Abstract
Students expect consistent and fair grading. The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate reliability of an undergraduate clinical performance grading rubric. The rubric was tested for measures of reliability and consistency. Formative and summative measures were compared. Written assignments were compared with clinical performance. A convenience sample of 58 first-semester clinical undergraduate baccalaureate nursing students was used. Significance was found between midterm (M = .89) and final performance (M = .94; t[57] = -15.896; p ⩽ .001, two-tailed) showing an increase in final performance. No correlation was found between final written work and performance evaluations (r[56] = .164, p ⩾ .05), and a significant difference was noted between written work (M = .973) and performance evaluations (M = .915; t[114]) = 14.536, p ⩽ .001). Cronbach's alpha scores equaled .917. All clinical instructors agreed that the results accurately measured student performance. Use of the grading rubric was effective in measuring student clinical performance and provided an objective grade calculation for any level student. [J Nurs Educ. 2018;57(9):544-548.].
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
