NURS FPX 6111 Assessment 4 Program Effectiveness Presentation


NURS FPX 6111 Assessment 4 Program Effectiveness Presentation

NURS FPX 6111 Assessment 4 Program Effectiveness Presentation


Capella university

NURS-FPX 6111 Assessment and Evaluation in Nursing Education

Prof. Name


Program Effectiveness Presentation

Title: “Advancing ‘Comprehensive Nursing Fundamentals’: A Critical Evaluation”

Good morning, my name is (Your Name), and welcome to this essential presentation focused on the ‘Comprehensive Nursing Fundamentals’ course. Today, We are gathered to thoroughly evaluate and enhance this cornerstone course in our nursing education program. This course, pivotal in shaping competent and skilled nursing professionals, demands our keen attention and thoughtful analysis to ensure it aligns with the highest nursing education and practice standards.

Purpose of the Presentation

The primary purpose of this presentation is to rigorously assess the effectiveness of the ‘Comprehensive Nursing Fundamentals’ course in covering the crucial cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domains integral to nursing practice. We aim to integrate and analyze structured feedback, applying a detailed and systematic evaluation process. This assessment is not just about identifying strengths and areas for improvement; it is about reinforcing our commitment to excellence in academic standards and comprehensive student development. Through this presentation, we will explore various evaluation methodologies, discuss their applicability, and understand their strengths and limitations within the context of nursing education. A significant focus will be on how data analysis can drive continuous improvement in the program, pinpointing areas that require further insight and development. Ultimately, the goal is to ensure that the ‘Comprehensive Nursing Fundamentals’ course not only meets but exceeds the dynamic and evolving needs of the healthcare sector, thus maintaining our position as a leading institution in nursing education. Let us commit collectively to enhance our program and nurture the next generation of nursing professionals.

Philosophical Approaches to Evaluation: Explanation & Evidence


In the context of the ‘Comprehensive Nursing Fundamentals’ course, the evaluation process is significantly enhanced by employing a combination of formative and summative evaluation philosophies. Formative, inherently continuous evaluation centers on the educational process, facilitating real-time improvements and adaptations. This approach is particularly crucial in the course due to the dynamic and rapidly evolving nature of clinical skills and knowledge (Nouraey et al., 2020). It allows for immediate feedback and necessary adjustments, fostering a conducive learning environment responsive to the student’s immediate needs and the nursing profession’s requirements. Conversely, summative evaluation is employed at the culmination of an educational program or course. Its primary function is to assess the program’s effectiveness and impact, summarizing the students’ learning achievements. This type of evaluation is critical for determining the extent to which the course objectives have been achieved and assessing the students’ acquisition of requisite knowledge and skills (Chufama, 2021).

Evidence Base

Marcomini et al. (2021) highlight the effectiveness of integrating formative and summative evaluations in educational settings. As noted by these authors, formative evaluations enhance learning through continuous feedback. This process is vital in promptly addressing challenges and gaps during the course, ensuring the educational content remains relevant and practical.

Summative evaluations complement this by offering a broader assessment of learning outcomes, providing a comprehensive view of the success of the ‘Comprehensive Nursing Fundamentals’ course. As per the insights of O’Flaherty & Costabile (2020), this dual approach addresses immediate learning needs and encapsulates the educational process’s overall achievements. This combination is particularly aligned with the principles of adult learning and reflective practice, which are fundamental in course education. Adult learners, a significant demographic in this course, benefit from this responsive and adaptive approach, as it aligns with their learning style and professional requirements.

Furthermore, Chen et al. (2020) emphasize that integrating formative and summative evaluations ensures a thorough assessment encompassing both the learning process and outcomes. In the field of ‘Comprehensive Nursing Fundamentals,’ where theoretical knowledge and practical skills are equally important, this comprehensive evaluation framework is essential. It ensures that students acquire knowledge and are proficient in applying it in practical, clinical settings.

Steps of Program Evaluation Process: Steps & Limitations

Steps of the Evaluation Process

The program evaluation process in ‘Comprehensive Nursing Fundamentals’ consists of several critical steps designed to comprehensively assess the program’s effectiveness (Youhasan et al., 2021). These steps are:

  1. Needs Assessment: The initial step involves identifying the learning needs of nursing students. This phase is crucial for tailoring the program to meet the specific requirements of the student population and the demands of the nursing profession.
  2. Design Evaluation: This step involves developing a framework for evaluation based on the learning objectives of the nursing program. The design phase ensures the evaluation aligns with the program’s intended outcomes, providing relevant and valuable data.
  3. Implementation: The evaluation process uses diverse methods, including surveys, tests, and practical exams. This variety in methodology ensures a comprehensive assessment of theoretical knowledge and practical skills.
  4. Data Collection: This step involves gathering data from various sources, such as student feedback, test scores, and practical assessments. Collecting data from multiple sources provides a more nuanced understanding of the program’s effectiveness.
  5. Data Analysis: The collected data is analyzed to gain insights into the program’s effectiveness. This analysis helps identify areas of strength and areas that require improvement.
  6. Reporting & Feedback: Finally, the findings from the evaluation are communicated to stakeholders, including students, faculty, and administrative bodies. This step ensures transparency and provides an opportunity for further discussion and improvement.

Limitations of the Evaluation Process

While the program evaluation process is comprehensive, it has limitations. These limitations include:

  • Potential Biases in Self-Reported Data: Self-reported data, such as student feedback, can be subjective and may not always accurately reflect the program’s effectiveness. Students’ perceptions can be influenced by various factors, not all related to the program’s quality (O’Flaherty & Costabile, 2020).
  • Variability in Student Performance: Students’ performance can vary widely, impacting the assessment of the program’s effectiveness. Factors such as student background, prior knowledge, and learning styles can influence their performance and, consequently, the evaluation results (Prediger et al., 2020).
  • Constraints in Resources for Comprehensive Data Collection: Completing comprehensive data requires significant resources, including time, personnel, and funding. These constraints can limit the scope of data collection, potentially impacting the evaluation’s comprehensiveness and accuracy (Conn et al., 2020).

Evaluation Design, Framework, or Model: Design & Limitations

Design Choice: Mixed-Methods Approach

Adopting a mixed-methods approach that combines quantitative and qualitative data is highly beneficial in the context of ‘Comprehensive Nursing Fundamentals’ evaluation. This approach allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the program’s impact. Quantitative data, such as test scores and graduation rates, provide measurable and objective indicators of program effectiveness. On the other hand, qualitative data gathered from interviews, focus groups, and open-ended survey responses offer deeper insights into the experiences, perceptions, and attitudes of students and faculty. This combination ensures a balanced view, capturing not just the hard metrics of success but also the nuanced experiences of participants in the program (Clemett & Raleigh, 2021).

Framework: Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Training Evaluation Model

Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Training Evaluation Model, adapted for ‘Comprehensive Nursing Fundamentals,’ is a robust framework for evaluating educational programs. This model includes four levels:

  • Reaction: Assessing how participants respond to the training is crucial in nursing education to gauge student engagement and satisfaction.
  • Learning: Measuring the increase in knowledge or capability following the training program.
  • Behavior: Observing the transfer of learning to the job or practice, which translates to clinical skills application in nursing.
  • Results: Evaluating the final results that can be attributed to the training, such as improved patient care outcomes.

This model is particularly suitable for nursing education as it provides a holistic view of the training’s effectiveness, from immediate reactions to long-term impacts on practice and patient care (Momennasab et al., 2022).

Limitations of the Selected Evaluation Model

While Kirkpatrick’s model is comprehensive, it has its limitations:

  1. Time and Resource Intensity: Implementing this model can be time-consuming and resource-intensive, particularly in gathering and analyzing data across all four levels. This may challenge limited-resource nursing programs (Prediger et al., 2020).
  2. Measuring Behavioral Change: Measuring behavioral change (Level 3) in a clinical setting can be challenging. Behavior change in nursing practice may not be immediately observable and can be influenced by various external factors beyond the scope of the training program (Conn et al., 2020).
  3. Long-term Results Measurement: Assessing the long-term impact (Level 4), like improved patient outcomes or changes in clinical practice, can be complex. Multiple factors often influence these outcomes, and attributing them solely to the educational program can be challenging (Endres et al., 2021).

Data Analysis for Ongoing Program Improvement: Utilization & Areas for Improvement

Utilization of Data Analysis

Data analysis in the context of ‘Comprehensive Nursing Fundamentals’ evaluation is critical in identifying the program’s strengths and weaknesses. By analyzing quantitative data, such as graduation rates, exam scores, and licensure pass rates, educators can gain measurable insights into the program’s effectiveness in imparting the necessary knowledge and skills. This data type is essential for objective evaluation and comparisons with benchmark standards or other programs (Conn et al., 2020). In conjunction with quantitative data, qualitative data analysis is equally important. Insights from student feedback, faculty observations, and other narrative data sources provide a deeper understanding of the learner experience. They offer perspectives on course content relevance, teaching effectiveness, and the overall learning environment. Qualitative data analysis can reveal nuances not immediately apparent through quantitative methods alone, providing a more holistic view of the program’s impact (Marcomini et al., 2021).

Areas of Uncertainty or Knowledge Gaps

While data analysis offers substantial insights, it also highlights areas of uncertainty and knowledge gaps:

  1. Uncertainty in the Application of Theoretical Knowledge: One key area of uncertainty is how effectively the program translates theoretical knowledge into practical skills, especially in diverse clinical settings. This gap is critical as nursing education must ensure that students are knowledgeable and skilled in applying that knowledge in real-world clinical contexts (O’Flaherty & Costabile, 2020).
  2. Knowledge Gaps in Long-term Retention and Clinical Impact: Another significant knowledge gap is the long-term retention of skills and knowledge imparted by the program. Additionally, more comprehensive data on the program’s impact on actual clinical practice is often needed. Understanding how the program influences clinical outcomes and patient care in the long term is essential for ongoing improvement (Prediger et al., 2020).

Additional Information Needed

To address these gaps and uncertainties, additional information is needed:

  • Feedback from Clinical Supervisors and Healthcare Organizations: Input from clinical supervisors and healthcare organizations where students undertake their practical training can provide valuable insights into how well theoretical learning is applied in clinical settings. This feedback can highlight areas where the curriculum may need adjustment to better prepare students for the practical demands of nursing (Clemett & Raleigh, 2021).
  • Long-term Career Tracking of Graduates: Tracking the career progression and professional development of graduates can offer insights into the program’s long-term effectiveness. Such tracking can help assess the program’s impact on graduates’ professional growth and their contribution to healthcare outcomes (Shabani & Panahi, 2020).


In concluding this presentation, we have established a clear roadmap for improving the ‘Comprehensive Nursing Fundamentals’ course. Through a comprehensive evaluation that integrates both formative and summative approaches, we have identified critical areas for enhancement and recognized the importance of adapting our teaching methodologies and curriculum to the evolving needs of the nursing profession. The insights gained from various evaluation models and data analysis techniques have highlighted the necessity of continuous, multi-faceted assessment in maintaining the highest standards of nursing education.

Moving forward, our focus will be on implementing the identified improvements, continually seeking feedback, and adapting our approach to ensure that our nursing program not only meets but exceeds the expectations of our students and the healthcare community. Our commitment to excellence in nursing education is unwavering, and we are dedicated to nurturing skilled, knowledgeable, and ethical nursing professionals who are equipped to make a significant impact in the healthcare sector.


Chen, F.-Q., Leng, Y.-F., Ge, J.-F., Wang, D.-W., Li, C., Chen, B., & Sun, Z.-L. (2020). Effectiveness of virtual reality in nursing education: Meta-analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research22(9). 

Chufama, M. (2021). The pivotal role of diagnostic, formative and summative assessment in higher education institutions’ teaching and student learning. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Publications (IJMRAP)4(5), 5–15. 

Clemett, V. J., & Raleigh, M. (2021). The validity and reliability of clinical judgment and decision-making skills assessment in nursing: A systematic literature review. Nurse Education Today102, 104885. 

Conn, C. A., Bohan, K. J., Pieper, S. L., & Musumeci, M. (2020). Validity inquiry process: Practical guidance for examining performance assessments and building a validity argument. Studies in Educational Evaluation65, 100843. 

NURS FPX 6111 Assessment 4 Program Effectiveness Presentation

Endres, K., Burm, S., Weiman, D., Karol, D., Dudek, N., Cowley, L., & LaDonna, K. (2021). Navigating the uncertainty of health advocacy teaching and evaluation from the trainee’s perspective. Medical Teacher44(1), 79–86. 

Marcomini, I., Terzoni, S., & Destrebecq, A. (2021). Fostering nursing students’ clinical reasoning: a QSEN-based teaching strategy. Teaching and Learning in Nursing16 

Momennasab, M., Mohammadi, F., DehghanRad, F., & Jaberi, A. (2022). Evaluation of the effectiveness of a training programme for nurses regarding augmentative and alternative communication with intubated patients using Kirkpatrick’s model: A pilot study. Nursing Open 

Nouraey, P., Al-Badi, A., Riasati, M. J., & Maata, R. L. (2020). Educational program and curriculum evaluation models: A mini systematic review of the recent trends. Universal Journal of Educational Research8(9), 4048–4055. 

O’Flaherty, J., & Costabile, M. (2020). Using a science simulation-based learning tool to develop students’ active learning, self-confidence and critical thinking in academic writing. Nurse Education in Practice47, 102839. 

NURS FPX 6111 Assessment 4 Program Effectiveness Presentation

Prediger, S., Schick, K., Fincke, F., Fürstenberg, S., Oubaid, V., Kadmon, M., Berberat, P. O., & Harendza, S. (2020). Validation of a competence-based assessment of medical students’ performance in the physician’s role. BMC Medical Education20(1). 

Shabani, E. A., & Panahi, J. (2020). Examining consistency among different rubrics for assessing writing. Language Testing in Asia10(1). 

Youhasan, P., Chen, Y., Lyndon, M., & Henning, M. A. (2021). Exploring the pedagogical design features of the flipped classroom in undergraduate nursing education: A systematic review. BMC Nursing20(1). 

Get Free Samples on your Email

For your Capella University BSN/MSN/DNP Class!

Latest Samples

Free BSN Assessments