ONTARIO -* 1.06 NEW BRUNSWICK --* --1.07 NOVA SCOTIA — --1.08 PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND * 1.09 NEWFOUNDLAND* , , „ , - , . - „ - . , ^ - n - ^ - - 1 . 1 0 2.  Type o f i n s t i t u t i o n NO RESPONSE--------*---HOSPITAL ----COLLEGE---------------TECHNICAL INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY---OTHER 1 V-n  3.  [03] [04]  T o t a l i n s t i t u t i o n a l student  ---  2 .01 ---.-2 .02 2.03 --------,---.2.04 *--* T---2.05 .--2 .06  [05]  enrollment  NO RESPONSE,,--,,-,-.-,,3.01 0 - 499 -----,---,--,--,,---3.02 500 - 9 9 9 , - - - , , , - , , - - , , -,,.,,,3.03 1000 - 1499--*----*------------3.04 1500 - 1999**-*-**---*-**-----*3.05 2000 * 2499*-**--*---*--*-*----*-*-*3.06 2500 - 2999** ****---,,,---,3.07 3000 - 3 9 9 9 * - - - - - - - - , - - 3 . 0 8 4000 - 4999* ,--,,-,,,,-.--,,-,,-3.09 5000 - 5999 ,,.,--,--.-.-,3.10 6000 - 6999---*---*-,,,,,--,,--,3.11 7000 - 7999---* -** ------3.12 8000 - 8999---*----*----**---*-*--**3.13 9000 - 9999--**------****-**-*--****3.14 10000 - 14999*--*-**--t*-***----****-3.15 15000+ *--*-**, ,,,,-3.16 NOT APPLICABLE-.------,,-----,-------,3.17  [06] [07]  283 CARD NO.  [01] CONT'D  4.  of nursing  Type  COLUMN program  NO R E S P O N S E DIPLOMA GENERIC BACCALAUREATE---  -  --  4.01  -----4.02 ----,,-4.03  P O S T RN B A C C A L A U R E A T E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 . 0 4  5.  Student  [08] [09] [10] [11] [12]  --n--,--4.05  MASTER'S----------------OTHER--  NO.  ,--,-.---,---.,,-----...-.-4.06  enrollment  i n nursing  program.  DIPLOMA:  5.1.01 0 , 9 9 - - - , - . - - 5 . 1 . 0 2 100 - l 4 9 - - i - - - - i - i - - - - - - - 1--5.1.03  NO  RESPONSE  150 - 199-,---,—,,  200 250 300 350  n  400 —  >•*--—-----»----5 .1.04  249---i------i---------1-5.1.05 299 — - — --^-----------5.1.06 349.-.,,5.1.07 399-----------5.1.08 449--IIIIII-II----II-I---II---5.1.09  450 +----_,,,,,,-,.--,-., GENERIC  [13] [14]  ------5.1.10  BACCALAUREATE:  NO RESPONSE-------------------n------5.2.01 0 - 99f---i-i---i------------iii--5.2.02 100 - 149----------,---------,-5.2.03 150 1 9 9 , 5 . 2 . 0 4 200 - 2 4 9 - - - i - i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i - - - - 5 . 2 . 0 5 250 i 2 9 9 i - - - - - - m - n - i - - - i - - - - - i - - - 5 .2 .06 300 - 349 -,-,---*5.2.07 350 - 3 9 9 - i - - - - - - - i - - - - - - - - - - - - - i - - - 5 . 2 . 0 8 400 - 4 4 9 - - - - * i i - - - - i - i - - i - - - - - - - - i i 5 . 2 . 0 9 450 + ----r,^m----T- -n-f, . - - - i - i - - - 5 .2 .10  [15] [16]  t  POST  RN  NO  BACCALAUREATE:  0 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450  R E S P O N S E - m i - - - - - - 5 . 3 . 0 1 ., 99,,-,-,--.,, ,,,---,,,,.-,5.3.02 n-149-------1-1-1---5.3.03 - 199--,-.-,-,,--.,,,,,^.,,5.3.04 - 249i-«»--i-.9------T-.-»-*,-,,.-»-,,5.3-05 - 2 9 9 - - - - - - - n - - - - 5 . 3 .06 - 349----1---1---1---------5.3.07 - 399-H--------1---1---1-------5.3 .08 - 449- — 1----------1-1----------5.3.09 + --,-.,-.,,-,,-,,--,--,----,,--5.3.10 n  [17] [18]  284  CARD NO. [01] CONT'D  6.  COLUMN NO.  MASTER'S: NO RESPONSE-**--*---* - — *--- — —5.4.01 0 ....... , *--*5.4.02 100 - 149-* * * ----5.4.03 150 - 199 — **--* 5.4.04 200 .-5.4.05 250 -,_-,--5.4.06 300 - 349 — -------------!*-*----*-5 .4.07 350 5.4.08 400 - 449--,-,5.4.09 450 5.4.10  [19] [20]  OTHER: NO RESPONSE***-* *-*--*----*-*---*5.5.01 0 - 99,,-.-,-,,,, -----5.5.02 100 - 149----**---*------*---* 5.5.03 150 - 199 — - — ** — - — -* — * — * — — *-<5.5.04 200 - 249,,,.,,-,-,,,-,,,,-,,-5.5.05 250 - 299 — - — *-*-*-*- — — — — — * —5.5.06 300 - 349- — * * * * — - —********** —**5.5.07 350 * 399-******** — — — — * — * —-**5.5.08 400 * 449*-?* — * - — * — — * — — *- — * —5.5.09 450+ ,..,5.5.10  [21] [22]  Average age o f e n t e r i n g n u r s i n g  students.  DIPLOMA: : NO RESPONSE--* *-**6 .1 .01 16 - 18 YEARS — * ** - — — * — ** — 6 . 1 .02 19 - 21 YEARS-***-*------***-**-**--6.1.03 22 - 24 YEARS------*---*-**--*-**--*6.1.04 25 - 27 YEARS-***-*-**-**-****-*-***6.1.05 28 - 30 YEARS-----**---*-** ----*6.1.06 31 - 33 YEARS*- — ****** — — — * — —6.1.07 34 + YEARS**— — — * — * — , — -6.1.08  [23]  BACCALAUREATE: NO RESPONSE—— — — — — * - t — ** — — — *6 .2.01 16 * 18 YEARS-* — — — — * — — — — — — 6.2.02 19 - 21 Y E A R S — — — * — — — — — * —-6.2.03 22 * 24 YEARS — — — ** — ** — *-* — — — 6.2.04 25 - 27 YEARS--*-** .----.,---,,.6.2.05 28 * 30 YEARS • ** 6.2.06 31 - 33 YEARS**-**-*-** - — — — — 6.2.07 34 + YEARS-—-----*-*-***---*--**---6.2.08  [24]  285 CARD NO. SECTION 7.  [ 0 1 ] CONT'D B - ASSESSMENT  Nursing  program  OF  STUDENTS'  evaluation  CLINICAL  policies  and/or  Original  decision  procedures are: -7 . 0 1  NO R E S P O N S E - - WRITTEN- i UNWRITTEN------^----APPLIED CONSISTENTLY t • A D A P T E D TO I N D I V I D U A L S I T U A T I O N S -  8.  PERFORMANCE  -7.05 -7.06  i n the n u r s i n g program  9.  D e c i s i o n made NO  ---  INSTRUCTOR by  instructor  and:  ----9.01  RESPONSE------------------  NO R E S P O N S E : >-----10.01 Y E S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - t - - - - - 1 0 .02 NO - - • j - - - 7 - - - - - - T - - - T - - t - t - T - - - - - - n - t - - - - - - 1 0 . 0 3 review NO  clinical  performance  RESPONSE1-----------T-1-----  program  policies  and/or  [31] [33] [35]  [37]  [32] [34] [36]  [38]  i s assessed of: 11.01  A L L S T U D E N T S I N COURSE--------------11.02 F A I L I N G STUDENTS--,------------11.03 S T U D E N T S WITH P R O B L E M S - - - - ^ - - - - - - - - l l .04 12. N u r s i n g  [30]  ----^8.03  RNS S U P E R V I S I N G STUDENT--------------9.02 INDIVIDUAL EVALUATOR------t----------9.03 I M M E D I A T E S U P E R V I S O R OF I N S T R U C T O R - - - 9 . 0 4 PROGRAM H E A D - - - - - - 1 - - 1 T - 1 - 9.05 N U R S I N G F A C U L T Y COMMITTEE -----9.06 TOTAL FACULTY• - - 9 .0 7 OTHER- - -- 7- 9.O8 10. R e v i e w o f o r i g i n a l d e c i s i o n b y o t h e r s :  11. D u r i n g  .29]  i s made b y :  NO R E S P O N S E - - - -- -- -.,---------,,8.01 MORE THAN ONE I N S T R U C T O R - - n 8.02 ONE  [25] [26" ;27; 28  [39] [40] [41]  procedures are:  NO R E S P O N S E nT - - - - - - - n t - - r l l . 0 1 >12.02 I D E N T I C A L TO I N S T I T U T I O N A L D I F F E R E N T FROM•12.03 A MODIFICATION OF -12.04 MORE S P E C I F I C THAN--------• •12.05 LESS S P E C I F I C THAN----TT---T----I----12.06 ONLY P O L I C I E S - - T - - - - ^ - - n - - - - - - - - - , - - - 1 2 . 0 7 NON-EXISTENT---^--------------------12.08 O T H E R - -r-r------,---,-,,-,12.09  [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]  [42]  286 CARD NO. 13.  [ 0 1 ] CONT'D  Student outside  c l i n i c a l performance decisions o f your n u r s i n g program.  are routinely  NO R E S P O N S E - - ..--,------.-,-.-13.01 YES--------,,---.---,--..---...13.02 NO--— ...-..,,--.,--,--.-.,,,,--,13.03 14.  This  review NO AT AT AT AT AT  During  [51]  occurs:  R E S P O N S E - - - - - - - - - - 1 4 . 0 1 END O F TERM OR S E M E S T E R - - - - - - - - - - 1 4 . 0 2 END OF ACADEMIC Y E A R - , - * , . - , - - - - - 1 4 . 0 3 M I D - P O I N T OF TERM OR S E M E S T E R - - - - 1 4 . 0 4 M I D - P O I N T OF A C A D E M I C Y E A R - - - - - - - 1 4 . 0 5 END OF NURSING PROGRAM------14.06  OTHER 15.  this  [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]  ,,.,,14.07 review  nursing  students  considered  [57] include:  NO R E S P O N S E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 5 . 0 1 A L L STUDENTS I N COURSE---------15.02 FAILING STUDENTS—------------------15.03 S T U D E N T S WITH P R O B L E M S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 5 . 0 4 O T H E R — — --- — * — — * — — — — — — — — 15.05 16.  Decisions  reviewed  Student  given  opportunity  NO R E S P O N S E Y E S — — -- — NO--- — — —  [58] [59] [60] [61]  by:  NO R E S P O N S E * - - - - - , , - - - - - , - - , - - - - - - - - 1 6 . 0 1 DEAN OF D I V I S I O N , SCHOOL ---16.02 D I R E C T O R OF PROGRAM ---16.03 I N S T I T U T I O N COMMITTEE-----16.04 REVIEW PANEL--- — - - * - — **-* — - — — — 16.05 OTHER----*-*----------16.06 17.  reviewed  to question  [62] [63] [64] [65] [66]  evaluation? 17.01 17 .02 17.03  [67]  287 CARD NO.  -*-[02]  COLUMN  „„ ,.„.,...,.„,,.,„..„.,„,„..,.,...[oi]  PROGRAM  NO.-  SECTION  C - INFORMAL G R I E V A N C E DECISIONS  n  REVIEW  OF  STUDENT  CLINICAL  18. L e n g t h o f t i m e b e t w e e n r e c e i v i n g c l i n i c a l e v a l u a t i o n G r i e v a n c e Review i s : NO R E S P O N S E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -,----------18.01 S P E C I F I E D I N NURSING PROGRAM P O L I C Y - - - - - - 1 8 . 0 2 S P E C I F I E D I N I N S T I T U T I O N A L PROCEDURES <-l&.03 NOT S P E C I F I E D - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 8 . 0 4 19.  Student  initially  contacts  i f questions  20.  Procedures  f o r a Grievance  :  21.  Documents t o be  and r e q u e s t  [03]  [04]  Review a r e :  NO R E S P O N S E - - - - - - ,20.01 WRITTEN •-.-* - * - * - * * - - * - - * - - - - - - - * - - - - -20.02 UNWRITTEN---*---*----*----------------*-*20.03 FOLLOWED C O N S I S T E N T L Y - * - - - * * * * * - - * * - - - * - - 2 0 . 0 4 A D A P T E D TO I N D I V I D U A L S I T U A T I O N S - -20.05 OTHER----*-------*****--*---**-***-*-----20.06  [05] [06] [07] [08] [09]  assessed:  NO R E S P O N S E - * - - - - * - - - - * - - - - - - - * - - * * - - - - - - 2 1 . 0 1 THE STUDENT'S C L I N I C A L EVALUATION REPORT-21.02 A N E C D O T A L N O T E S ABOUT T H E S T U D E N T ' S C L I N I C A L PERFORMANCE-*---------* -----21.03 STUDENT'S WRITTEN ASSIGNMENTS------------21.04 THE STUDENT'S PREVIOUS C L I N I C A L EVALUATION REPORTS-----------------------21.05 T H E S T U D E N T ' S E N T I R E NURSING F I L E - - - - - - - - 2 1 . 0 6 OTHER--*-----*-****----*--*-----****-**-*21.07  [02]  PERFORMANCE  evaluation.  NO R E S P O N S E - - - * - - - - - - - ---------19.01 C L I N I C A L INSTRUCTOR----------------------19.02 C H A I R P E R S O N OF STANDING C O M M I T T E E - - - 19.03 HEAD OF N U R S I N G PROGRAM------------19.04 REGISTRAR----**--**-----*-**---*-----**--19.05 HEAD OF I N S T I T U T I O N - * - - - - - - * - - - * - ---19.06 OTHER---*--------*------------*----------19.07  NO.  [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]  f  CARD NO. [ 0 2 ] CONT'D 22. Who c o n d u c t s  288  this  Grievance  Review:  NO R E S P O N S E -  23.  -------22.01  THE STUDENT'S C L I N I C A L INSTRUCTOR---22.02 I M P A R T I A L NURSING INSTRUCTOR ----22.03 NURSING STANDING COMMITTEE--T-----22.04 S P E C I A L GRIEVANCE REVIEW PANEL--22.05 HEARING OFFICER-----,------------I------T-22.06 OTHER ----,,---------------.,---22 .07 Grievance Review o f e v a l u a t i v e d e c i s i o n i s d i r e c t e d NO R E S P O N S E - - n - - - - - - - - 23.01 V A L I D I T Y O F O B S E R V A T I O N S MADE-- - - - -t - '-23.02 F A I R N E S S AND R E A S O N A B L E N E S S - - t - - - - - - - - - - n 2 3 . 0 3 P R O C E D U R E S U S E D - - - - n - - i - - r - - - n - - - - - n - - - - - - 2 3 .04 OTHER--,-,----,,-------------,----------,23.05  24.  Individuals  -  Who i s u s u a l l y  -  ,  [21]  25 .01  T H E S T U D E N T - - - - - T - - - - - - - T - - i - » - - r - - - T - n - r , - - 2 5 .02 THE STUDENT'S PEERS-- — ------n--i--------25.03 THE STUDENT'S INSTRUCTOR(S)--n-----n-----25.04 OTHER- - - - « T - - n - i - i i - i - - - n - - - - - - - T - - - - - i - n T - 2 5 . 0 5 Student  [17] [18] [19] [20]  interviewed?  NO R E S P O N S E -  26.  toward?  interviewed:  NO R E S P O N S E ,-,,.-24.01 YES-----i- '"'"'- --i---i'7-i i----'»i-t-i'T----24.02 NO--T-------24.03 25.  [16]  has right  [22] [23] [24] [25]  t o an a d v i s o r :  NO R E S P O N S E - - - - --:-----n------------ ------26.01 YES" - —r---ti----i---:-jn-7----i--------r----^—'-26.02 1  [26]  NO - • t n i t - - - - n * - - 1 - * i " T - i - - n - - - - r » - - - - - - n - " * - 2 6 . 0 3 ,  27.  Advisor  may b e :  NO R E S P O N S E - T - - - - - - t r . - - - - r T T - - - T T - t m - i - - T T - » 2 7 .01 A LAWYER--?-T---T-"Ti--tr - - - , r , - - - n - - , - ( - - - - , i 27.02 NOT A LAWYER--.-n-.T-i----n-T-T-t------:---,-27 .03 AN A C T I V E P A R T I C I P A N T I N T H E H E A R I N G 27.04 ONLY A P A S S I V E P A R T I C I P A N T I N HEARING----27.05 AN A C T I V E P A R T I C I P A N T I F R E Q U E S T E D - --27.06 t  [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]  OTHER- - - i - - - - - - - - n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - t - - - - - - r - 2 7 . 0 7 28.  Instructor has right  to counsel  at hearing:  NO R E S P O N S E - 1 - - - - i i - - - - - - - - - - - n - r - t - - - - - - - - 2 8 .01 YES  28.02  [32]  289 ARD  NO.  [ 0 2 ] CONT'D COLUMN  9.  Advisor  may  be:  NO R E S P O N S E - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - , . - - , - - - - 2 9 . 0 1 A LAWYER--------------------------29.02 NOT A L A W Y E R - * - * - * - - - - * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 9 . 0 3 ACTIVE PARTICIPANT-----***--**-----**--29.04 PASSIVE PARTICIPANT---**---**--*-------29.05 A C T I V E I F REQUESTED-------------,------29.06 OTHER------------*-**------*---*-*-----29.07 Student NO  NO.  able  to provide  a written  [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]  submission?  RESPONSE--------***-----*-----*,*---30.01  Y E S - - - - - - i - - - - - - - T - - - - - - - - - 3 0 . 0 2  [39 ]  NO-----**----------------**------**----30 .03 Student's  clinical  instructor  able  to provide  a written  NO R E S P O N S E - - * - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 1 . 0 1 YES--*-*--*--*-*-------***-------*--**-31.02 NO--***-*--*******-----**--*-*----*-**-31.03 Documentation  of a Grievance  Review  of the Grievance  Review  Is  of the Grievance  Review  [41] [42] [43] [44]  reported:  NO R E S P O N S E - - * - - - - - - - *-*-**33.01 AS A RECOMMENDATION--** -----------33.02 AS A SUMMARY OF F I N D I N G S - - - - - - - * * * * - - - - 3 3 . 0 3 AS A D E C I S I O N * * * - * * * - * - - - - - - - - - - - * - - * - - 3 3 . 0 4 OTHER- - - - -- - * * * * * * - - - * - - * - - i - - * - * * * * * * * - 3 3 . 0 5 Outcome  [40]  involves:  NO R E S P O N S E - - - - - . - * - * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 - 3 2 . 0 1 T A P E R E C O R D I N G OF T H E P R O C E E D I N G S - - - - - - 3 2 . 0 2 WRITTEN T R A N S C R I P T - - * - - - - - * * - - * * - - - - - - - 3 2 . 0 3 W R I T T E N SUMMARY**------------,***--*-**32.04 OTHER--*--*****-*****------------------32.05 Outcome  submission?  i s reported  [45]  to:  NO R E S P O N S E * * - - * - * * * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 4 . 0 1 THE STUDENT----*--*-----*--------------,34.02 THE STUDENT'S I N S T R U C T O R ( S ) - - - - - - - * * - * - - 3 4 . 0 3 A STANDING COMMITTEE-*-----*-*-**-----*-34.04 HEAD OF T H E N U R S I N G PROGRAM-**--*---**-- 3 4 . 0 5 HEAD OF T H E I N S T I T U T I O N - - -*--------34.06 REGISTRAR OF THE I N S T I T U T I O N * - * * - - * - - - - * 3 4 . 0 7 DEAN OF F A C U L T Y OR D I V I S I O N - * * - * - - - * - - - * 3 4 . 0 8 OTHER----------*----**----*--,---**-----34.09  [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53]  290 CARD NO. 35.  [ 0 2 ] CONT'D  I f student  disagrees  COLUMN NO i s there  a Formal  Appeal  Process?  NO R E S P O N S E ,,,-,,-.35 .01 YES - - i-^-r.---!-i<iii-"i»Ti-ii- — - i ' ' n - - ; - - - 3 5 . 0 2 NO--* - " * - * ,T * - - - - - - - - - , 3 5 .03 SECTION  36.  D * FORMAL A P P E A L H E A R I N G DECISIONS  Length  o ftime  between  request  O F STUDENT  CLINICAL  PERFORMANCE  and h e a r i n g :  NO R E S P O N S E .-,-,.36.01 S P E C I F I E D I N NURSING PROGRAM P O L I C Y - - - - - - - 3 6 . 0 2 S P E C I F I E D I N I N S T I T U T I O N A L P O L I C Y - 3 6 .03 NOT S P E C I F I E D - - * - * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 6 . 0 4 37.  Procedures  f o r an Appeal  UNWRITTEN*-*--***-***--**----**----*----***-37.03 FOLLOWED C O N S I S T E N T L Y - - - - - , , - , - - - 3 7 .04 A D A P T E D TO I N D I V I D U A L S I T U A T I O N S - * - - - - - - - - - - 3 7 . 0 5 OTHER- - * * * * - * - - * - - - * - * - ^ * - - - - - " 7 - - - - - - - - t - - * - 3 7 . 0 6  39.  Procedures  f o r Appeal  [55] [56] [57]  Hearing are:  NO R E S P O N S E - - - - - - - - * - * - - - * - - - * * - - - * - - - - * * - * - 3 7 . 0 1 W R I T T E N - - -- • » " t - - - - t - - " " " T i - n i T 7 - - - - n - t - t - - T - * - - - T ( T 3 7 . 0 2  38.  [54]  Hearing  [58 ]  [59] [60] [61] [62]  include:  NO R E S P O N S E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * - - - - * - - * - * - - - * - * 3 8 . 0 1 STUDENT I N T E R V I E W E D I N I N S T R U C T O R P R E S E N C E - - 3 8 . 0 2 I N S T R U C T O R I N T E R V I E W E D I N STUDENT P R E S E N C E - - 3 8 . 0 3 INTERVIEW INSTRUCTOR ALONE-----*----***--*--38.04 I N T E R V I E W STUDENT A L O N E - - - * - - - - * - - - * - - - - - - - - 3 8 . 0 5  [63] [64] [65] [66]  OTHER----------------1------------------1---38.06  [67]  Appeal  Hearing  Panel  i s composed o f :  NO R E S P O N S E - - * * - - * ,----* 3 9 . 0 1 STUDENTS * * * - * * - - - * * - - * - * - * - * - - * - 7 - * - T 7 - * - t - - - - 3 9 . 0 2 N U R S I N G F A C U L T Y FROM NURSING PROGRAM*-------39.03 N U R S I N G F A C U L T Y FROM O U T S I D E - * - - - - - - - - - * - - - - 3 9 . 0 4 NON-NURSING F A C U L T Y * * * - - - - - - - - * - * * - - - - - - - - - - 3 9 . 0 5  [68] [69] [70] [71]  HEARING O F F I C E R - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 9 . 0 6  [72]  I M M E D I A T E S U P E R V I S O R O F PROGRAM H E A D - - - - - - - - 3 9 . 0 7 HEAD O F N U R S I N G PROGRAM------*---*--*-------39.08 HEAD O F I N S T I T U T I O N - - - * - - * - - - - - * - - - * * - - - - - - - 3 9 . 0 9 OTHER * * ! * * * 3 9 . io  [73] [74] [75] [76 ]  291  NO.  [02]  Review  CONT'D  i s directed  COLUMN toward:  NO RESPONSE---„--.,----..,-------,------------40.01 VALIDITY OF OBSERVATIONS--n-------------1---,40 .02 FAIRNESS AND REASONABLENESS-------i---------40.03 PROCEDURES USEDt------1-->» n - - - i r : - i - 4 0 .04 OTHER *----40.05  [77] [78] [79] [80]  292 CARD NO. [ 0 3 ]  COLUMN NO.  PROGRAM NO.-------------41.  Individuals  ------.,-------,-------.,,-[01] [ 0 2 ]  are interviewed  NO RESPONSE1--1 --,,,,-----,,--,,,-----,,,-,.-,41.1 Y E S r - - - - - - - - - - - - - t - - - i - r - - - n - - n - - * - - T - n - - - - - - - - - - - 4 1 . 2 [03] NO---------,,.,,---,,-,------------,-44.3 42  Who i s i n t e r v i e w e d ?  NO RESPONSE- - - - - - - ! i i - - - - - - i i - - - - - i - i i t i m n - - - : i - -42 . 1 STUDENT - - - - m n i r r n - T ^ - T - T - - - m - - f , - - T - - - 4 2 .2 [04] STUDENT'S P E E R S - i - i i i - i - - - i i - - - i i i i i - i i ' . - - - i i - - i - - 4 2 .3 [05] CLINICAL I N S T R U C T O R ( S ) - - - - i - - i - t i i i i n i i - i i - i - - - - i 4 2 . 4 [06] HEAD OF NURSING P R O G R A M n - i - - - - - - i - - - i i i i - - - - - - - - i 4 2 . 5 [07] INDIVIDUAL WHO CONDUCTED GRIEVANCE REVIEW---------42.6 [08] OTHER- n - - i i - - - i - i 9 - i i i i i - - i i - i i - n - i n i - - - i i - - - - i 4 2 .7 [09] ,  43.  Student  has r i g h t  a  t o an  1  advisor:  NO RESPONSE--i - -111 - - -1 - -111 -1 - -1 - 1 1 1 1 - u i - -1 -1 -1 i - -43 .1 YES--i--iiii'-----ii---i--i-iiiiii---"»i-" iiii--i--43 .2 [10] NOl - r t - - 1 i i l i i l i - - i - - - - - - - i i - i i - i - i - i i - - - - - i - - - - - - i 4 3 . 3 i  ,  44.  This  ,  a d v i s o r can be:  NO R E S P O N S E - - i - i - - - * - i n - i i 1 - 1 1 - 1 - - - - - - - - I - - - i m - - 4 4 . 1 LAWYER- "ti"»1ii-ni-i-TJin1iiii-rtini4i>*-'i-n----t--44.2 [11] NOT A L A W Y E R i i i i i - i i i i r t i - » i m i i i n i i i i i - i : t i n i - i i i i 4 4 . 3 [12] ACTIVE P A R T I C I P A N T i i i - - i - t - - i i H - - T , - - » i , i ^ , - i - n - - , - - 4 4 . 4 [13] PASSIVE PARTICIPANTi--^i-ii'»iinii-iii-----iii-i--44.5 [14] ACTIVE I F R E Q U E S T E D i S n - T i - i - i - , i - - ^ - i i - i i i i - - i i - r - 4 4 . 6 [15] O T H E R i i - n i n » i i i i - - i i i - 7 - - i i i - i i i i i - i i - - i i - i m --r i 4 4 .7 [16] ,  45.  Clinical  instructor  ,  has r i g h t  t o an  advisor:  NO RESPONSEl " T i n - - i * i - i - i - i i - i i i i t - n i - n - i - i - - n - 4 5 . 1 YES - T t i 1 ^ l i i i w i i 1 - - i i 1 1 - - - i i i i i " t l i i - i ' 1 i i i - i i i l - i - ' i i 4 5 . 2 [17] NOl  11-T591^1111111-1--1111111--ni1-»i--'- -r-t--TT-!T--745.3 ,  293 CARD NO. 46. T h i s  [ 0 3 ] CONT'D a d v i s o r can be:  COLUMN  NO R E S P O N S E — i n T ^ - - " r " " T n - ^ i " « " -,46 .1 LAWYER-,,,,---,-,---------------,-----------------46.2 NOT A LAWYER--,-----------------------------------46.3 ACTIVE PARTICIPANT--------------------------------46.4 PASSIVE PARTICIPANT,------------------------------46.5 ACTIVE I F R E Q U E S T E D , - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 6 . 6 O T H E R 4 6 .7 47.  Documents t o be a s s e s s e d  NO.  [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]  include:  NO R E S P O N S E i - , - - - 4 7 . 1 W R I T T E N S U B M I S S I O N BY HEAD OF P R O G R A M - - 4 7 . 2 [24] W R I T T E N S U B M I S S I O N BY C L I N I C A L I N S T R U C T O R - - - - - - - - - 4 7 3 [ 2 5 ] W R I T T E N S U B M I S S I O N BY S T U D E N T - - - - - - - - - , - - - 4 7 . 4 [ 2 6 ] W R I T T E N S U B M I S S I O N BY S T U D E N T ' S A D V I S O R - - - - - - - - - - - 4 7 . 5 [ 2 7 ] THE STUDENT'S EVALUATION REPORT-------------------47.6 [ 2 8 ] A N E C D O T A L NOTES ABOUT T H E S T U D E N T ' S PERFORMANCE---47.7 [29] T H E S T U D E N T ' S WRITTEN A S S I G N M E N T S - - - - - T - - - - - - - - - - - 4 7 . 8 [ 3 0 ] T H E STUDENT'S PREVIOUS EVALUATION REPORTS---------47.9 [ 3 1 ] T H E STUDENT'S E N T I R E F I L E - , 4 7 . 1 0 [ 3 2 ] OTHER- - -- -- -- -- -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i - - - - - - 4 7 . 1 1 [ 3 3 ] 48.  Evidence  permitted at the hearing:  NO R E S P O N S E - , - , - * - , - - - - - - - , , 4 8 .1 I N V I T E D BY H E A R I N G O F F I C E R - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 8 . 2 I N V I T E D BY H E A R I N G P A N E L 4 8 . 3 I N V I T E D BY S T U D E N T , - - * - - , - - - - * * - - - - - * - * * * - - - - - - * * - 4 8 . 4 I N V I T E D BY C L I N I C A L I N S T R U C T O R , - , , - - * * - - - - - - - * * - - - 4 8 . 5 I N V I T E D BY HEAD OF NURSING PROGRAM----------------48.6 O T H E R - - - - * i t " i --------------------48 . 7 NOT S P E C I F I E D - * , * , * , - , - * * - - * - , - - - - - - - - * * * - * * , - - * * * 4 8 . 8 49.  50.  Witnesses  [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]  permitted at the hearing:  NO R E S P O N S E * * * * - - , * - * - * * , * * - - - - * * * - - - - - - - - - - - I , - - - 4 9 .1 I N V I T E D BY H E A R I N G O F F I C E R , 4 9 . 2 I N V I T E D BY H E A R I N G P A N E L - * - - - , * * , - - , - * - - * - - * - - - - * - 4 9 . 3 I N V I T E D BY S T U D E N T * - * - - - * - - - - - * - * - * * - - - - - - - * - - - - - - 4 9 . 4 I N V I T E D BY C L I N I C A L I N S T R U C T O R - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 9 . 5 I N V I T E D BY HEAD OF NURSING PROGRAM--*----*--------49.6 OTHER- - - * - - , * * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - , , , , , - - - , - , 4 9 . 7  [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]  NOT  [47]  SPECIFIED*-,,*-*-**--*----**-***---*--*,------49.8  Hearingi s : NO  R E S P O N S E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - t - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 50 .1  OPEN TO T H E P U B L I C - - - - - * * * * * * , * - * * * * * * - * * - - - - * * , - - 5 0 . 2 C L O S E D TO T H E P U B L I C * * - - * * - * - * * * * - - - - * * * * - * - - - * - * * 5 0 .3 [ 4 8 ] NORMALLY O P E N , CAN B E C L O S E D - - - - , , * - , - , - , - - - - - - * - , 5 0 . 4 NORMALLY C L O S E D , CAN B E O P E N , , , - - , ? - , - * - - - - * - - - - * - 5 0 . 5  294 CARD NO. [ 0 3 ] CONT'D 51.  Documentation  COLUMN NO.  o fthe hearing  includes:  NO R E S P O N S E - i - - i i i - i - i - - - - - - - i - - - - - - - - - - - - i - i i - i - - 5 1 .1 T A P E R E C O R D I N G T H E PROCEEDINGS-1-------1----------51.2 [ 4 9 ] WRITTEN T R A N S C R I P T i - i - - - - i - - - - - - - - - - ^ - - i - - - - - - - - - i 5 1 . 3 [50] W R I T T E N SUMMARY----1---------------7---1-----------51 .4 [ 5 1 ] OTHER-1----1- i - - - - -„ „ „ . , . ^ „ „ - „ , . a . , [52] n  52.  Outcome  o f hearing  1  1  5  1 t  5  i s reported as:  NO R E S P O N S E - - T - i - i - t i - - - T i - i - m - - - T - T i - - i - - - i t ' i - - i - - - t - - - - 5 2 .1 A R E C O M M E N D A T I O N - - - - - - i - - n - - - - - - - - i - i - - - - i - i - - i - - 5 2 . 2 [53] SUMMARY  O F FINDINGSi--111-11111-11111---ii--------52 . 3  A DECISION---------i-i-i---i-«---i---ii-»-i---*-n- -52 4 !  53.  Outcome  NO  o fthe hearing  i s reported to:  RESPONSE-*i-iii-ini-:i-iiii-n-*---i----ii-i-iii-53.1  S T U D E N T i i - i - t ^ - i - - - i n T - - - * - - 4 - t i - - i i - - ^ - - t i - i - " i - . - - , T - - - - 5 3 . 2 [54] C L I N I C A L I N S T R U C T O R ( S ) - - - n - - - - - i t t - - i - - - . - - - - - n - * - 5 3 . 3 [55] HEAD O F N U R S I N G P R O G R A M i i - n i i i - - i i - n i - - i - - T r T i - i 5 3 . 4 [ 5 6 ] REGISTRAR OF I N S T I T U T I O N 1 1 1 - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - 1 1 - - - - 5 3 . 5 [57] DEAN O F D I V I S I O N , SCHOOL, FACULTYi i-1 - 1 - - - - - - - - 1 •=-53 . 6 [58] HEAD O F I N S T I T U T I O N - - - - n - n i i - - n i i i i - - - 5 3 .7 [ 5 9 ] OTHER- i i i - - i i - - - l - n i i i i n i T 3 - i i i - i - i i i - - - i - - - - i - - 5 3 .8 [ 6 0 ] 54.  Student  NO  i sinfromed  R  E  S  o f outcome b y :  P  O  N  S  E  n  -  5  4  .  1  CHAIRMAN O F H E A R I N G P A N E L - - - - - - - - r 1 1 -1--t---,54 . 2 HEARING O F F I C E R - - - I - - T - - I - I - - * - I - - - - T - - - T - - - - 1 - 1 1 - t i - - - 5 4 . 3 [61] HEAD O F I N S T I T U T I O N - - i n - i i i - - i i - - - - i - i - n - i i - i - - - 5 4 . 4 I M M E D I A T E S U P E R V I S O R O F PROGRAM HEADi1n--11-11---54.5  OTHER-i-ii-i-ii--ii--iiiiiiii--ii-----i-i--i-----i54.6  55.  Appeal  NO  Hearing  Officer  o rpanel  have  power t o :  RESPONSEiin-ii----rt--T------;-,i-t-----i---n-,--55.1  ONLY MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS-n-11-----1----1--------55.2 ONLY MAKE D E C I S I O N AS T O F A I R N E S S AND R E A S O N A B L E - N E S S 1 - - - •» -11111 -1 -1 - - - - -1 - - -1 -11 -1 -1 -1 - - -1 - -* - - -115 5 .3 CHANGE N U R S I N G S T D E N T ' S C L I N I C A L M A R K - 1 1 - - - - - - 1 n-.55 .4 OTHER- - -1-11111-ti111-11111-111-1----1-1-11--------55.5  56.  Outcome  o f hearing  i s placed  on student's  [62]  file:  -i-i--i--nni.--:>iiiii----n----TT---,--,56.1 Y E S - i i i - i * - - i i - i i - i i - - - i - - - - - - - - - - i - - _ i - - - - i - - - * - - 5 6 . 2 [63] NOi - i - i i - i i - i i i s - - ' o - i i i - - t i i i i i - i i i - i i - i - i i - t - T - - T - ' i - i 5 6 . 3 NO R E S P O N S E -  ,  295  CARD NO. [03] CONT'D 57.  Resulting NO  COLUMN NO.  documentation  placed  on s t u d e n t ' s  RESPONSE-n,,,,,^.^"^,-*-,^-,,.^,^  file  includes:  — , ^ - 5 7 . 1  COPY O F H E A R I N G D E C I S I O N - - - - - - - - - * * - * * - - - - * - - - - - - - 5 7 . 2 [ 6 4 ] COPY O F H E A R I N G P R O C E E D I N G S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5 7 . 3 [ 6 5 ] SUMMARY O F H E A R I N G P R O C E E D I N G S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5 7 . 4 [ 6 6 ] O T H E R - * - - * - - * * * - - * - - - * - * - - * - - - - * - - - - - - - - - - - * - - - - - - 5 7 .5 [ 6 7 ] 58.  Institutional  Student  Appeal  available  t o the student:  NO R E S P O N S E - - - - - - - * - - - - * - * * - - * - - - - - - - - - - - * * - * * * - - - 5 8 . 1  YES*--**---**--*---***------*-**--*--**----*------58.2 [68] NO--*--******----*--*-*-**-*-------*----*-**------58.3 SECTION  E * INSTITUTIONAL  59. R e q u i r e m e n t f o r I n s t i t u t i o n a l Act governing institution?  STUDENT A P P E A L  Student  Appeal  i n Legislative  NO RESPONSE-***•,--,,---•,------..,.,---,-.*---**-.-----59.1 YES•»-***********-----*-*-*-****--*----*--*--*--*-*59 .2 [69] NO****--*---************---*---***--*****--*-----*59.3 60.  OMIT.  61. I n s t i t u t i o n a l S t u d e n t students through:  NO  Appeal  procedure  i s made  available to  RESPONSE-----«-***T,***-******-*-----**-*--*---*-61.1  I N S T I T U T I O N ' S C A L E N D A R - * * - - * - * * * - - * - - - * - * - - * - - - - - * 6 l . 2 [70] S T U D E N T HANDBOOK-*-*-*--****--***-**-----***--*---61 .3 [71] S T U D E N T N E W S P A P E R - - - - - * - - - - * * - - * * - - - * - - - * - - - * - * * - - 6 l . 4 [72] S T U D E N T O R I E N T A T I O N M A T E R I A L S * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . * * - 6 1 . 5 [73] I N S T I T U T I O N ' S P O L I C Y AND/OR PROCEDURE MANUAL------61.6 [74] S T U D E N T S NOT MADE AWARE-*--*--*-*----**---------*-61.7 [ 7 5 ] OTHER-- -- * * * * * * - * * * - * * * * * * * * * - - - * - - * - T 5 - - * - - * * - * * - 6 1 . 8 [76] 4  62. L e n g t h  NO  o f time  students  have:  RESPONSE*******-****-*****-*******-****-*******62.1  S P E C I F I E D I N L E G I S L A T I V E ACT***-*****--*--*---**--62.2 S P E C I F I E D I N I N S T I T U T I O N A L P O L I C I E S AND/OR PROCEDURES*--*-***--*---***---------------*-------62.3 [77] NOT S P E C I F I E D - * * - * * * - - * * - - - * * * * - * * - * - * - * * - * * * - * * * * 6 2 . 4 63. D o c u m e n t a t i o n u s e d is restricted: NO  during  the Institutional  Student  Appeal  RESPONSE****--**-****----5---*--*--*--***-****--63.1  YES - -* * - - - * * * * - - * - - - - * - * - * * * T j - * - - - - - - 7 * - - - - - * - - * * - 6 3 . 2 NO - * - * - - - - - * - - * " T * * * - » * * T * * * * - * * - - * * - * 7 * * * - * * * - * - * - - t 6 3 . 3  [78]  296 CARD NO. [ 0 4 ]  COLUMN NO,  PROGRAM  [01 ] [ 0 2 ]  64.  NO.-rT-«l------rr:--------7-:-,----------7---------7----  Additional  documents  assessed:  —  NO R E S P O N S E i ^ ^ - ^ ^ - n  -  6  4  .  0  1  C L I N I C A L EVALUATION REPORT----64.02 [03] A N E C D O T A L NOTES--1---*-------r--n--<*----64 .03 [ 0 4 ] W R I T T E N ASSIGNEMENTS1---T"---*------- --64.04 [ 0 5 ] S T U D E N T ' S E N T I R E F I L E T - - - - - - n - - - - - - - - 6 4 . 0 5 [06] S U B M I S S I O N BY HEAD O F PROGRAM-1--------64.06 [ 0 7 ] S U B M I S S I O N BY C L I N I C A L I N S T R U C T O R ( S ) - -64 .07 [ 0 8 ] S U B M I S S I O N BY S T U D E N T - n - - - - - - - - - t - - - - 6 4 . 0 8 [ 0 9 ] 65.  Appeal  conducted by:  NO R E S P O N S E - - n i - t » - T - - - T " T - - - - T - - i n - - m - 6 5 .01 HEAD O F I N S T I T U T I O N - i - - - - i n - i i m - i t - i 6 5 . 0 2 S U B C O M M I T T E E O F SENATE-r - -1 - --t - --t - --t - - n 65 .03 [ 1 0 ] S U B - C O M M I T T E E O F BOARD O F GOVERNORS----65.04 S U B - C O M M I T T E E O F BOARD O F T R U S T E E S - t - - i 6 5 . 0 5 OTHER- i i - - i i - i t - - - - - - » - - - - - - - ' 7 - - - T - i - - - - - 6 5 . 0 6 66. A s p e c t s  of evaluative  decision  appeal  i s directed: .01 .02 .03 .04 .05  [11] [12] [13] [14]  NO R E S P O N S E - — i i i — — i — — — — — — —11 •? — - -1 —— — —.01 n-67 T A P E R E C O R D I N G O F P R O C E E D I N G - -i - - - i T - ---67 .02 WRITTEN T R A N S C R I P T - i - i - i - T - - i ^ i - - i - t - - - - --67 .03 WRITTEN S U M M A R Y - i i i - - i - - * i - - - i - - i - - -i - ---67 .04 OTHER"* i-i i'*'mT---i----i-----i-'i n - - n ---67 .05  [15] [16] [17] [18]  V A L I D I T Y OF. O B S E R V A T I O N S - - n -1 -! n 6 6 F A I R N E S S AND R E A S O N A B L E N E S S - i - - - - i - - - 1166 PROCEDURES U S E D - i - m - m r . , - , - . , - — i - i --*66 OTHER- - i- rtifjil-ii-i-rrritri-^'T-t-tii-- - i - t i - n 6 6 Dcoumentation  o f appeal  includes:  ,  68.  Outcome o f a p p e a l  i sreported as:  --------  - --- --  -  — —— — — *68 1 — 1 1 —I — NO R E S P O N S E — ^68 •>n RECOMMENDATION- n •» "T — TT — — — •7 1 1 — •4 — TT -I •7 TT — — — — — -68 SUMMARY O F F I N D I N G S 1 DECISION-*-"I — — — •4•* ^ — •4— 1 TT •i-68 — —— — OTHER---m TT •J "1-t - 1 — — TT -,68  ---  -  --  -  --  .01 .02 .03 .04 .05  [19]  297 CARD 69.  COLUMN  NO. [ 0 4 ] CONT'D Reviewers  have  NO.  t h e power t o :  NO R E S P O N S E * - * - * * * - - - - - - * * * - * - - - - - - - * - * 6 9 . 0 1 ONLY MAKE R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S - - - - - - - - - - 6 9 .02 ONLY D E C I D E I N R E L A T I O N TO F A I R N E S S * - - 6 9 . 0 3 [ 2 0 ] C H A N G E C L I N I C A L MARK---*-,---,---,-•,-,-** 6 9 . 0 4 OTHER--1-------------------------------69.05 70.  Outcome  o f appeal  i s reported to:  NO R E S P O N S E - * - * * * - * - - * * * - * * * * - - * - - - * * * - 7 0 . 0 1 HEAD OF I N S T I T U T I O N - * - * * - * - - * * - * * - - - * - * 7 0 . 0 2 SENATE OF INSTITUTION---*****-**-**----70.03 [ 2 1 ] BOARD O F GOVERNORS****-***-***--*-**--*70.04 BOARD OF T R U S T E E S * - * * * * * - - * - * - * * - * * - - * * 7 0 . 0 5 OTHER- * - * * - - * - - * * * * * - * * * * * - - - * * * * * * - - - * 7 0 . 0 6 71.  Student i s  informed  o f t h e outcome by:  NO R E S P O N S E - * - * * * * * * * * * - * * * * - » * - - * - - - - * 7 1 .01 HEAD OF I N S T I T U T I 0 N - * * * * * * * - * - * * * - * * * * * 7 1 . 0 2 CHAIRMAN OF T H E SENATE-*-**********-*-*71.03 [ 2 2 ] CHAIRMAN O F BOARD O F G O V E R N O R S - * * * * * * * * 7 1 . 0 4 C H A I R M A N O F BOARD O F T R U S T E E S * * * * - * * * * - 7 1 . 0 5 REGISTRAR OF INSTITUTION---*---***---**71.06 O T H E R * * - * * --- • » - - i - T i - i * m T f l T i i * - ' » r T i - i - m * - * - - T 7 1 . 0 7  72.  Outcome NO  of appeal  i s placed  on s t u d e n t ' s  file:  RESPONSE***-****-***-*****-**----*-*72.01 [23]  NO-t-**'tf*---*********-****-************72.03 73.  Resulting includes:  NO  documentation  placed  on t h e s t u d e n t ' s  file  RESPONSE********-*-*-*-****-*-*-**--73.01  COPY OF DECISION*-*-*-**--***-*****-***73.02 [24] C O P Y O F P R O C E E D I N G S * - - * * * * * - * - * - - - - - - - - 7 3 . 0 3 [25] S U M M A R Y O F P R O C E E D I N G S - * * - * • * * * * * * * * - * - * 7 3 .04 [26] OTHER* ***-********-**-***********-T»m-t73.05 [27]  298  APPENDIX E DATA COLLECTION TOOL FOR INSTRUMENT-2  299 CODING  INSTRUMENT  FOR R E P O R T S O F STUDENT COMPLAINTS  CLINICAL  EVALUATION  CARD NO. [ 0 5 ] PROGRAM  COLUMN NO.  NO.t--nnintTtt------nn--T«tT.-T---nn-t---'-'-[01]  C A S E NO •"'•i !'iiii '*i,'i7'i"i"'i ii"ti*n"'i'mT!''''"i"'''"i'*T ,  ,  i  ,  [02]  [04] [05] [06]  [03]  YEAR- m 3 " ! i T : T t - i ' ' i m T i - T i n n T i i 1 ' ; i i l 9 7.8 - "I - "t .01 ,  i  1979- T - T - . .02 1980- i f i - i .03  1 9 8 l , t , - . 0 4 [07]  1982- --* .05 1983- ---.06 1984- T t T . 0 7  1985^-n-.08 NOT 1.  Levels  o freview  GRIEVANCE  S P E C I F I E D - - - , * .09  and outcomes:  REVIEW:  Y E S - nttTn-T-7-"j--t--nTn-i---T-n---i--i-ri.-"tl .1 .01  [08]  NO " i ^ T r T i i i n - i i i ' * i i > } - t i n i - - i - i i - T i - - i n i - - 1 . 1 . 0 2  D E C I S I O N UPHELD-^-n-tn-,----,---niT,-,-l .1.03 [09] D E C I S I O N M O D I F I E D " i ^ i ^ i » i M » m t i t , i l .1.04 OTHER * T-t"9"T"t"'-n?»Tt"ii-"T"Ti-i--irt-tTr-tiirii"Tl ,1,05 1  APPEAL  -  t  HEARING:  Y E S - "T111 - - - n " » " i " i " t T - t " ! " J - t " T - ' < j T ' - " i T t - i - - i r i - - r j - 1 . 2 . 0 1 [ 1 0 ] NO n"»n-^-"j-"*T*i9"Tn---.Tt-^rjt-rti*T»' ; »'jrt-T-7-t-7l.2.02 DECISION  UPHELD--."T-.m",niii-i-n--,-n---l .2 .03  DECISION  M O D I F I E D - T - - , n r , i 1 * - * - . i l  OTHER  [11]  .2 .04  t"Tnt9rJl-i-<i-fi-ri-t1-t-ri'!t"tT"i"I-n-i-4-il.2.05  INSTITUTIONAL  STUDENT  APPEAL:  Y E S TTiTjrt"j-t"i->-i--i->ii,i,,--i,--,,---t,i--*l.2.01 r  [12]  NO • ! ' T ' * r n 1 1 i i ^ ' J 1 1 s i t i l ' j 1 i t i ' i r ' ' l " ' 1 i ! ' i T * i 1 1 1 ^ l . 2 . 0 2  DECISION  'UPHELDni^»-,,nii^iitii-i^iil.2.03 [13]  DECISION  MODIFIED^T-rtr,-^i,ii--in----",l .2 .04  OTHER"* 1 * H " t r l l " t 1 i n n T i 7 n - i t i - * n i , i i i c J i i i - l l .2 .05 2.  OMIT  300 CODING  INSTRUMENT  CARD NO.  FOR  R E P O R T S OF STUDENT COMPLAINTS  CLINICAL  [05]  EVALUATION  COLUMN  NO.  PROGRAM  NO. - , . - , , * - - , , * * - - - - - - - - - - - - - * - - - - - - * - - - - - - ^ [ 0 1 ] [ 0 2 ]  CASE  NO .  -  YEAR-  nntTiin---'»tn-.---.--.-.nTiii--il97 8--'--i.01  -  1. L e v e l s  *  ,  •  »  -  -  *  -  *  -  -  of review  -  *  -  *  -  -  *  *  -  -  -  -  -T--*-**----------r-[03] [05]  1 9 7 9 - -*-.02 1980- **-.03 1 9 8 1 - ---.04 1982*---.05 1983- ---.06 1984- ---.07 1985- -*-.08 NOT S P E C I F I E D - - - * . 0 9 and outcomes:  GRIEVANCE REVIEW: YES-*---*-**-*-*---------------------1.1.01 NO * - * - * * * - - * * - - * * - * * - - - - - — - -- -- -- ,- -1 .1 ,02 DECISION UPHELD--------------------*-l.1.03 DECISION MODIFIED-----***--*--*-*--**!.1.04 OTHER- - - * - * * * - - * * * * * * * - * - * * - - * * * - * * - * l .1 .05 APPEAL HEARING: Y E S - * * - * - - - * * * - * . * * * * - - - * - - * - - - - - * - - - - l .2.01 N O * * - - - - - - * * - * - * - - - - - - * - - - * * * - - * * - * * * - l .2 .02 D E C I S I O N U P H E L D - - * - - - - - - - - - - - * - - - - - - - ! . 2 .03 D E C I S I O N M O D I F I E D - * - - - - ! - - - * - - * - * - - - - * ! .2 .04 O T H E R * * * * * * - * * * * * * * * - - * * - - - * * * * - - * - - - l . 2 .05 INSTITUTIONAL  STUDENT  YES* * - - - - * - - - - - - * - - * - * - - - - - - - *  [09]  [10]  [11]  r----1.2.01 [12] .2.02  D E C I S I O N U P H E L D - * - * - * - - - * - - * * * * , , * * - * l . 2 .03 DECISION MODIFIED-**---*------------*l.2.04 OTHER* * T - * * * - - - * - - * * - * * - - - - - - * * * * - * * * l . 2 . 0 5 OMIT  [08]  APPEAL:  NO**************--*-T>---*---*-*----*-l  2.  [07]  [13]  [04] [06]  301 CODING INSTRUMENT FOR REPORTS OF STUDENT CLINICAL EVALUATION COMPLAINTS  CARD NO. [05] PROGRAM N O . n - , - . , ^ ^ ^ —  ,  ,  ^  -  »  COLUMN NO. —  -  -  [  0  1  ] [02]  CASE N O . - - ^ - — n — • ^ - " - - ^ - • ^ - - - , - - ^ - [ 0 3 ] [ 0 4 ] I  n  1  [05] [06]  YEAR-  -t--'3n--i--*------- 7-------"'------1978--'':-i.01 -  1979- ---.02 1980- n - i .03 1981- ---.04 [07] 1982- ---.05 1983- ---.06 1984- ---.07 1985- ---.08 NOT SPECIFIED----n .09 1.  Levels  of  review  and  outcomes:  GRIEVANCE REVIEW: Y E S - T - - - - > - T i - , - - , - - - - , - t - - - - t - - - - - - - - - T l .1.01 N O " 5 - n - - t - - t T - - t r T " ' " 7 - - T ) - t n - - - - - - - - - - t - - - - n - - l .1  DECISION  [08]  .02  UPHELD--------n-----------n-l.1.03  [09]  DECISION M O D I F I E D - - - - - • m - - - m - n - - - t l .1 .04  OTHER * - - i - T - - i - - n n T T - t n - - - - j - - t - - - - T i - - i - t " t - - l .1 .05 APPEAL HEARING: 1  :  YES- n - -- - - 5 " T : - i - n - n - - t - - - n - - - t T r - - - - - - - - r - l .2 .01 [10] NO"'"' — - -- -- -- — •* — - - - - - - - - i - - - - r ; - - - ' 7 - l n - - l .2 .02 >  DECISION U P H E L D - n T , t - n - , - - - t - t - - - - - - n l . 2 . 0 3 [11]  DECISION M O D I F I E D - t - n - T - - T T , - n - - - - t - - l . 2 . 0 4 OTHER- - -- ->»'»'Tf--Tt---'---!-r-T-----,---i-'---tl.2.05  INSTITUTIONAL STUDENT APPEAL: YES T ? i - n 1 - « T - - t - r » - « - - - T , - - - - - r - - r - t ' n  I----1.2.01 [12]  NOt-T-inwinn^9Tn'T''--'i-T*--»--i---'i-t-'----i"'-l  .2  .02  DECISION U P H E L D - ? i r u i m n - T u n n ' t n l .2.03 [13]  DECISION  MODIFIED-- n---n------------- l ;  1  .2 .04 '  O T H E R i - ' • * - r j - ' - - t - - - i - ' - - - t - - - i - i - - - - - t - - ' - ' r i - t - t - - i l .2  2.  OMIT  .05  302 CODING  INSTRUMENT  CARD NO.  NO  R E P O R T S OF STUDENT COMPLAINTS  CLINICAL  EVALUATION  [05]  COLUMN  N O . - . - - - i ' - t  PROGRAM  CASE  FOR  ,"  ,  1  - t T . ^ - T - - T  '"i5T'"rT'i»-!-m  1 1  1  i , - - - - - . T ^ - ^ T ^ - - , ^ [ 0 1 ]  i^.T  1  .  1 1  T  i n  »ii,^n->v  1  .[03]  [05] YEAR-  ,,-----------:--1978--,,.01 1 9 7 9 - -*-.02 1980- ,,-.03 1981- ---.04 1982- --,.05 1983- ---.06 1984- ---.07 1985,---.08 NOT  1. L e v e l s  of review  GRIEVANCE  and  [07]  SPECIFIED---,.09  outcomes:  REVIEW:  Y  E  S  N  O  -  -  1  . -  i  1 -  t  . ,  0 .  1  1 ,  [08] 0  2  DECISION UPHELD--,-----,-------------1.1.03 [ 0 9 ] DECISION MODIFIED-----,,---,,,,-,-,,,1.1.04 OTHER,--,,*,,---,-,----,-,,,--l.1.05 A P P E A L HEARING: ; Y E S - , , - , , , , , , , - , - - , , - - - - , - - , - 1 . 2 . 0 1 [10] NO - -1 .2 .02 DECISION UPHELD--,,--,-,-----,----—-1.2.03 [11] DECISION M O D I F I E D - , , 1 . 2 . 0 4 O T H E R , * , - - , - - - l , 2 . 0 5 INSTITUTIONAL  STUDENT  APPEAL:  Y E S , * - - , , * - - , - , - , - - , - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - ! .2 .01 [ 1 2 ] N O , - , , * * , - - - , , , - - - - , - 1 . 2 . 0 2 DECISION UPHELD,**,-,,,,,—,,*,,,,*,,1.2.03 [13] DECISION M O D I F I E D - , , 1 . 2 . 0 4 OTHER , , " - , , * , , , , , - , , , , , - - - - - - - * , * , , * * 1 .2 .05 2.  OMIT  NO.  [02]  [04] [06]  303 3.  Student launched institution?  a legal  o r appeal  outside the  MO R E S P O N S E m - ' i ^ " n n n , , „ n i n i - ^ 3 . 0 1 [ 1 4 ] 1  YES  i i - ' i i * i r i n -  ,  i T l n ' ) n " " i T - - ^  1  ^ - i - - i H i 3 . 0 2  NO 1 " l i ' ' i l i 1 1 i ' ' * ' ' ' ' i T i T 7 H i ' i i > i - , / j ^ » i 3 . 0 3 ,  ,  , ,  1  4.  Kind  o f external  1  appeal:  NO R E S P O N S E - n n i » i , - , M, ^-i-'n4.01 J U D I C I A L THROUGH T H E COURTS---------4.02 C O M P L A I N T TO HUMAN R I G H T S B R A N C H * - 4 . 0 3 C O M P L A I N T TO OMBUDSMAN------*--*--*-4.04 OTHER- --*****-*--**-***-----*--n**-*4.05 v  5.  Basis  o f student  request  :  1  1  5  f o rexternal  [15] [16] [17] [18]  review:  NO RESPONSE--*-*---*---*------**--'--5.01 D E N I A L O F NATURAL J U S T I C E - - * - * - - - * * - 5 . 0 2 DISCRIMINATION*-*-*****--****n-**-**5.03 DEFAMATION O F CHARACTER*-**-*--*-***5.04 B R E A C H O F CONTRACT******************5.05 EDUCATIONAL MALPRACTICE--********--*5.06 NOT KNOWN***-***********i**-T******-*5.07 6.  Was t h i s  case?  NO RESPONSE-?-***--*-*-* ***---*------6 .01 A D J U D I C A T E D B E F O R E T H E COURTS-*-*--*6.02 S E T T L E D OUT O F COURT-**-**--**-----*6.03 WITHDRAWN BY T H E STUDENT-*-***-*----6.04 I N V E S T I G A T E D BY HUMAN R I G H T S * * - - - * * * 6 . 0 5 I N V E S T I G A T E D BY OMBUDSMAN--*****----6.06 7.  OMIT  8.  Outcome  [19]  o f external  [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]  review:  NO R E S P O N S E * - * * * - i - * - * * * - * * - - - * * * * * - - 7 . 0 1 D E C I S I O N UPHELD*******************--7.02 DECISION OVERTURNED*****-***4*-***-*7.03 [25] H E A R I N G ORDERED***T**-**********-*-**7 .04 C A S E R E M I T T E D BACK T O I N S T I T U T I O N * * - 7 . 0 5 OTHER* *********T**--*-***'3-rj**-*--**7.06 9.  I f outcome was a d v e r s e t o i n s t i t u t i o n , h a v e p o l i c i e s o r procedures instituted?  changes i n been  NO R E S P O N S E - * * * - * * - - - - - - - - - - * • » • » - - - - - 8 .01 YES - * * - * - * - - - - - - - - T r - - n - - t - * - - * * " 7 - - - - 8 . 0 2  NO 10.  OMIT  •»***-**********-----7-t-tri----t>,---j--.,8.03  [26]  304 Demographic  variables:  Province:  NO R E S P O N S E n n f n i T T ^ i i i - i T - n . , . ^ 1 1 .01 BRITISH COLUMBIA-•***-*******-*****-11.02 A L B E R T A * • > i T i i T 7 i ' j i i * f i ' t f i i ^ ! i r . n f T i l l .03 SASKATCHEWAN* i n i - . i n i i m - . i i i T — c l l . 0 4 MANITOBA»«i"vt7niiiii*iiif.H*-!nll.05  [27]  [28]  ONTARIO* *n*--n*n*"T---***--******-**-ll .06 NEW B R U N S W I C K * * * * * - * * - * * * - - * - - - i - * * l l .07 NOVA S C O T I A * * i i T t n , i i i t « ' i n ^ ^ i , i i i T i l l .08 P R I N C E EDWARD I S L A N D - - - -r - - * - * * - - - - 1 1 . 0 9 NEWFOUNDLAND* ^ ^ i ^ Type o f i n s t i t u t i o n :  ,  ,  ,  ,  ^  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ^  ^  ,  !  !  .  ^  NO RESPONSE-t n************* ******** *12 .01 H O S P I T A L i? ^ • t ' * T n T i n n f l n i i i i H i i n i - t T l 2 . 0 2 C O L L E G E , ******************n*******-12.03 TECHNICAL INSTITUTE******--,t*******12.04 UNIVERSITY-, i i ^ i i i - i - i i ^ T t ^ T i ^ i i i n . O S i OTHER* ****n*nn**n^n^n***** *-n**n***12.06 -  Student NO  [29]  enrollment:  RESPONSE  0 * 499**:***"'t*******"i*******TT*--"*13.01 500 i 999* **-*n *^ * * ^ * * * * * * * ^ * * - t ***** 13 .02 1000 1500  * l 4 9 9 n - > - i r t i - i - 7 - J T - , * * - t T , * , r f , - , * * n n - t l 3 .03 -r 1 9 9 9 n ' i T t f i i , , i » ! t * T T , - i H f j - ( n i i T l 3 . 0 4 i  i  2000 * 2499* m f t * i - * * * ******** ****•*- 13 .05 2500 n 2999n*********-t n* * ^ * * T t ****** rtl3 .06 3000 * 3999**^n** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * - t ** 13 .07 4000 * 4 9 9 9 * - * " i * * * * ^ * * * * * * * * * * - * - T - r * - 1 3 .08 5000 * 5999*************************13.09 6000 * 6 9 9 9 * * " i * n * * * * T t * * * * * * * * * - * * * * 1 3 . 1 0 7000 * 7 9 9 9 * * * n n * * * n * * * * * * * - t r j - t * * * - j * - 1 3 .11 8000 n 8999*-*****n*"i-*-*n***-*-***-i-*13 .12 9000 "rt 9999*n-*"i"»**********-t*********13 .13 10000 n 14999n*"i***-M'3"i************n*13.14 15000+**** *nn**nn--n******n*^»****-'i«tl3.15 NOT A P P L I C A B L E " s * - * * * * * * * * - t * * * * * * * * * * * * 1 3 .16  [30] [31]  APPENDIX F SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLES OF AGREEMENT  306  Q.#8: At the end of the c l i n c o u r s e , a r e the d e c i s i o n s about performance made i n the nursing than one i n s t r u c t o r , or (b) onl  RESPONSE  QUESTIONNAIRE  No response More than one i n s t r u c t o r Only one i n s t r u c t o r  i c a l experience f o r a nursing students'program by: (a) more y one i n s t r u c t o r ?  POLICIES/ PROCEDURES  DIFFERENCE  0  22  (22)  33 19  26 7  (7) (12)  Assessment of Agreement: The d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the agreement between the q u e s t i o n n a i r e responses and the p o l i c i e s a n d , or procedures f o r t h e same p r o g r a m w i l l be made using contingency t a b l e s of f r e q u e n c i e s f o r each of the o p t i o n s .  1.  Option: "more than one 0 = no response 2 = more than one  0  i n s t r u c t o r " i n s t r u c t o r  QUESTIONNAIRE 2  0  13  18  31  2  11  15  26  POLICIES/ PROCEDURES  24 QUESTIONNAIRE 0 2  33  57 QUESTIONNAIRE 0 2  r 0  27.4  13  18  11  15  POLICIES/ PROCEDURES 2  29.6  MAXIMUM  AGREEMENT  -OBSERVED  OCCURRENCE  307  QUESTIONNAIRE 0 2  POLICIES/ PROCEDURES  0  30.7  33  2  33  33.8  CHANCE 1  -  OBSERVED  DISAGREEMENT  EXPECTED  DISAGREEMENT  AGREEMENT (11  1 -  + 18)  .56  (33 + 33)  Therefore, the agreement within this option f o r these two s e t s o f d a t a i s .56, T h u s t h e a g r e e m e n t i s 5 6 % a b o v e c h a n c e o r t h e two s e t s o f d a t a a r e e q u i v a l e n t 56 o u t o f 1 0 0 t i m e s .  2. O p t i o n :  "only one  instructor"  0 = no r e s p o n s e 3 = only one i n s t r u c t o r QUESTIONNAIRE 0 3  POLICIES/ PROCEDURES  0 3  28  20  5  4  9  33  24  57  QUESTIONNAIRE 0 3  QUESTIONNAIRE 0 3 0  POLICIES/ PROCEDURES 3.  40.5 16.5 MAXIMUM  AGREEMENT  48  0  28  20  3  5  4  OBSERVED  CO-OCCURRENCE  308 QUESTIONNAIRE 0 3  POLICIES/ PROCEDURES  CHANCE OBSERVED  DISAGREEMENT  AGREEMENT (  20  +  5  ) ,54  EXPECTED  DISAGREEMENT  (27.4  +  27.4)  T h e r e f o r e , the agreement w i t h i n t h i s option f o r these two sets of data i s . 5 4 . Thus the agreement i s 54% above chance or t h e two s e t s of data are e q u i v a l e n t 54 out of 100 t i m e s .  309  File: CONTINGENCY Report:.AGREEMENT ASSESSM'T  Page 1  QUESTION //: 7 N u r s i n g program p o l i c i e s and/or procedures are: OPTION: w r i t t e n QUESTIONNAIRE: 57 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 36 ALPHA: .51 QUESTION //: 7 N u r s i n g program p o l i c i e s and/or procedures are: OPTION: u n w r i t t e n QUESTIONNAIRE: 3 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 4 ALPHA: .51 QUESTION //: 8 O r i g i n a l d e c i s i o n i n n u r s i n g program i s made b y OPTION: more than one i n s t r u c t o r QUESTIONNAIRE: 33 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 26 ALPHA: .56 QUESTION //: 8 O r i g i n a l d e c i s i o n OPTION: only one i n s t r u c t o r QUESTIONNAIRE: 19 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 7 ALPHA: .54  i n n u r s i n g program i s made by  QUESTION //: 9 D e c i s i o n made by i n s t r u c t o r and: OPTION: R.N. s u p e r v i s i n g student QUESTIONNAIRE: 16 : POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 2 ALPHA: .51 QUESTION //: 9 D e c i s i o n made by i n s t r u c t o r and: OPTION: an i n d i v i d u a l e v a l t o r QUESTIONNAIRE: 1 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 2 ALPHA: .75 QUESTION //: 9 D e c i s i o n made by i n s t r u c t o r and: OPTION: immediate s u p e r v i s o r o f i n s t r u c t o r s QUESTIONNAIRE: 9 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 4 ALPHA: .53 QUESTION //: 9 D e c i s i o n made by i n s t r u c t o r and: OPTION: program head QUESTIONNAIRE: 5 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 4 ALPHA: .57  310 P a g e 2  File: CONTINGENCY Report: AGREEMENT ASSESSM'T QUESTION //: 9 D e c i s i o n made by i n s t r u c t o r and: OPTION: n u r s i n g f a c u l t y committee QUESTIONNAIRE: 17 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 21 ALPHA: .54 QUESTION //: 9 D e c i s i o n made by i n s t r u c t o r and: OPTION: t o t a l f a c u l t y QUESTIONNAIRE: 3 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 1 ALPHA: .67 QUESTION //: 10 Review o f o r i g i n a l d e c i s i o n by o t h e r s : OPTION: yes QUESTIONNAIRE: 40 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 26 ALPHA: .54 QUESTION //: 10 Review o f o r i g i n a l d e c i s i o n by o t h e r s : OPTION: no QUESTIONNAIRE: 16 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 6 ALPHA: .54 :  QUESTION //: 11 During review c l i n i c a l performance OPTION: a l l students i n same c l i n i c a l course QUESTIONNAIRE: 33 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 22 ALPHA: .60  i s assessed  QUESTION //: 11 During review c l i n i c a l performance OPTION: students b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d f o r f a i l u r e QUESTIONNAIRE: 22 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 20 ALPHA: .68  i s assessed  QUESTION //: 11 During review c l i n i c a l performance i s assessed OPTION: students having d i f f i c u l t y meeting o b j e c t i v e s QUESTIONNAIRE: 27 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 20 ALPHA: .41 QUESTION //: 12 N u r s i n g program p o l i c i e s and/or procedures OPTION: i d e n t i c a l to i n s t i t u t i o n ' s QUESTIONNAIRE: 4 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 3 ALPHA: .51  are  File: Report:  CONTINGENCY AGREEMENT A S S E S S M ' T  Page  3  Q U E S T I O N //: 12 N u r s i n g p r o g r a m p o l i c i e s OPTION: d i f f e r e n t from institution's Q U E S T I O N N A I R E : 10 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 0 A L P H A : .51  and/or  procedures are  Q U E S T I O N //: 12 N u r s i n g p r o g r a m OPTION: m o d i f i c a t i o n o f Q U E S T I O N N A I R E : 14 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 1 A L P H A : .54  policies  and/or  procedures are  Q U E S T I O N //: 12 N u r s i n g p r o g r a m OPTION: more s p e c i f i c t h a n Q U E S T I O N N A I R E : 35 P O L I C I E S / P R O C E D U R E S : 18 A L P H A : .56  policies  and/or  procedures are  Q U E S T I O N //: 12 N u r s i n g p r o g r a m OPTION: l e s s s p e c i f i c t h a n QUESTIONNAIRE: 0 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 0 ALPHA: 0  policies  and/or  procedures are  Q U E S T I O N //: 12 N u r s i n g p r o g r a m OPTION:.only QUESTIONNAIRE: 7 ": P O L I C I E S / P R O C E D U R E S : 16 A L P H A : .65  policies  and/or  procedures are  Q U E S T I O N //: 13 D e c i s i o n s r o u t i n e l y OPTION: y e s QUESTIONNAIRE: 9 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 5 A L P H A : .62  reviewed  outside nursing p  Q U E S T I O N //: 13 D e c i s i o n s r o u t i n e l y OPTION: no QUESTIONNAIRE: 48 P O L I C I E S / P R O C E D U R E S : 25 A L P H A : .54  reviewed  outside nursing p  Q U E S T I O N //: 14 T h i s r e v i e w o c c u r s : OPTION: a t e n d o f t e r m o r s e m e s t e r Q U E S T I O N N A I R E : 11 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 4 A L P H A : .57  File: Report:  CONTINGENCY AGREEMENT A S S E S S M ' T  Q U E S T I O N //: 14 T h i s r e v i e w OPTION: a t e n d o f a c a d e m i c QUESTIONNAIRE: 4 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 0 A L P H A : .51  occurs: year  Q U E S T I O N //: 14 T h i s r e v i e w o c c u r s : OPTION: a t m i d * p o i n t o f t e r m o r s e m e s t e r QUESTIONNAIRE: 3 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 1 A L P H A : .67 Q U E S T I O N //: 14 T h i s r e v i e w o c c u r s : OPTION: a t m i d n p o i n t o f a c a d e m i c y e a r QUESTIONNAIRE: 1 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 0 A L P H A : .51 Q U E S T I O N //: 14 T h i s r e v i e w o c c u r s : OPTION: a t e n d o f n u r s i n g p r o g r a m QUESTIONNAIRE: 4 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 0 A L P H A : .51 Q U E S T I O N //: 15 D u r i n g t h i s r e v i e w OPTION: a l l s t u d e n t s i n c o u r s e QUESTIONNAIRE: 7 : P O L I C I E S / P R O C E D U R E S : 15 A L P H A : .57  students  Q U E S T I O N //: 15 D u r i n g t h i s r e v i e w OPTION: s t u d e n t s b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d QUESTIONNAIRE: 7 P O L I C I E S / P R O C E D U R E S : 15 A L P H A : .64  students considered for failure  Q U E S T I O N //: 15 D u r i n g t h i s r e v i e w s t u d e n t s OPTION: s t u d e n t s h a v i n g d i f f i c u l t y m e e t i n g Q U E S T I O N N A I R E : "6 P O L I C I E S / P R O C E D U R E S : 15 A L P H A : .69 Q U E S T I O N //: 16 D e c i s i o n s r e v i e w e d b y : OPTION: d e a n o f d i v i s i o n , s c h o o l , f a c u l t y QUESTIONNAIRE: 2 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 1 A L P H A : .75  considered  considered objectives  313 File: Report:  CONTINGENCY AGREEMENT A S S E S S M ' T  Page 5  Q U E S T I O N //: 16 D e c i s i o n s r e v i e w e d b y : OPTION: d i r e c t o r o f p r o g r a m , s c h o o l QUESTIONNAIRE: 9 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 2 A L P H A : .58 Q U E S T I O N //: 16 D e c i s i o n s r e v i e w e d OPTION: i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o m m i t t e e QUESTIONNAIRE: 7 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 4 A L P H A : .56  by:  Q U E S T I O N //: 16 D e c i s i o n s OPTION: r e v i e w panel QUESTIONNAIRE: 1 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 1 A L P H A : .50  by:  reviewed  Q U E S T I O N //: 17 S t u d e n t g i v e n OPTION: y e s Q U E S T I O N N A I R E : 18 P O L I C I E S / P R O C E D U R E S : 42 A L P H A : .56  opportunity  to question  evaluati  Q U E S T I O N //: 17 S t u d e n t g i v e n OPTION: no QUESTIONNAIRE: 0 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 1 A L P H A : .50  opportunity  to question  evaluati  :  Q U E S T I O N //: 18 L e n g t h o f t i m e t o r e q u e s t G r i e v a n c e OPTION: s p e c i f i e d i n n u r s i n g p r o g r a m p o l i c y Q U E S T I O N N A I R E : 18 P O L I C I E S / P R O C E D U R E S : 25 A L P H A : .62  Review  Q U E S T I O N //: 18 L e n g t h o f t i m e t o r e q u e s t OPTION: s p e c i f i e d i n i n s t i t u t i o n p o l i c y Q U E S T I O N N A I R E : 25 P O L I C I E S / P R O C E D U R E S : 15 A L P H A : .62  Review  Q U E S T I O N //: 19 S t u d e n t i n i t a l l y OPTION: c l i n i c a l instructor Q U E S T I O N N A I R E : 24 P O L I C I E S / P R O C E D U R E S : 18 A L P H A : .58  contacts  Grievance  File: CONTINGENCY Report: AGREEMENT ASSESSM'T QUESTION //: 19 Student i n i t a l l y contacts OPTION: c h a i r p e r s o n of n u r s i n g program committee QUESTIONNAIRE: 5 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 6 ALPHA: .68 QUESTION //: 19 Student i n i t a l l y contacts OPTION: head o f n u r s i n g program QUESTIONNAIRE: 14 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 7 ALPHA: .27 QUESTION //: 19 Student i n i t a l l y OPTION: r e g i s t r a r QUESTIONNAIRE: 4 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 3 ALPHA: .63  contacts  QUESTION //: 19 Student i n i t a l l y OPTION: head o f i n s t i t u t i o n QUESTIONNAIRE: 2 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 2 ALPHA: .67  contacts  QUESTION //: 20 Procedures f o r Grievance OPTION: w r i t t e n QUESTIONNAIRE: 44 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 27 ALPHA: .57  Review are  :  QUESTION //: 20 Procedures f o r Grievance Review are OPTION: u n w r i t t e n QUESTIONNAIRE: 13 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 21 ALPHA: .11 QUESTION //: 21 Documents to be assessed OPTION: student's c l i n i c a l e v a l u a t i o n QUESTIONNAIRE: 53 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 8 ALPHA: .51 QUESTION //: 21 Documents to be assessed OPTION: anecdotal notes about student QUESTIONNAIRE: 40 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 4 ALPHA: .49  File: CONTINGENCY Report: AGREEMENT ASSESSM'T QUESTION //: 21 Documents to be assessed OPTION: student's w r i t t e n assignments QUESTIONNAIRE: 36 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 6 ALPHA: .52 QUESTION //: 21 Documents to be assessed OPTION: student's p r e v i o u s e v a l u a t i o n s QUESTIONNAIRE: 29 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 1 ALPHA: .52 QUESTION'//: 21 Documents to be assessed OPTION: student's e n t i r e f i l e QUESTIONNAIRE: 26 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 5 ALPHA: .55 QUESTION //: 22 Who conducts Grievance Review OPTION: student's c l i n i c a l i n s t r u c t o r QUESTIONNAIRE: 6 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 7 ALPHA: .59 QUESTION //: 22 Who conducts Grievance Review OPTION: i m p a r t i a l n u r i s n g i n s t r u c t o r QUESTIONNAIRE: 2 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 0 ALPHA: .50 QUESTION //: 22 Who conducts Grievance Review OPTION: n u r s i n g program standing committee' QUESTIONNAIRE: 16 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 8 ALPHA: .60 QUESTION //: 22 Who conducts Grievance Review OPTION: s p e c i a l Grievance Review Panel QUESTIONNAIRE: 7 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 3 ALPHA: .55 QUESTION //: 22 Who conducts Grievance Review OPTION: h e a r i n g o f f i c e r QUESTIONNAIRE: 1 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 0 ALPHA: .50  316 File: Report:  CONTINGENCY AGREEMENT A S S E S S M ' T  Page 9  Q U E S T I O N //: 26 S t u d e n t h a s r i g h t OPTION: y e s Q U E S T I O N N A I R E : 28 P O L I C I E S / P R O C E D U R E S : 11 A L P H A : .58  t o an  advisor  Q U E S T I O N //: 26 S t u d e n t h a s r i g h t OPTION: no Q U E S T I O N N A I R E : 23 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 8 A L P H A : .54  t o an  advisor  Q U E S T I O N //: 27 T h i s a d v i s o r OPTION: a l a w y e r Q U E S T I O N N A I R E : 20 P O L I C I E S / P R O C E D U R E S : 12 A L P H A : .65  may b e :  Q U E S T I O N //: 27 T h i s a d v i s o r OPTION: n o t a l a w y e r QUESTIONNAIRE: 9 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 3 A L P H A : .56  may b e :  Q U E S T I O N //: 27 T h i s a d v i s o r may b e : OPTION: a n a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t Q U E S T I O N N A I R E : 13 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 2 A L P H A : .51 Q U E S T I O N //: 27 T h i s a d v i s o r may b e : OPTION: o n l y a p a s s i v e p a r t i c i p a n t QUESTIONNAIRE: 9 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 2 A L P H A : .51 Q U E S T I O N //: 27 T h i s a d v i s o r OPTION: a c t i v e i f r e q u e s t e d QUESTIONNAIRE: 7 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 2 A L P H A : .68  may b e : t o be  Q U E S T I O N //: 28 I n s t r u c t o r h a s r i g h t OPTION: y e s Q U E S T I O N N A I R E : 19 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 2 A L P H A : .55  to counsel  at  hearing:  317 File: Report:  CONTINGENCY AGREEMENT A S S E S S M ' T  Page  Q U E S T I O N //: 28 I n s t r u c t o r h a s r i g h t OPTION: no Q U E S T I O N N A I R E : 28 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 8 A L P H A : .54 Q U E S T I O N //: 29 T h i s a d v i s o r OPTION: a l a w y e r QUESTIONNAIRE: 8 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 3 A L P H A : .56  may b e :  Q U E S T I O N //: 29 T h i s a d v i s o r OPTION: n o t a l a w y e r QUESTIONNAIRE: 8 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 2 A L P H A : .51  may b e :  to counsel  at  10  hearing:  Q U E S T I O N //: 29 T h i s a d v i s o r may b e : OPTION: a n a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t QUESTIONNAIRE: 8 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 0 A L P H A : .51 Q U E S T I O N //: 29 T h i s a d v i s o r may b e : OPTION: o n l y a p a s s i v e p a r t i c i p a n t QUESTIONNAIRE: 5 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 0 A L P H A : .51 :  Q U E S T I O N //: 29 T h i s a d v i s o r OPTION: a c t i v e i f r e q u e s t e d QUESTIONNAIRE: 6 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 1 A L P H A : .57  may b e : t o be  Q U E S T I O N //: 30 S t u d e n t a b l e OPTION: y e s Q U E S T I O N N A I R E : 57 P O L I C I E S / P R O C E D U R E S : 13 A L P H A : .51  to provide  written  submission?  Q U E S T I O N //: 30 S t u d e n t a b l e OPTION: no QUESTIONNAIRE: 0 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 2 A L P H A : .50  to provide  written  submission?  318 File: CONTINGENCY Report: AGREEMENT ASSESSM'T  Page 11  QUESTION //: 31 Student's OPTION: yes QUESTIONNAIRE: 57 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 12 ALPHA: .51  clinical  i n s t r u c t o r provide w r i t t e n  QUESTION //: 31 Student's OPTION: no QUESTIONNAIRE: 0 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 1 ALPHA: .50  clinical  i n s t r u c t o r provide w r i t t e n  QUESTION //: 32 Documentation of Grievance Review OPTION: tape r e c o r d i n g QUESTIONNAIRE: 3 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 0 ALPHA: .52  involves:  QUESTION //: 32 Documentation o f Grievance Review OPTION: w r i t t e n t r a n s c r i p t QUESTIONNAIRE: 7 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 4 ALPHA: .55  involves:  QUESTION //: 32 Documentation o f Grievance Review OPTION: w r i t t e n summary QUESTIONNAIRE: 46 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 5 ALPHA: .50  involves:  QUESTION //: 34 Outcome o f Grievance Review i s r e p o r t e d to: OPTION: student QUESTIONNAIRE: 49 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 22 ALPHA: .55 QUESTION //: 34 Outcome o f Grievance Review i s r e p o r t e d t o : OPTION: student's c l i n i c a l i n s t r u c t o r QUESTIONNAIRE: 42 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 6 ALPHA: .52 QUESTION //: 34 Outcome o f Grievance Review i s r e p o r t e d t o : OPTION: n u r s i n g program standing c t t e . QUESTIONNAIRE: 7 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 2 ALPHA: .64  319  File: CONTINGENCY Report: AGREEMENT ASSESSM'T  Page 12  QUESTION //: 34 Outcome of Grievance OPTION: head o f n u r s i n g program QUESTIONNAIRE: 35 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 9 ALPHA: .54  Review i s reported to:  QUESTION //: 34 Outcome o f Grievance OPTION: head o f i n s t i t u t i o n QUESTIONNAIRE: 6 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 0 ALPHA:  Review i s reported t o :  QUESTION //: 34 Outcome o f Grievance OPTION: r e g i s t r a r QUESTIONNAIRE: 14 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 3 ALPHA: .51  Review i s r e p o r t e d t o :  QUESTION //: 34 Outcome o f Grievance Review i s reported t o : OPTION: dean o f d i v i s i o n , s c h o o l , f a c u l t y QUESTIONNAIRE: 17 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 2 ALPHA: .56 QUESTION //: 35 I f student OPTION: yes QUESTIONNAIRE: 49 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 46 ALPHA: .57  d i s a g r e e s i s there a formal  appeal?  QUESTION //: 35 I f student OPTION: no QUESTIONNAIRE: 7 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 2 ALPHA: .56  disagrees  appeal?  i s there a formal  QUESTION //: 36 Length o f time between request OPTION: s p e c i f i e d i n n u r s i n g program p o l i c y QUESTIONNAIRE: 21 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 31 ALPHA: .55  and h e a r i n g i s :  QUESTION //: 36 Length o f time between request OPTION: s p e c i f i e d i n i n s t i t u t i o n a l p o l i c y QUESTIONNAIRE: 28 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 14 ALPHA: .73  and h e a r i n g i s :  320 File: CONTINGENCY Report: AGREEMENT ASSESSM'T  Page 13  QUESTION //: 36 Length o f time between request and h e a r i n g i s : OPTION: not s p e c i f i e d QUESTIONNAIRE: 4 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 6 ALPHA: .51 QUESTION //: 37 Procedures f o r an Appeal Hearing are: OPTION: w r i t t e n QUESTIONNAIRE: 48 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 46 ALPHA: .54 QUESTION //: 37 Procedures f o r an Appeal Hearing are: OPTION: u n w r i t t e n QUESTIONNAIRE: 2 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 6 ALPHA: .51 QUESTION //: 38 Procedures f o r Appeal Hearing i n c l u d e : OPTION: i n t e r v i e w i n g student i n presence of i n s t r u c t o r QUESTIONNAIRE: 26 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 21 ALPHA: .60 QUESTION //: 38 Procedures f o r Appeal Hearing i n c l u d e : OPTION: i n t e r v i e w i n g c l i n i c a l i n s t r u c t o r i n presence of stude QUESTIONNAIRE: 24 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 21 ALPHA: .60 QUESTION //: 38 Procedures f o r Appeal Hearing i n c l u d e : OPTION: i n t e r v i e w i n g i n s t r u c t o r alone QUESTIONNAIRE: 26 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 1 ALPHA: .52 QUESTION //: 38. Procedures f o r Appeal Hearing i n c l u d e : OPTION: i n t e r v i e w i n g student alone QUESTIONNAIRE: 26 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 4 ALPHA: .54 QUESTION //: 39 Appeal Hearing panel i s composed o f : OPTION: students QUESTIONNAIRE: 24 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 23 ALPHA: .63  321  File: CONTINGENCY Report: AGREEMENT ASSESSM'T  Page 14  QUESTION //: 39 Appeal Hearing panel i s composed o f : OPTION: n u r s i n g f a c u l t y from program QUESTIONNAIRE: 24 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 25 ALPHA: .65 QUESTION //: 39 Appeal Hearing panel i s composed o f : OPTION: nurse educator from o u t s i d e QUESTIONNAIRE: 4 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 3 ALPHA: .58 QUESTION //: 39 Appeal Hearing panel i s composed o f : OPTION: non-nursing f a c u l t y QUESTIONNAIRE: 22 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 14 ALPHA: .59 QUESTION //: 39 Appeal Hearing panel i s composed of: OPTION: h e a r i n g o f f i c e r QUESTIONNAIRE: 14 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 3 ALPHA: .53 QUESTION //: 39 Appeal Hearing panel i s composed of: OPTION: head of i n s t i t u t i o n QUESTIONNAIRE: 10 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 6 ALPHA: .59 QUESTION //: 39 Appeal Hearing panel i s composed of: OPTION: immediate s u p e r v i s o r o f n u r s i n g program head QUESTIONNAIRE: 11 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 11 ALPHA: .59 QUESTION //: 39 Appeal Hearing panel i s composed of: OPTION: head o f n u r s i n g program QUESTIONNAIRE: 17 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 6 ALPHA: .56 QUESTION //: 40 Review i s d i r e c t e d OPTION: v a l i d i t y o f o b s e r v a t i o n s QUESTIONNAIRE: 34 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 5 ALPHA: .52  towards:  File: CONTINGENCY Report: AGREEMENT ASSESSM'T QUESTION //: 40 Review i s d i r e c t e d towards: OPTION: f a i r n e s s and reasonableness QUESTIONNAIRE: 48 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 11 ALPHA: .54 QUESTION //: 40 Review i s d i r e c t e d OPTION: procedures used QUESTIONNAIRE: 41 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 8 ALPHA: .53  towards:  QUESTION //: 41 I n d i v i d u a l s are interviewed OPTION: yes QUESTIONNAIRE: 44 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 30 ALPHA: .55 QUESTION //: 41 I n d i v i d u a l s are interviewed OPTION: no QUESTIONNAIRE: 2 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 1 ALPHA: .51 QUESTION //: 42 Who i s interviewed? OPTION: student QUESTIONNAIRE: 44 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 30 ALPHA: .54 QUESTION //: 42 Who i s interviewed? OPTION: student's peers QUESTIONNAIRE: 5 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 1 ALPHA: .51 QUESTION //: 42 Who i s interviewed? OPTION: student's c l i n i c a l i n s t r u c t o r QUESTIONNAIRE: 40 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 21 ALPHA: .54 QUESTION //: 42 Who i s interviewed? OPTION: head of n u r s i n g program' QUESTIONNAIRE: 25 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 2 ALPHA: .53  323 File: CONTINGENCY Report: AGREEMENT ASSESSM'T QUESTION //: 42 Who i s interviewed? OPTION: i n d i v i d u a l who conducted Grievance QUESTIONNAIRE: 15 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 4 ALPHA: .54  Page 16  Review  QUESTION //: 43 Student has r i g h t to an advisor? OPTION: yes QUESTIONNAIRE: 37 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 25 ALPHA: .59 QUESTION //: 43 Student has r i g h t to an advisor? OPTION: no QUESTIONNAIRE: 8 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 2 ALPHA: .46 QUESTION //: 44 T h i s a d v i s o r may be: OPTION: a lawyer QUESTIONNAIRE: 25 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 17 ALPHA:..59 QUESTION //: 44 This'-advisor may be: OPTION: not a lawyer QUESTIONNAIRE: 19 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 11 ALPHA: .54 QUESTION //: 44 T h i s a d v i s o r may be: OPTION: an a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t QUESTIONNAIRE: 14 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 7 ALPHA: .59 QUESTION //: 44 T h i s a d v i s o r may be: OPTION: only a p a s s i v e p a r t i c i p a n t QUESTIONNAIRE: 6 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 5 ALPHA: .51 QUESTION //: 44 T h i s a d v i s o r may be: OPTION: a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t i f requested QUESTIONNAIRE: 12 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 6 ALPHA: .56  324 File: CONTINGENCY Report: AGREEMENT ASSESSM'T  Pa_  QUESTION //: 23 Girevance REview o f e v a l u a t i v e OPTION: v a l i d i t y o f o b s e r v a t i o n s QUESTIONNAIRE: 46 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 8 ALPHA: .54  decision i s d i r  QUESTION //: 23 Girevance REview o f e v a l u a t i v e d e c i s i o n i s d i r OPTION: f a i r n e s s and reasonableness o f e v a l u a t i o n QUESTIONNAIRE: 55 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 8 ALPHA: .51 QUESTION //: 23 Girevance REview o f e v a l u a t i v e OPTION: procedures used QUESTIONNAIRE: 50 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 8 ALPHA: .52 QUESTION //: 24 I n d i v i d u a l s i n t e r v i e w e d : OPTION: yes QUESTIONNAIRE: 49 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 26 ALPHA: .54 QUESTION //: 24 I n d i v i d u a l s OPTION: no QUESTIONNAIRE: 7 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 4 ALPHA: .55  interviewed:  QUESTION //: 25 Who i s u s u a l l y OPTION: student QUESTIONNAIRE: 50 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 25 ALPHA: .52  interviewed?  QUESTION //: 25 Who i s u s u a l l y OPTION: student's peers QUESTIONNAIRE: 1 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 1 ALPHA: .50  interviewed?  QUESTION //: 25 Who i s u s u a l l y interviewed? OPTION: student's c l i n i c a l i n s t r u c t o r QUESTIONNAIRE: 47 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 13 ALPHA: .53  decision i s d i r  325  File: CONTINGENCY Report: AGREEMENT ASSESSM'T  Page 17  QUESTION //: 45 C l i n i c a l i n s t r u c t o r has r i g h t to an advisor? OPTION: yes QUESTIONNAIRE: 24 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 10 ALPHA: .33 QUESTION //: 45 C l i n i c a l OPTION: no QUESTIONNAIRE: 18 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 3 ALPHA: .54  i n s t r u c t o r has r i g h t  to an advisor?  QUESTION //: 46 T h i s a d v i s o r may be: OPTION: a lawyer QUESTIONNAIRE: 16 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 8 ALPHA: .55 QUESTION //: 46 T h i s a d v i s o r may be: OPTION: not a lawyer QUESTIONNAIRE: 9 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 4 ALPHA: .54 QUESTION //: 46 This a d v i s o r may be: OPTION: an a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t QUESTIONNAIRE: 11 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 6 ALPHA: .53 1  QUESTION //: 46 T h i s a d v i s o r may be: OPTION: only a p a s s i v e p a r t i c i p a n t QUESTIONNAIRE: 4 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 0 ALPHA: .51 QUESTION //: 46 T h i s a d v i s o r may be: OPTION: a c t i v e i f requested QUESTIONNAIRE: 9 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 1 ALPHA: .51 QUESTION //: 47 Documents to be assessed i n c l u d e : OPTION: w r i t t e n submission by head o f program QUESTIONNAIRE: 23 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 4 ALPHA: .53  326 File: CONTINGENCY Report: AGREEMENT ASSESSM'T  Page 18  QUESTION //: 47 Documents to be assessed i n c l u d e : OPTION: w r i t t e n submission by student's c l i n i c a l QUESTIONNAIRE: 32 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 6 ALPHA: .62 QUESTION //: 47 Documents t o be assessed OPTION: w r i t t e n submission by student QUESTIONNAIRE: 43 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 11 ALPHA: .53  instructor  include:  QUESTION //: 47 Documents to be assessed i n c l u d e : OPTION: w r i t t e n submission by student's a d v i s o r QUESTIONNAIRE: 15 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 1 ALPHA: .53 QUESTION //: 47 Documents to be assessed OPTION: student's e v a l u a t i o n r e p o r t QUESTIONNAIRE: 36 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 3 ALPHA: .52  include:  QUESTION //: 47 Documents to be assessed i n c l u d e : OPTION: anecdotal notes about student's performance QUESTIONNAIRE: 31 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 2 ALPHA: .65 QUESTION //: 47 Documents to be assessed OPTION: student's w r i t t e n assignments QUESTIONNAIRE: 30 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 2 ALPHA: .52  include:  QUESTION //: 47 Documents to be assessed i n c l u d e : OPTION: student's p r e v i o u s e v a l u a t i o n r e p o r t s QUESTIONNAIRE: 27 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 0 ALPHA: .51 QUESTION //: 47 Documents to be assessed OPTION: student's e n t i r e f i l e QUESTIONNAIRE: 28 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 5 ALPHA: .52  include:  File: Report:  CONTINGENCY AGREEMENT ASSESSM'T  QUESTION //: 48 Evidence permitted at the h e a r i n g : OPTION: i n v i t e d by h e a r i n g o f f i c e r QUESTIONNAIRE: 23 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 6 ALPHA: .54 QUESTION //: 48 Evidence permitted at the hearing: OPTION: i n v i t e d by the h e a r i n g panel QUESTIONNAIRE: 24 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 2 ALPHA: .53 QUESTION //: 48 Evidence permitted at the hearing: OPTION: i n v i t e d by student QUESTIONNAIRE: 21 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 7 ALPHA: .54 QUESTION //: 48 Evidence permitted at the hearing: OPTION: i n v i t e d by c l i n i c a l i n s t r u c t o r QUESTIONNAIRE: 15 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 5 ALPHA: .52 QUESTION //: 48 Evidence permitted at the hearing: OPTION: i n v i t e d by head of n u r s i n g program QUESTIONNAIRE: 16 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 3 ALPHA: .55 QUESTION //: 49 Witnesses permitted at the h e a r i n g OPTION: i n v i t e d by h e a r i n g o f f i c e r QUESTIONNAIRE: 17 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 5 ALPHA: .56 QUESTION //: 49 Witnesses permitted at the h e a r i n g OPTION: i n v i t e d by h e a r i n g panel QUESTIONNAIRE: 13 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 4 ALPHA: .53 QUESTION //: 49 Witnesses permitted at the h e a r i n g OPTION: i n v i t e d by the student QUESTIONNAIRE: 10 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 3 ALPHA: .54  328  File: CONTINGENCY Report: AGREEMENT ASSESSM'T  Page 20  QUESTION //: 49 Witnesses permitted at the hearing: OPTION: i n v i t e d by c l i n i c a l i n s t r u c t o r QUESTIONNAIRE: 5 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 1 ALPHA: .51 QUESTION //: 49 Witnesses permitted at the hearing: OPTION: i n v i t e d by head of n u r s i n g program QUESTIONNAIRE: 7 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 2 ALPHA: .50 QUESTION //: 50 Hearing i s : OPTION: open to p u b l i c QUESTIONNAIRE: 0 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 1 ALPHA: .50 QUESTION //: 50 Hearing i s : OPTION: c l o s e d to p u b l i c QUESTIONNAIRE: 40 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 25 ALPHA: .56 QUESTION //: 50 Hearing i s : OPTION: normally open, but can be c l o s e d QUESTIONNAIRE: 0 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 1 ALPHA: .50 QUESTION //: 50 Hearing i s : OPTION: normally c l o s e d , but can be open QUESTIONNAIRE: 7 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 1 ALPHA: .56 QUESTION //: 51 documentation o f the h e a r i n g i n c l u d e s : OPTION: tape r e c o r d i n g h e a r i n g QUESTIONNAIRE: 8 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 2 ALPHA: .60 QUESTION //: 51 documentation of the h e a r i n g i n c l u d e s : OPTION: p r e p a r i n g w r i t t e n t r a n s c r i p t QUESTIONNAIRE: 10 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 1 ALPHA: .50  329  File: CONTINGENCY Report: AGREEMENT ASSESSM'T QUESTION //: 51 documentation o f the h e a r i n g i n c l u d e s : OPTION: p r e p a r i n g a w r i t t e n summary QUESTIONNAIRE: 41 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 7 ALPHA: .53 QUESTION //: 52 Outcome o f h e a r i n g i s r e p o r t e d as: OPTION: a recommendation QUESTIONNAIRE: 4 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 3 ALPHA: .54 QUESTION //: 52 Outcome of h e a r i n g i s reported as: OPTION: a summary o f f i n d i n g s QUESTIONNAIRE: 0 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 4 ALPHA: .51 QUESTION //: 52 Outcome o f h e a r i n g i s reported as: OPTION: a d e c i s i o n QUESTIONNAIRE: 36 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 27 ALPHA: .40 QUESTION //: 53 Outcome" of h e a r i n g i s reported to: OPTION: student QUESTIONNAIRE: 41 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 20 ALPHA: .55 QUESTION //: 53 Outcome o f h e a r i n g i s reported to: OPTION: student's c l i n i c a l i n s t r u c t o r QUESTIONNAIRE: 22 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 7 ALPHA: .54 QUESTION //: 53 Outcome o f h e a r i n g i s r e p o r t e d to: OPTION: head o f n u r s i n g program QUESTIONNAIRE: 41 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 15 ALPHA: .53 QUESTION //: 53 Outcome o f h e a r i n g i s reported to: OPTION: r e g i s t r a r o f i n s t i t u t i o n QUESTIONNAIRE: 18 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 4 ALPHA: .52  Page  21  330  File: CONTINGENCY Report: AGREEMENT ASSESSM'T  Page 22  QUESTION //: 53 Outcome o f h e a r i n g i s r e p o r t e d t o : OPTION: dean o f d i v i s i o n , s c h o o l , f a c u l t y QUESTIONNAIRE: 17 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 9 ALPHA: .61 QUESTION //: 53 Outcome o f h e a r i n g i s r e p o r t e d t o : OPTION: head o f i n s t i t u t i o n QUESTIONNAIRE: 18 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 5 ALPHA: .54 QUESTION //: 54 Student i s informed of outcome by: OPTION: c h a i r p e r s o n o f h e a r i n g panel QUESTIONNAIRE: 24 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 10 ALPHA: .54 QUESTION //: 54 Student i s informed of outcome by: OPTION: h e a r i n g o f f i c e r QUESTIONNAIRE: 7 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 1 ALPHA: .57 QUESTION //: 54 Student i s informed of outcome by: OPTION: head o f i n s t i t u t i o n QUESTIONNAIRE: 5 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 1 ALPHA: .51 QUESTION //: 54 Student i s informed of outcome by: OPTION: immediate s u p e r v i s o r o f n u r s i n g program head QUESTIONNAIRE: 0 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 2 ALPHA: .52 QUESTION //: 55 Appeal Hearing o f f i c e r or panel have power t OPTION: only make recommendations QUESTIONNAIRE: 5 POLICIES/PROCEDURES: 3 ALPHA: .51 QUESTION //: 55 Appeal Hearing o f f i c e r or panel have power t OPTION: only make a d e c i s i o n as