Skip to main content

Table 3 Comparison between historic control and intervention group on perceptions of community care (SCOPE: total scale, subscales, and per item)

From: Influencing nursing students’ perceptions of community care with curriculum-redesign; a quasi-experimental cohort study

Perceptions: range 1–10 in mean (SD) with mean values < 5.5 and > 8 in bold

Historic control/Old curriculum

(n = 477)

Intervention/New curriculum

(n = 170)

Cases missingb (historic control + intervention)

Test-value t

P (2-tailed)

SCOPE: total scale (33 items)

6.18 (1.15)

6.21 (1.08)

0

- 0.338

0.735

Affective component scale (11 items)

6.53 (1.34)

6.55 (1.25)

0

- 0.117

0.907

Placement scale (5 items)

5.42 (1.70)

5.51 (1.58)

14a

- 0.560

0.576

Profession scale (17 items)

6.54 (0.98)

6.57 (0.92)

0

- 0.303

0.762

Affective component scale

 Dull - interesting

6.01 (2.07)

5.81 (2.17)

1

1.072

0.284

 Boring – fascinating

5.59 (2.00)

5.75 (2.11)

2

- 0.882

0.378

 Unpleasant – pleasant

6.07 (1.92)

6.07 (1.98)

2

0.015

0.988

 Annoying – agreeable

6.02 (1.85)

5.97 (1.80)

3

0.320

0.749

 Uncomfortable – comfortable

5.81 (1.96)

5.65 (2.02)

7

0.916

0.360

 Old fashioned – modern

6.53 (1.97)

6.87 (1.91)

3

- 1.928

0.054

 Unimportant – important

8.30 (1.95)

8.58 (1.61)

2

- 1.883

0.061

 Bad – good

8.00 (1.84)

8.14 (1.73)

2

- 0.814

0.416

 Useless – meaningful

8.48 (1.58)

8.60 (1.65)

3

- 0.879

0.380

 Unattractive – attractive

5.12 (2.34)

4.86 (2.29)

1

1.207

0.228

 Stupid – fun

5.94 (2.15)

5.73 (2.27)

0

1.078

0.282

Placement scaleb

 Very little – much variety in the caregiving

5.58 (2.38)

5.79 (2.42)

29

- 0.944

0.346

 Very little – much contact with mentor

4.67 (2.24)

4.46 (2.04)

60

1.035

0.301

 Very few – many opportunities to learn new things

5.68 (2.14)

5.96 (2.16)

24

- 1.430

0.153

 My mentor will have very little – much time to evaluate

5.15 (2.31)

4.92 (2.18)

86

1.075

0.283

 No – many possibilities to plan own learning activities

6.14 (2.29)

6.13 (2.11)

65

0.054

0.957

Profession scaleb

 Very few – may enjoyable relationships with patients

7.72 (1.58)

7.77 (1.63)

15

- 0.378

0.706

 Very little – much physically demanding work

7.24 (1.70)

7.20 (1.73)

8

0.258

0.796

 Very little – much collaboration with colleagues

4.74 (2.15)

4.48 (2.03)

15

1.372

0.171

 Very little – much collaboration with other disciplines

5.88 (2.26)

6.12 (2.16)

18

- 1.206

0.228

 Very few – many technical skills needed

6.24 (2.08)

6.30 (1.85)

8

- 0.286

0.775

 Very little – a lot of freedom of action

7.76 (1.66)

7.84 (1.73)

16

- 0.532

0.595

 Very little – a lot of variety in the caregiving

5.79 (2.20)

5.85 (2.02)

13

- 0.321

0.748

 A poor – good occupational work environment

4.33 (1.94)

4.15 (1.96)

46

1.043

0.297

 Very little – plenty of individual responsibility

8.48 (1.25)

8.51 (1.20)

6

- 0.308

0.758

 No – continual feelings of work pressure

7.34 (1.75)

7.40 (1.53)

18

- 0.407

0.684

 Very few – plenty of complex patient care needs

6.09 (2.05)

6.02 (1.84)

19

0.361

0.718

 Very few – only elderly patients

8.75 (1.23)

8.62 (1.23)

3

1.252

0.211

 Low – high status work

4.96 (1.88)

5.21 (1.81)

34

- 1.435

0.152

 No – a lot of possible health improvement for the patient

6.37 (1.91)

6.49 (1.79)

29

- 0.737

0.461

 Very few – many enthusiastic colleagues

6.30 (1.92)

6.29 (1.71)

61

0.070

0.944

 Very few – much contact with family/ kin

7.70 (1.79)

7.90 (1.62)

14

- 1.213

0.226

 No – many opportunities for advancement

5.27 (2.14)

5.33 (2.23)

41

- 0.271

0.787

  1. a Cases with no data in the placement scale or with the option ‘I don’t know’ in all 5 items
  2. b The option ‘I don’t know’ (value 11) in the placement and profession scale is excluded in the calculation of the mean and defined as missing, which explains the larger/ fluctuating numbers of missing values in the placement and profession scale