PROPOSAL TO SUPPORT THE STRATEGIC PLAN TO IMPLEMENT THE CANADIAN NURSING
ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
COLLABORATORS
ACADEMY OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE NURSES
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOLS OF NURSING
CANADIAN FEDERATION OF NURSES UNIONS
CANADIAN HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATION
CANADIAN NURSES ASSOCIATION
CANADIAN PRACTICAL NURSES ASSOCIATION
REGISTERED PSYCHIATRIC NURSES OF CANADA
EDUCATIONAL PREPARATION OBJECTIVE A
STUDENT SELECTION PROCESSES
AUTHORS:
PAULINE PAUL, RN, PHD, UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA
RENE DAY, RN, PHD, UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA
JEANETTE BOMAN, RN, PHD, UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA
WENDY MCBRIDE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CASN
DINA IDRISS, EDUCATION PROGRAM OFFICER, CASN
The recommendations contained in this report are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect those of the collaborating organizations on the project Steering
Committee.
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
© Copyright 2005 Canadian Nurses Association
Ottawa Ontario Canada
31 March 2004
Page 2
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This project examined student selection processes in Canadian programs (diploma and
degree) that lead to registration in any of the regulated professions: Registered Nurse
(RN), Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) and Registered Psychiatric Nurse (RPN). Information
was collected through electronic surveys, and a number of telephone interviews.
Key findings indicate no shortage of applicants interested in nursing education; however,
the quality of applicants and the availability of resources to devote to the selection
process are at times an issue. Nonetheless, programs did not go below their advertised
GPA in the admission of the 2003 cohort. Academic performance is key to admission in
the majority of baccalaureate programs, while a significant proportion of LPN programs
rely on a “first come, first served” approach. Few programs use interviews, letters of
reference or other methods of selection. Some respondents indicated a desire to use
these as complementary methods. All types of programs asked for similar prerequisite
courses and many respondents provided a rationale for using them. These rationales
were certainly akin to those found in the literature and comparable to what was found in
the survey of other disciplines.
Although a relatively small number of programs reserved seats for Aboriginal students,
few were able to fill these seats. The intent to admit these students does not translate into
significant numbers. Few seats were reserved for students from rural and remote areas,
and this did not seem to greatly concern study participants. It may be that students from
these areas are present in nursing programs and that, like male students, they are
competitive with other applicants. International students are admitted in a large
proportion of baccalaureate programs and in some LPN programs. Although it is
unfortunate that a question did not address the admission of new Canadians, we
suspect that programs would have struggled to answer this question; provincial human
rights regulations make it difficult to collect such data. Anecdotal evidence at our
university indicates that New Canadians quite regularly face challenges because of
language barriers.
The following recommendations arose from this study:
1. Baccalaureate programs should continue to use GPA, the commonly used
prerequisites (English, biology, chemistry, physics and French), and grades in
prerequisites as central admission criteria.
2. LPN programs should seriously consider the addition of chemistry as a prerequisite
in light of LPNs’ increasing level of responsibilities in the area of medication
administration.
3. The practice of admitting on a first come, first served basis should be abolished in
all types of nursing programs. We understand that parent institutions often impose
this policy.
4. Considering the limitations described in recommendation 3, national organizations
should encourage all provincial nursing education regulatory bodies to admit all
students on merit rather than use chance practices such as lotteries;
5. National nursing associations should seek funding to evaluate the value of using
complementary methods in the admission process. For example, it would be useful
to offer additional resources to selected faculties/schools located in each region
in Canada. With these, schools could to carry out a common, structured interview
process, and to systematically study the extent to which this screening method
31 March 2004
Page 3
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
increases retention in nursing programs. Conducting a multi-site study would be
efficient and could lead to a quality evaluation about the value of conducting
admission interviews.
6. A national effort should be made to increase the number of Aboriginal students in
nursing programs and measures taken to ensure these students receive adequate
funding and support.
7. More research should be done about the admission of new Canadians into
nursing programs and a systematic national effort, prior to admission to nursing
programs, should provide them with the language skills needed for success in the
profession.
8. In light of the difficulty encountered by some programs of attracting “quality
applicants,” national organizations should make concerted efforts to increase
awareness about the rigour of nursing education.
31 March 2004
Page 4
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................6
2.
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY........................................................................................9
3.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ..................................................................................................... 12
4.
ANALYSIS.............................................................................................................................. 48
5.
CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................... 49
6.
RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................... 50
Appendix A: References ............................................................................................................ 51
Appendix B: Bibliography ........................................................................................................... 52
Appendix C: Survey, Interview and Focus Group Questions ................................................. 54
Appendix D– Selection Criteria for Project............................................................................... 65
Appendix E: Ethical Guidelines.................................................................................................. 69
Appendix F: CASN, LPN, RPN, CAPNE Members...................................................................... 72
Appendix G: Potential Respondents ........................................................................................ 76
31 March 2004
Page 5
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
1. INTRODUCTION
The Canadian Nurses Association (CNA) received funding from Health Canada to plan,
organize and carry out the Canadian Nursing Advisory Committee (CNAC)
recommendations. Through its CNAC proposal, CNA sub-contracted the Education
Preparation portion to Canadian Association of Schools of Nursing (CASN). CNA is
responsible for the overall CNAC proposal management, status review on project
process, final completion of results and submission to Health Canada.
CASN National Office, as sub-contractor for the Educational Preparation portion of the
CNAC proposal, was the liaison to all the stakeholders involved in this portion. CASN was
responsible for the overall management, logistics, set up and reporting to CNA of the four
projects under educational preparation. To carry this out under tight time constraints,
CASN contracted the management of surveys to a professional consulting group, Fair
Surveys Inc. With input from the researchers, the firm developed the survey, telephone
interview and focus group questions, conducted the web-based surveys, and compiled
the results (frequency, comments) for each of the four projects.
CASN set up a Steering Committee for guidance and approval through the steps of this
project. The Steering Committee included representatives of CASN, Canadian
Association of Psychiatric Nursing Education (CAPNE), Canadian Practical Nurses
Association (CPNA) and Registered Psychiatric Nurses of Canada (RPNC). This Steering
Committee helped identify sample groups, reviewed the methodology, reviewed and
approved the reports, which have been sent to CNA.
For each of the projects, CASN set up contracts with researchers. They were asked to
conduct a literature review, review and provide input into the survey questions, analyze
the results and present a discussion paper or report on their findings.
Finally, other associations – Canadian Health Association (CHA), Academy of Canadian
Executive Nurses (ACEN), Canadian Nursing Students Association (CNSA) and Canadian
Federation of Nurses Unions (CFNU) – were contacted as resources for certain portions of
the project. They were asked to provide input into sample schools, put forth contact
names of potential interviewees for parts of the projects, as well as help in
communication and awareness of the projects. Their input was important for all projects;
however, CHA and CFNU were not able to identify contacts in time for the surveys and
telephone interviews. CNSA and ACEN disseminated the communiqués about the
education projects to their members.
The Canadian Nurses Association agreed on December 19, 2003, that the CASN would
take the lead on the four education projects within the Canadian Nursing Advisory
Committee’s umbrella project. The Canadian Nurses Association then sub-contracted
the four education projects to CASN. In doing this, it was agreed CASN would
collaborate with the Canadian Practical Nurses Association and the Registered
Psychiatric Nurses of Canada.
2.2 General Constraints and Limitations
Time
Time was the greatest constraint in carrying out the education projects. Once CNA was
informed that the proposal was funded, CASN and CNA had one week to discuss CASN
31 March 2004
Page 6
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
taking the lead, in collaboration with the LPN and psychiatric nursing associations, and to
negotiate the terms of the sub-contract between the two organizations.
CASN had little time to contact the CPNA, RPNC and deans/directors of nursing schools
or select lead researchers about the project. Design of surveys was impacted by input
from the CNAC Steering Committee and the lead researchers on the project.
Unfortunately, there was no time to pilot the questions or test them online.
There were some technical difficulties in completing the surveys, mainly due to some
schools using older browsers. As a solution, Word versions of the surveys were sent to the
schools, later received by Fair Surveys in the form of an e-mail or fax. Fair Surveys then
entered the information into the database.
In addition to the short period for design, start up, implementation, analysis and report
writing, there were two different “reading” week periods in schools of nursing across the
country. A potential strike at Ontario colleges diverted the attention and availability of
deans/directors, faculty and students from the invitations to participate in the surveys
and focus groups.
Also, competition from other nursing-related surveys between January and March 2004,
led to “survey fatigue.” Some of these surveys were part of the CNA-led CNAC projects,
a separate CNAC project on student attrition out of the University of Toronto and a major
nursing sector study.
Communications across 165 universities, university colleges and colleges in 10 provinces
and three territories proved a challenge for the Steering Committee of CASN, CPNA,
CAPNE and RPNC. In response, they developed a number of strategies at the beginning
of the project:
‰ weekly status reports from CASN to the Steering Committee as the projects
progressed;
‰ weekly electronic communiqués disseminated by each association to their
respective members and schools;
‰ posting of general information and communiqués about the project on
associations’ web sites;
‰ identification and “recruitment” of mutually agreed upon (target) schools, which
delivered the range of LPN, RPN and RN programs; and
‰ individual telephone calls to the deans/directors of each (target) school,
encouraging them to champion the projects by disseminating the communiqués
and invitations by the survey consultants to faculty, clinical partners, students,
employers and nurses within their regions.
Response Rates
Despite these strategies, the representation of RPN respondents to the various surveys is
very low, indeed almost negligible, which skews the data and the analyses. RN
respondents far outnumber LPN respondents, which may indicate levels of interest,
accessibility to the Internet, or possibly the number of faculty and students in each
program across the country. Another reason for the far higher number of RN respondents
is the higher number of sample RN programs.
As well, the participation by potential respondents from Quebec was very low. This is in
spite of numerous communications to the president of the Quebec region of CASN (the
31 March 2004
Page 7
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
university association) and special efforts made by the president of the Quebec CEGEP
association. One key explanation may be the lack of time that was available to translate
the surveys and questions for interviews or focus groups; the data collection period was
between February 16 and March 20. The communiqués and directions regarding how to
access the surveys were all translated into French for dissemination to Francophone
schools; however, this did not encourage greater participation.
It is difficult to determine the exact number of potential Schools of Nursing and programs
of LPN, RN and RPN that received the surveys. This is especially true for the number of
agencies providing clinical placements across Canada (Clinical Education Placements
Survey). This lack of certainty has curtailed the ability of researchers to analyze the
response rate numerically. The voluntary nature of these surveys did not ensure that
feedback would represent each region. Consequently, there may be overrepresentation of some areas and under-representation of others. An estimate of the
numbers of potential respondents is in Supplement C.
Ethics Reviews
The requirement for ethics reviews was another constraint during the short period to carry
out the four projects. While CASN received a legal opinion on the approach to the
projects and the use of third-party survey consultants, the researchers were still obliged to
seek ethics reviews within their institutions because of their adherence to Tri-Council
guidelines. In two institutions, the ethics approvals were not problematic; however, in one
institution, the process appeared to be more rigorous and time-consuming (two weeks to
receive probationary approval and three or more weeks to receive final approval). This
requirement within the institutions, while supported by the Steering Committee,
consumed a considerable number of the 11 weeks that were available from start-up to
submission of the draft reports to CNA on March 22.
31 March 2004
Page 8
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
2. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
2.1 Approach
The purpose of this project was to examine the selection processes in Canadian
programs (diploma and degree) that lead to registration in any of the nursing regulated
professions – Registered Nurse (RN), Registered Psychiatric Nurse (RPN), Licensed Practical
Nurse (LPN) – with data and information collected through electronic surveys, and
telephone interviews.
The term “nursing” is used throughout the this project to identify the three nursing groups:
RPN, LPN and RN. In Eastern Canada, RPN is more commonly known as Registered
Practical Nurse whereas in Western Canada RPN is the protected title of a Registered
Psychiatric Nurse. For this project, RPN will refer to Registered Psychiatric Nurses.
2.2 Methodology
Research Question: What are the admission processes of schools of nursing in Canada?
This document describes the results of research pertaining to student selection processes,
and identifies activities to maximize student retention.
Given the short amount of time to develop questions and collect data, and the number
of schools of nursing spread across the country (165), CASN decided to recruit sample
schools to represent different regions, universities, university colleges and colleges, and
the three types of nursing programs, as well as represent differences in language, size
and location. The sample schools were the primary contacts for disseminating
information about the surveys, etc.; however, all schools were notified about the surveys.
The final listing of sample schools, with representation by the three types of nursing
programs, was agreed to at the end of January. The vast majority of deans and directors
agreed to be sample schools and to act as “champions” for the projects by
encouraging their faculty, students, local employers, and nurses and graduates in
practice to respond to the surveys and interviews.
Quantitative data were transferred to the investigators as an Excel file, which was then
transferred into an SPSS data file. The data received by the investigators had no
identifying information attached. Descriptive statistics from the quantitative data and
content analysis of the transcriptions of the qualitative data form the basis of the findings.
31 March 2004
Page 9
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
OBJECTIVE A – STUDENT SELECTION PROCESSES PROJECT: STAKEHOLDERS &
ACTIVITIES INVOLVED
-
-
-
-
Faculty/Researchers
Literature Review: CNA’s
student attrition paper &
comments from other groups.
Review/input on questions for
survey & telephone inter.
Analysis of
survey/interview/focus-group
results
Discussion papers
CASN National Office
Sub-contractor
- Liaison
- Overall management
- Logistics
- Setup
- Reports to CNA
-
31 March 2004
CNA
Overall CNAC Proposal Management
Contractor
Status Review on project progress
Final Compilation of results and
submission to Health Canada
Fair Surveys
Survey questions
Telephone interviews questions
Conduct survey (html, web) for schools of nursing
Interviews with other health professionals
Compile results
o
Frequency
o
Comments/Scores
CASN
CPNA/CAPNE
RPNC
Steering Committees
Identify Sample
Groups
Review
methodology and
approve
Review/approve
discussion report
Key
CASN – Canadian Association of Schools of Nursing
CNA – Canadian Nurses Association
CPNA – Canadian Practical Nurses Association
CAPNE – Canadian Association of Practical Nurse
Educators
RPNC - Registered Psychiatric Nurses of Canada
Page 10
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
METHODS FOR DATA COLLECTION REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT
Object A – Student Selection Process
Surveys
Schools of Nursing
X
Students of Nursing
Employers of Nursing
Other Health
Professionals
X
Telephone Interviews
Schools of Nursing
Students of Nursing
Employers of Nurses
Other Professionals
(health and nonhealth)
Virtual Focus Groups
Students of Nursing
Employers of Nursing
Document Review
31 March 2004
Page 11
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
3. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
3.1 Literature Review
Reasons for attention to Student Selection Processes
The main reasons for increasing amounts of attention to selection, retention and attrition
patterns in nursing programs include the following:
‰ concerns about an ageing population with increasing needs for medical and
nursing attention;
‰ a complex, managed-care environment that limits spending on nursing;
‰ an older nursing workforce whose retirement numbers may exceed the number
of nurses entering the labor force; and
‰ limits to the educational resources available for preparation and development of
competent nurses.
Existing studies from the U.K. and U.S.A. show that on average 20 per cent to 40 per cent
of students leave nursing programs before completing the requirements. No study has
been done in Canada to provide information about attrition in baccalaureate and
diploma nursing programs (Hoffman, 2003).
Byrd, Garza and Nieswiadomy (1999) have argued that qualified faculty, financial
resources, and reliable admission and progression criteria in nursing education are
important because of limited clinical placements.
Attrition is a problem when the positions available and necessary for producing nurses
are not all filled. Resources (time, money, energy, clinical placements) put towards
educating a student are lost when a student leaves a program prior to completion.
Squandered time and money on the student’s part are also perceived as waste.
3.1.2 Review of Selection Criteria
From the literature reviewed, successful completion of an educational program relates to
many variables. Recruiting and selecting students whose expectations are compatible
with what the program offers, as well as who are prepared and able to meet the
requirements of the program, are two important variables. The literature clearly indicates
adopting recruiting and admission goals to select those individuals from the pool of
applicants most likely to complete the requirements of the nursing program. Attaining
such goals is complicated, given the variable selection criteria among nursing programs,
and the challenges in examining the potential relationship between selection criteria
and successful completion rates.
A combination of pre-admission performance in the sciences and English courses has
been frequently recognized as significant selection criteria. Carpio, O’Mara and
Hezekiah (1996) compared admission variables and in-course performance to success in
the Canadian Nurses Association Testing Services (CNATS). This comparison showed that
Ontario Academic Credits (OAC) English course performance was the best predictor of
CNATS success, followed by OAC chemistry course performance, and then the admission
average for other OAC courses. Other studies support a similar theme: Glick, McClelland
and Yang (1986), with a small sample of 51, showed a significant correlation between
academic achievement in the biological sciences grade point average (BIO-GPA) plus
31 March 2004
Page 12
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
all pre-nursing courses grade point average (PN-GPA) and ultimate performance on the
national registered nurse (NCLEX-RN) exam.
According to Wilson (2001), a science index (SI) variable (anatomy and physiology GPA
plus science course repetitions) was the major variable that showed a significant
relationship with overall academic achievement. From her analysis, the SI, along with
English-speaking fluency and high school (HS) GPA, predicted program completion with
78 per cent accuracy. She recommended that SI be added to nursing program
selection/admission criteria to predict which students may require pre-nursing remedial
support. For nursing programs that admit students with low SI, poor English fluency, low
reading scores and/or a low high-school GPA, remediation and mentoring services must
be made available to students at entry and throughout the program to improve the
likelihood of their success.
Philips, Spurling and Armstrong (2002), as cited by the California Postsecondary
Education Commission (2003), examined one cohort over five years and found overall
GPA, English GPA, core biology (anatomy, physiology, microbiology) GPA and the
number of times a student repeated any core biology courses were significant predictors
of program completion. Based on these findings, programs with higher admission
requirements/selective admission policies featuring these factors might be expected to
have higher success rates. Statistically significant relationships between admission policies
and program success have not been found, however, possibly due to low numbers of
such admission policies to detect statistical differences.
The California Postsecondary Education Commission (2003) concluded that students
were most likely to succeed in a nursing program if they were proficient in math, science
and English before admission to a program or at least supported in developing those skills
throughout the program. While working full time had a negative effect on student
performance, previous community service work had a positive effect on student
performance. For students directly admitted from high school, Bolan and Grainger,
(2003) have suggested that selection decisions be made according to high school
average, with special consideration to course performance in biology, chemistry,
language, literature and mathematics.
Buckingham and Mayock (1994) have identified other selection criteria in a study of
attributes possessed by excellent nurses. When compared to a control group, there were
significant differences with the excellent nurse group including the following:
‰ focus;
‰ ability to take and maintain a direction/commitment;
‰ pride in self through work-related achievements;
‰ ability to activate and influence situations without delaying the right outcomes;
‰ sense of responsibility and ownership of their work;
‰ responsiveness to others and patients; and
‰ ability to be aware of and relate to others, hence develop beneficial
relationships.
From their examination of personality tests to predict success rates in nursing programs,
Huch, Leonard and Gutsch (1992) suggested that graduates were more mature, stable,
calm, assertive, self-assured, self-reliant, realistic, and no-nonsense with a tough-minded,
31 March 2004
Page 13
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
competitive, down-to-earth approach to life compared to students who did not
complete the program.
3.2 Results and analysis of Selection Survey
3.2.1 Baccalaureate in Nursing Programs
Background and Data on Applicants and Offers in Baccalaureate in Nursing Programs
Representatives of 33 programs leading to a baccalaureate in nursing responded to this
survey. Twenty of these programs were located in universities, nine in colleges and three
in university colleges. One respondent elected not to answer this question. A variety of
individuals completed the surveys, including 12 deans, nine program heads, and 12 other
individuals in varied roles such as assistant dean, program coordinator, faculty members,
registrar and student advisor. We have no reason to believe these individuals did not
have the competence to respond to the survey. All provinces were represented except
Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. Only five programs from Quebec and eight
programs from Ontario were represented in this survey. Considering the number of
programs in these provinces, they were clearly underrepresented. Responses came from
30 programs where English is the language of instruction and from three where French is
the language of instruction. Of note, two of the programs accept only students with
completed degrees. In one, these students enter directly into a master’s program
leading to entry to practice. Table 1 provides details about programs’ location.
Table 1 – Location of Baccalaureate in Nursing Programs
Province
Number of
Programs
%
Newfoundland and Labrador
2
6.1
Nova Scotia
2
6.1
Quebec
5
15.2
Ontario
8
24.2
Manitoba
3
9.1
Saskatchewan
2
6.1
Alberta
4
12.1
British Columbia
7
21.2
Responses to the questions related to the number of applicants, offers and refusals of
offers were received from 30 of the 33 programs represented. The number of applications
received by these programs ranged from 50 to 1,568. On average, 472.13 applications
were received, with a median of 380. In total, 14,164 applications were received. Table 2
provides a summary of the data on applications.
Table 2 – Summary of Data on Applications in Baccalaureate in Nursing Programs
31 March 2004
Page 14
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
Range in Number of
Applicants
Number of Programs
Represented
Number of
Applicants
Represented
Percentage of
Programs
Represented in Each
Category (%)
Less than 100
3
206
10.0
100 to 199
7
1141
23.3
200 to 299
3
634
10.0
300 to 399
3
1114
10.0
400 to 499
5
2072
16.7
500 to 999
4
2676
13.3
More than 1000
5
6321
16.7
Total
30
14,164
100
The 30 programs made offers to a total of 4,478 applicants. The number of offers made
ranged from 30 to 573, with a mean of 149.27 and a median of 107. Table 3 offers a
summary of the number of applicants who received an offer.
Table 3 – Summary of Offers to Applicants in Baccalaureate in Nursing Programs
Range in Number of
Offers Made
Number of Programs
Represented
Number of Offers
Represented
Percentage of
Programs
Represented in
Each Category (%)
Less than 50
7
273
23.3
50 to 99
8
559
26.7
100 to 199
8
1144
26.7
200 to 299
3
706
10.0
300 to 600
4
1796
13.3
Total
30
4478
100
Given a total of 14,164 applicants, only 31.62 per cent were invited to enter a nursing
program; i.e., roughly three of 10 applicants were offered a seat. It is likely that some
applicants applied to more than one nursing program, although we have no way to
know. This could mean that, in reality, fewer than three applicants out of ten were given
offers. Nonetheless, it is clear that the number of applicants far exceeded the capacity
of nursing programs.
We know little about the 9,686 applicants who did not receive offers. Some could have
been admissible applicants if there had been more seats. Even with more seats, it is also
possible that many of these applicants would not have qualified. Unfortunately, this
cannot be ascertained.
Among the 4,478 who were offered seats, 1,488 (33.23 per cent) decided not to take the
offer. Data about those who did not enter the given nursing program are presented in
31 March 2004
Page 15
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
Table 4. In 17 of the 30 programs, or 56.5 per cent of the total, fewer than 20 applicants
who were made an offer refused it. The six programs where 20 to 49 students did not
accept an offer account for 20 per cent of the total. Taken together, it means that in
76.5 per cent of the programs fewer than 50 students refused an offer. This suggests that
those who had applied were very committed to their choice. Due to the limitation of the
data, it is impossible to know if some of those refused an offer accepted an offer made
by another program(s) in the sample. Again, some applicants likely received offers from
more than one of the programs in the sample.
Table 4 – Summary of Applicants Who Refused Offers by Baccalaureate in Nursing
Programs
Range in Number of
Those who Refused
an Offer
Number of Programs
Represented
Number of
Applicants who
Refused an Offer
Percentage of
Programs
Represented in
Each Category (%)
0
5
0
16.7
1 to 19
12
114
40.0
20 to 49
6
193
20.0
50 to 99
3
213
10.0
100 to 199
2
225
6.7
200 to 500
2
743
6.7
Total
30
1,488
100
Taken as a whole, the data on the number of applicants, offers and non-registrants
indicate that the supply of applicants far exceeded the number of available seats, and
that a relatively small proportion of those who were offered seats did not register in the
given nursing program.
Challenges to the Selection Process in Baccalaureate in Nursing Programs
Table 5 summarizes the data on challenges encountered in the selection process. Data
on the quantity of applicants further confirm that most programs easily attracted enough
applicants. Seventeen of the 33 programs indicated they had no challenge attracting
quality applicants, while 11 had minor challenges and five had major challenges.
Similarly, 26 of the 33 respondents indicated it was not a significant problem for the
parent institution to recognize the selection criteria. Resources needed, and time and
energy spent in the admission process were not challenges or only minor challenges for
28 and 25 of the schools respectively. Attracting applicants from underrepresented
populations was the only category considered to be a major challenge for more than 30
per cent of the schools.
Interestingly, 15 (45.5 per cent) of the 33 respondents indicated that, if they had the
choice, they would modify their selection criteria. Perhaps this would be done if more
resources were available.
Table 5 – Challenges to the Selection Process in Baccalaureate in Nursing Programs
31 March 2004
Page 16
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
Challenge
Not a Challenge
Minor Challenge
Major Challenge
n (%)
n (%)
n (%)
Quantity of applicants
26 (78.8)
5 (15.2)
2 (6.1)
Quality of applicants
17 (51.5)
11 (33.3)
5 (15.2)
Resources needed to
process applications
10 (30.3)
18 (54.5)
5 (15.2)
Time and energy spent
on selecting applicants
7 (21.2)
18 (54.5)
8 (24.2)
Attracting applicants
from underrepresented
populations (Aboriginal,
males, rural/remote)
8 (24.2)
14 (42.4)
11(33.3)
Having selection criteria
recognized by parent
institution
26 (78.8)
4 (12.1)
3 (9.1)
Management of the Student Selection Process in Baccalaureate in Nursing Programs
Twenty-one (63.6 per cent) of the 33 programs indicated they had an official admission
committee. Seventeen respondents indicated that this committee helps establish
admission policy rather than select individual applicants. One stated that the admission
committee reviews the file of all applicants. Some respondents described their admission
criteria. These results have been included in the appropriate sections of this report.
Respondents were specifically asked to report on who designs and approves admission
policies. All applicable answers were to be selected. Table 6 summarizes the data on
design and approval of admission policies.
Table 6 – Design and Approval of Admission Policies in Baccalaureate in Nursing
Programs
Designs the Policy
Approves the Policy
n
n
Parent institution
14
21
Dean/Director
14
13
Admission committee
17
8
Other
13
13
Eight respondents indicated that other individuals than those listed in the survey were
involved in policy design. Five indicated that input from faculty members was
considered. One respondent indicated that the Nursing Education Program Approval
Board was important to the process as it set provincial standards. Two respondents
indicated that admission design involved their three partner institutions. The same eight
respondents indicated these same individuals were also involved in the policy approval
process.
31 March 2004
Page 17
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
The parent institution receives student applications in 29 (87.9 per cent) of the 33
programs. The point at which files are sent to nursing department/schools/faculties varies.
Respondents of 14 programs indicated that files are sent to nursing once they are
complete. Three of these indicated that they are consulted only when issues arise with an
application. One program respondent indicated that it receives the files as soon as they
arrive at the registrar’s office. One respondent stated it receives files between two to
three weeks after reception at the registrar’s office. Two respondents indicated that the
director of their programs was in regular contact with the registrar’s office while the
admission process takes place. One respondent described an elaborate process:
After all applications are received in the Registrar’s Office for general admission
to the University, then they are sent to the Consortium Office of the BN
(Collaborative) Program to be screened for admission to nursing. This is then
followed by the Joint Committee meeting who decide who will be admitted and
at what site. Our site will then receive the files of those accepted to study at our
site.
Seven respondents indicated that files remain with the parent institution, while three
responded that admissions are directly sent to their nursing program.
Data revealed that, once files are transferred to the nursing program, the person who
oversees the selection process varies. In eight programs (24.2 per cent), a member of the
academic staff oversees this process and a member of the support staff handles it in 14
programs (42.4 per cent). Four participants responded that the parent institution
completes the entire process and that nursing is not involved. Two respondents indicated
that coordinators managed that process; they did not specify whether the coordinator is
part of the academic or support staff. One respondent stated that an academic
supervisor reviews files; again, it was not specified if this individual is part of academic or
support staff.
Respondents provided further information about the regulations related to the admission
process. In 15 programs, the parent institution establishes the minimum admission GPA
and nursing can set additional criteria, such as specific prerequisites, reference letters,
etc. One of these programs must consider the applicants’ region of origin. Six program
respondents stated that they had entire autonomy; one of these indicated its reliance on
GPA, while another added that, although the nursing program was autonomous,
students had three semesters to obtain a pass grade in a French test required for all
students at their institution.
The respondents of three programs located in colleges had unusual selection criteria.
Two programs used mixed-models where half of applicants was selected using the GPA
and the other half was admitted by chance. One respondent wrote: “We are able to
establish the minimum requirements but the process for admission is like a lottery as it is
first come, first qualified, first admitted. When you get all of your applications on the first
day that means that the selection is really done by “random” selection. This year, we
have been able to rank order the applicants and admit those with top GPA to the first 40
of the 80 seats of our program. The remaining 40 seats are “random” selection from all
those who meet the minimum requirement.” Similarly, another respondent stated that:
“the college has a first come, first-served philosophy, which does apply to the nursing
program.”
The respondents of 11 programs indicated satisfaction with their admission criteria by
providing a negative response to the question: “If you had the option would you use
different criteria or modify the criteria for admission?” Fourteen respondents indicated
31 March 2004
Page 18
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
they would like to alter their school’s criteria. The four respondents who stated their
schools used a chance-related criterion would all like to base admission on GPA. One
also added they would like to assess reading abilities, and another stated it would be
wonderful to assess suitability to nursing. Five respondents indicated a desire to use more
than academic record. Two of these specified that if they had time they would like to
interview applicants. One stated they used interviews in the past:
At one point we had used an interview process but the number of applicants
became too high to interview all potential candidates. It was the experience of
the admission committee that the interview process was not making a difference
in the selection of qualified candidates or the attrition rates, so the interview
process was stopped. However, I might like to reinstate the interview process
once a range of candidates has been selected from a pool. Reflecting upon the
interview process, it might seem that having candidates go through the process
helped create a culture of commitment to the program both for faculty and
students.
Two respondents indicated they would like to be able to increase the minimum entrance
GPA. One of these indicated the current minimum does not reflect current practice: “At
this stage it is 65. In practice, it is 70.” One respondent would like to ask for a minimum
grade of 70 per cent for each required course. One respondent indicated that the
program is reviewing its current criteria. Another stated:
“Our program goal is to educate nurses from our region to work in our region.
We should then have an open admission policy and work with each student
individually to help them succeed. We should also have a very narrow exit
criteria in that you must meet standards in order to graduate.” One respondent
said: “We have recently made a small change and plan to seek approval to
remove a high school diploma as an admission requirement. We really want
specific 30-level subjects for admission, not the high school diploma.” One
respondent stated that she/he would like to have “the applicant submit a written
paper on why they have chosen nursing. This would help to eliminate those
students who are not sure about nursing and highlight any major writing
problem.”
One respondent added:
The biggest challenge is knowing how many letters of offer to send knowing that
our institution and clinical placements can only accommodate 60 students. If we
are over subscribed, then we don’t have the human resources or physical space
to teach them. Whereas if we are undersubscribed we are financially penalized.
Predicting numbers of students is a nightmare. Offers go too late and we end up
in competition with our community college partners for students.
The number and the type of individuals involved in the admission process were also
variable. Table 8 shows the data received for this process. Six programs provided more
than one answer per category.
Table 8- Individuals Involved in Processing Applications in Baccalaureate in Nursing
Programs
Number of
individuals
31 March 2004
Number of Programs
Indicating the
Number of Programs
Indicating the
Number of Programs
Indicating the
Page 19
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
Number of
Academic Staff
Number of Support
Staff
Number of Other
Individuals
None
20
13
30
1
7
9
-
2
-
9
2
3
-
2
1
4
3
-
-
5
2
-
-
10
1
-
-
Eleven of the 33 programs indicated they were part of a multi-institutional admission
process. Two of these programs provided additional information about this interinstitutional process. In one case, the respondent indicated the school is considering
centralizing all applications to one of the partner institutions. In the other case, the
respondent indicated that, while the system is “cumbersome at times, this agreement
seems to work satisfactorily. The strengths of this system are that it reflects the rural areas
of the province better and it reflects some of the diversity inherent when independent
schools are amalgamated.”
Two respondents made specific comments related to the multi-site process used in
Ontario:
There are only two places in Ontario that offer baccalaureate nursing in French.
Hence even though the student has the option to make multiple choices, if they
are serious about nursing in French, then there are only two choices.
The other respondent stated it couldn’t know if students have applied to other members
of its consortium as college applicants come through OCAS and university applicants
through OUAC.
Some difficulties arise in that students apply to both the university and college for
the same program. Our ultimate goal is one place to apply. However, neither
institution really wants to give up control over its admissions. There is some
concern on the part of the college that if applications all go to the university they
may give us the weaker students. This is something we are currently working on.
Responses to the amount of time required to process each application varied greatly. It
is logical that those who include an interview process or other type of activity would take
more time per applicant; however, the great variation in time cannot be explained only
by the use of these criteria. We are puzzled by the time estimates provided by some of
the respondents. Results are presented in Table 9.
Table 9 – Time Spent to Process Applications in Baccalaureate in Nursing Programs
Time ranges
Number of programs
3 to 5 minutes
1
10 minutes, at the most 30
2
20 to 45 minutes
5
31 March 2004
Page 20
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
30 minutes to 1 hour
2
1 to 2 hours
7
3 hours
3
4 to 5 hours
2
4 to 8 hours
1
Did not provide time
4
One respondent added that considerable time was spent in determining equivalency
between programs and courses, and that time was also spent counselling potential
applicants. One respondent added that it takes about two hours to evaluate files with
low GPAs since it examines results in science courses and requires a motivation letter and
an interview. In one case, a respondent noted the school tries to personalize its
approach and phone applicants who meet the admission criteria. In another case, the
respondent stated that evaluating transfer credits was time consuming. One stated: “A
very time-consuming aspect of the selection process is having to use a ranking process
for those applicants direct from high school, those with university courses completed,
and those to be admitted under a mature student clause.” Another respondent stated it
is seeking involvement in the process since the registrar’s office of the institution currently
does it all.
Overall Admission Criteria in Baccalaureate in Nursing Programs
Participants were asked to select applicable criteria from a list. Table 10 provides
detailed information about each criterion.
Table 10 – Data on Criteria Used by Programs in the Selection Process
Criteria
Number of Yes (%)
Number of No (%)
High school GPA
22 (66.6)
11 (66.6)
Undergraduate GPA
17 (51.5)
16 (48.5)
CEGEP/College GPA
7 (21.2)
26 (78.8)
Rank within cohort
9 (27.2)
24 (72.7)
Prerequisite course(s)
24 (72.7)
9 (27.2)
Grade(s) in prerequisite course(s)
23 (69.7)
10 (30.3)
Reference letters
11 (33.3)
22 (66.7)
Personal essay
8 (24.2)
25 (75.8)
Community service
8 (24.2)
25 (75.8)
Previous work experience
8 (24.2)
25 (75.8)
Resumé
7 (21.2)
26 (78.8)
Individual interview of applicants
7 (21.2)
26 (78.8)
First come, first served
5 (15.2)
28 (84.8)
31 March 2004
Page 21
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
Criteria
Number of Yes (%)
Number of No (%)
Entry examination
3 (9.1)
30 (90.9)
Province of origin
3 (9.1)
30 (90.9)
Region of origin
3 (9.1)
30 (90.9)
Lottery
2 (6.1)
31 (93.9)
Group screening activity
2 (6.1)
31 (93.9)
Diploma completed
1 (3.0)
32 (97.0)
Personality test
1 (3.0)
32 (97.0)
Aptitude test
0 (0)
21(100)
Other
11 (33.3)
22 (66.6)
It is apparent that GPA, prerequisite and grades in prerequisite courses are by far the
most commonly used criteria. If these are excluded, as well as letters of reference, all
other criteria identified by the surveyors were used in eight programs or fewer in this
survey.
Seven of the nine respondents who replied that they used other criteria volunteered
information:
‰ one indicated that it accepts all applicants who meet the criteria and that “they
did not have a cap on seats;”
‰ two stated they use special criteria for non-traditional students – one requires
applicants to write an autobiography and supply letters of references, while the
other screens these applicants more closely;
‰ one respondent, who had noted the use of a first come, first served approach,
indicated the school has so many applicants that in reality a lottery system is
used;
‰ one volunteered that it also used a reading skills test, and required CPR
certification, immunizations and a criminal record check. Although this individual
was the only one to report on these items, we believe most schools must use the
last three points as registration criteria;
‰ one indicated that once the school has identified applicants who meet the
admission criteria, it also considers how long the student has lived in the north;
‰ one indicated it considers the number of times a student has applied; and
‰ one said it considers the number of post-secondary credits as opposed to the
GPA.
Participants were asked to identify the three most important criteria used in their
admission process. Table 11 provides the criteria by order of importance for the total
sample. Note: this order does not indicate whether a selected criterion was the first-,
second-, or third-most important.
31 March 2004
Page 22
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
Table 11 – Importance of Selection Criteria in Baccalaureate in Nursing Programs
Criteria
Number of Yes (%)
Number of No (%)
Prerequisite course(s)
18 (54.5)
15 (45.5)
Grades in prerequisite course (s)
16 (48.5)
17 (51.5)
High school GPA
17(51.5)
16 (48.5)
Undergraduate GPA
14 (42.4)
19 (57.6)
Individual interviews of applicants
6 (18.2)
27 (81.8)
Rank within cohort
4 (12.1)
29 (87.9)
CEGEP/College GPA
4 (12.1)
29 (87.9)
First come, first served
3 (9.1)
30 (90.9)
Reference letters
3 (9.1)
30 (90.9)
Previous work experience
3 (9.1)
30 (90.9)
Province of origin
2 (6.1)
31 (93.9)
Resumé
2 (6.1)
31 (93.9)
Community service
1 (3.0)
32 (97.0)
Entry examination
1 (3.0)
32 (97.0)
Personal essay
1 (3.0)
32 (97.0)
Lottery
1 (3.0)
32 (97.0)
Other
4 (12.1)
29 (87.9)
It is interesting that two criteria reported in Table 10 as being used were not ranked
among the most three important. These criteria were: group screening and region of
origin.
3.2.1.5 Admissions of Underrepresented Individuals in Baccalaureate in Nursing Programs
Respondents were asked to identify if they reserve seats for Aboriginal applicants, for
males, and for applicants from remote and rural areas. None of the programs indicated
reserving seats for male applicants. Including a question about male applicants in the
final survey puzzled us and at least one applicant, who stated: “Why would we do this!!!”1
Data concerning Aboriginal and remote/rural areas are presented in Table 12.
1
NB: The description of services in the contract with CNA stipulates gender.
31 March 2004
Page 23
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
Table 12 – Reserving Seats for Underrepresented Applicants in Baccalaureate in Nursing
Programs
Category
Programs Answering
Programs
Answering No
n (%)
n or % of Seats Reserved
(number of programs that
reserve this number of
seats)
12 (36.4)
5 seats (3 programs)
21 (63.6)
Yes
Aboriginal
n (%)
4 seats (1 program)
3 seats (2 programs)
5 % (1 program)
12 % (1 program)
From remote
and/or rural
areas
3 (9.1)
52 seats (1 program)
30 (90.9)
Respondents from 12 programs indicated reserving seats for Aboriginal applicants. Eight
volunteered specific information. One respondent stated: “We reserve up to five seats
but never have this many applicants. If we had more, we would seriously look at them.
They need to have basic minimum requirements for the program, such as a GPA of 65 in
grade 12 and five prerequisite courses.” Another responded added: “These seats are for
students who would not meet the usual criteria for admission. We take the best five in
that cohort. We have other Aboriginal students admitted on their own merit.” The
respondents of two programs who reserved seats stated that students had to compete
within their pool based on their GPAs. The respondent from the program allocating 12 per
cent of its seats for Aboriginal students stated it fills those seats with competition within
the pool and that more Aboriginal students are admitted based on their competitiveness
within the general population. The respondent for the program that admits 25 to 35 seats
a year volunteered that Aboriginal applicants were admitted if they were successful in a
nursing access program. Finally, one participant indicated that Aboriginal students were
part of the northern community from which it draws applicants and another stated it did
not get many Aboriginal applicants.
Only three programs indicated reserving seats for applicants of remote/rural areas. One
respondent stated that admitting residents from the north of the province was a priority.
Another respondent volunteered: “We have intakes at rural sites for 52 students per year,
with intake sites used on a rotation basis. Required competitive averages vary between
sites and are site-specific.” None of the programs indicated using special criteria to admit
these students.
Admission of International Students in Baccalaureate in Nursing Programs
The participants of 20 (60.6 per cent) of the 33 programs of the sample reported
admitting international students. Few provided admission statistics: six stated they admit a
maximum of two per year; two indicated around five per year; and two reported
admitting around three a year. One respondent indicated that international students
were admitted above quota. Thirteen indicated they assess knowledge of English (six use
the Test of English as a Foreign Language, or TOEFL, one assesses knowledge of French,
and one assesses knowledge of both official languages). One program of this subset
31 March 2004
Page 24
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
indicated that most international applicants were from the United States. Two
respondents indicated that they used regular admission criteria. Finally, one shared that
cultural and language differences can be a challenge.
Details about Specific Selection Criteria in Baccalaureate in Nursing Programs
Educational backgrounds
The educational background usually required for applicants to nursing programs was
examined in a series of sub-questions. Data about these are presented in Table 13. Many
respondents did not provide complete information. Nonetheless, the data clearly
indicate that, besides admitting primarily from high school, most programs seem to admit
students with some or completed post-secondary education.
Respondents were also asked to comment on criteria used to admit on an exceptional
basis. The nine respondents who answered this question all indicated these admissions
were made individually after considering that person’s circumstances.
Table 13 – Educational Background Usually Required in Baccalaureate in Nursing
Programs
Education
Background
Normally
required,
routinely
accepted
Accepted on
an exceptional
basis
n (%)
Never
accepted
Missing data
n (%)
n (%)
n (%)
Some secondary
education (high
school not
completed)
2 (6.1)
10 (30.3)
18 (54.5)
3 (9.1)
High school diploma
26 (78.8)
2 (6.1)
3 (9.1)
2 (6.1)
Some CEGEP or
college education
related to nursing
13 (39.4)
7 (21.2))
5 (15.2)
8 (24.2)
Some CEGEP or
college education
not related to
nursing
12 (36.4)
8 (24.2)
5 (15.2)
8 (24.2)
CEGEP or college
nursing certificate or
nursing diploma
9 (27.3)
5 (15.2)
10 (30.3)
9 (27.3)
CEGEP or college
certificate or
diploma not related
to nursing
8 (24.2)
8 (24.2)
8 (24.2)
9 (27.3)
Some university
education in or
related to nursing
15 (45.5)
9 (27.3)
3 (9.1)
6 (18.2)
31 March 2004
Page 25
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
Education
Background
Normally
required,
routinely
accepted
n (%)
Accepted on
an exceptional
basis
Never
accepted
n (%)
Missing data
n (%)
n (%)
Some university
education not
related to nursing
17 (51.5)
8 (24.2)
3 (9.1)
5 (15.2)
Baccalaureate in or
related to nursing
11 (33.3)
7 (21.2)
8 (24.2)
7 (21.2)
Baccalaureate not
related to nursing
15 (45.5)
8 (24.2)
4 (12.1)
9 (27.3)
GPA Most Commonly Used and Rank Within Cohort
Eight respondents indicated confusion about the question related to this topic. We also
found the choices could lead to confusion. For example, since the survey was on
programs leading to entry to practice, questions about admitting individuals with
diplomas in nursing were seen as problematic.
Program respondents were also asked to identify the GPA most commonly used to admit
their applicants. Seventeen programs (51.5 per cent) identified a high school GPA as the
most commonly used, while three programs (9.1 per cent) used the equivalent of a
CEGEP GPA (CEGEP use a “cote r” scale* as opposed to a GPA) and two programs
identified a completed university GPA. Three respondents indicated they use all types of
GPA and two indicated they use only a specified proportion of grades within that GPA.
Finally, four programs did not respond to this question.
* According to a Quebec respondent, the “cote r” criteria for admission are the
following:
‰ a Quebec Diploma of Collegial Studies (Health Sciences);
‰ Biology competencies OOUK and OOXU (or equivalent);
‰ Chemistry competencies OOUL, OOUM and OOXV (or equivalent);
‰ Mathematics competencies OOUN and OOUP (or equivalent);
‰ Physics competencies OOUR, OOUS and OOUT (or equivalent);
‰ a minimum cote de rendement (cote r) or 26 (r score = 25 + (5 X student’s Z-score)
+ (5 X group strength).
Eight of the respondents stated they also look at the rank of candidates within their
cohort. When asked to identify the second-most commonly used GPA, 20 respondents
provided an answer: three identified the high school GPA; seven identified college
grades; and 10 identified university grades. Seven of the respondents stated they also
looked at the rank of candidates within their cohort.
When asked if they had problems with using GPAs, respondents reported a few
difficulties. Two respondents indicated that assessing equivalency with different grading
31 March 2004
Page 26
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
systems could be a challenge. Two others said they consider high school marks to be
inflated; one of them said, “This is problematic when these students are faced with
university level expectations.” The user of the “cote r” stated, “We have no difficulties
with this requirement. Cote r has been reliable in predicting success in our program.”
Three respondents volunteered that the GPA was the best predictor of success. One
respondent from a college wrote: “The first come, first-served college policy does not
allow us to look at applicants in any kind of rank order. It might be useful to be able to do
a little bit of that at least.”
One respondent indicated that accepting transfer students who already had university
courses could be a funding challenge as full-load equivalents are used for funding;
therefore, the admission of these candidates may mean loss of governmental income.
Similarly, one respondent indicated it tried to ensure that transferring students were not
inadvertently left in the “numbers” of its original faculty. If this happens, nursing loses
income.
Twenty-two programs reported information about GPAs needed for admission in Fall
2003. Data on these GPAs is found in Table 14.
Table 14 - “Announced” Minimum GPAs and Lowest GPA Admitted in Fall 2003 in
Baccalaureate in Nursing Programs
Announced Minimum GPA
n of programs
Lowest GPA Admitted
Did not announce
1
65%
60%
2
60%, 75%
65%
4
65%, 75%, 75% and 83.8%
70%
6
Unknown, 68%, 69%, 72%, 75% and
84%
72%
1
76%
73%
1
73%
86%
1
86%
2 on a 4 point scale
1
2.83
3 on a 4 point scale
2
2.75, 3.2
3.5 on a 4 point scale
1
2.8
Did not announce
1
3.6 for the 50% admitted by GPA
7 on a 9 point scale
1
7.8
26 cote r
1
25.6 cote r
According to GPA admission data, most programs accepted applicants who had equal
or superior GPAs to the minimum announced for Fall 2003. Only four programs (19 per
cent) in the sample indicated they consider the rank of applicants within their cohort.
One of these reported, however, that the GPA is the key variable:
31 March 2004
Page 27
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
Ultimately the GPA must meet the minimum requirement, regardless of the
individual’s position vis-à-vis their standing in relation to others… and regardless of
where they stand in the cohort of applicants. We do not reduce requirements if
the cohort of applicants is weak.
Another individual added that ranking might be difficult for applicants who have taken
only a few courses.
Qualitative data on GPAs provided information about the admission of unusual
candidates such as mature students or those with incomplete high school. Seven
respondents indicated that high school could be waived for mature students but that
they needed to have completed course prerequisites. Two participants stated that high
school subjects might be waived if the candidate has a university degree.
Course subject prerequisites
Course subject prerequisites are presented in Tables 15 and 16. The courses included in
the survey were found to be commonly used prerequisites. The low number related to
French reflects the small number of respondents from francophone programs.
In addition to the courses listed in the survey, seven programs identified other
requirements:
‰ one program asks university transfer students to come with university level
anatomy, physiology and microbiology;
‰ one indicated that applicants must have university credits in statistics and two
social sciences courses;
‰ two indicated a social science course was needed;
‰ two indicated that two additional courses designated university (U) or university
college (UC) in Ontario were required;
‰ one program indicated it asks for one university-level course in each of English,
psychology and statistics.
Table 15 - Course Subjects Prerequisites in Baccalaureate in Nursing Programs
Course Subject
Not a
Prerequisite
Prerequisite Passing is the
Requirement
Prerequisite
Grade Must
Exceed a
Determined
Standard
Missing
Data
English
2 (6.1)
8 (24.2)
18 (54.5)
5 (15.2)
Biology
1 (3.0)
10 (30.3)
18 (54.5)
4 (12.1)
Chemistry
1 (3.0)
9 (27.3)
18 (54.5)
5 (15.2)
Mathematics
2 (6.1)
9 (27.3)
16 (48.5)
6 (18.2)
Physics
6 (18.2)
5 (15.2)
5 (15.2)
17 (51.5)
French
9 (27.3)
2 (6.1)
2 (6.1)
20 (60.6)
31 March 2004
Page 28
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
Table 16 – Course Subjects Most Frequently Required in Baccalaureate in Nursing
Programs
Course subject
Programs
Requiring the
Subject
n (%)
Biology
28 (84.8)
Chemistry
27 (81.8)
English
26 (78.8)
Mathematics
25 (75.8)
French
4 (12.1)
Twenty-four respondents provided a rationale for selecting courses as prerequisites.
Twelve respondents saw English, mathematics, biology and chemistry as predictors of
success. For example, one wrote:
The best predictor of success in nursing at this university is grade XII math. Students
with high grades in high school have been found to be most likely to succeed in
nursing. Students with lower grades in math, chemistry and biology have serious
difficulty in year 3 and 4 of program. Communication is essential in nursing and
therefore English and the ability to express one’s self are essential.
One respondent referred to research that showed a relationship between grade 12
science grades and success in nursing, while another stated that a positive relationship
has been found between good English grades and success in nursing. Seven
respondents stated that the prerequisite courses provided foundational knowledge
needed in nursing. Respondents of both non-traditional programs added that they
selected prerequisites to ensure that some necessary content would be done. This is
important in the context of the shorter duration of these programs.
Rationales for considering grades in particular courses were varied. Two respondents
indicated they consider course grades because their provincial nursing education
program approval board requires them to do so. Seven responded that these grades are
predictive of success. Four respondents provided the following elaborate answers:
‰ Students weak in math and science have difficulty with drug calculations and
understanding chemical interactions. Students with poor English skills have trouble
communicating, students with poor science backgrounds have trouble applying
theory to practice;
‰ English requirement B minimum: must be fluent in written and oral English to
succeed… Students who struggle with spoken or written English are not successful.
Biology, chemistry, and math (C + minimum). Students who struggle with basic
science or math concepts struggle in the program;
‰ We do not ask for grades in particular courses. But a student who did very badly
in the sciences and brought their GPA up with grades from other courses will be
carefully discussed in the admissions committee’s review of the application. We
do not like to set students up to fail in the program.
31 March 2004
Page 29
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
‰ In our experience and based on a retrospective study of student success in the
program and in registration exams, high school grades are a good predictor of
success not only in the program but also in registration examinations. We counsel
students who are challenged by content to slow down the progress through the
program and to take supportive course work. At least 10 to 15 per cent of our
students are on a five or even six-year track.
Finally, 13 (39.4 per cent) of the 33 programs indicated they took into account the
number of times an applicant had repeated a course.
Use of interviews
Only seven programs reported using interviews. Respondents from four programs
indicated that interviews were standardized. Qualitative data indicates that, for three
programs, interviews are conducted with students who have competitive GPAs. One
respondent wrote that interview questions “relate to motivation to enter nursing, a
concept of what nurse’s work is like, ability to solve problems, work with others, resolve
conflicts, and communicate clearly and succinctly.”
Another program indicated that the interview is relatively unstructured and explores
reasons for considering nursing, previous experience working with people, support of
significant others, ability to engage during the interview, openness to ideas and
readiness to meet the demands of the program. Similarly, another respondent wrote that
it asks questions related to work experience, health care knowledge, communication,
stress management, financial preparation and knowledge of nursing. One participant
stated, “We want to verify motivations, values, comprehension of university studies, plan
of career, etc., and so give explanations about the program’s goals, focus and
requirements.” Another one wrote: “Students need to have the right motivation for
nursing. If it is only to make money, then there are much easier ways to do this. Nursing
requires a moral commitment to caring in a very difficult environment.”
Four respondents indicated that two faculty members conducted the interviews. One of
these also volunteered that interviews are conducted by faculty members drawn from a
group of eight to 10 faculty members who are all at least master’s-prepared. Two
respondents indicated that one faculty member usually conducts the interview.
Group interview/activity
Two programs used a group activity as part of their screening process. One program
reported this activity is used to assess spoken English skills and ability to work in groups,
present material and follow instructions. “Different activities (for groups of 10 to 15) are
chosen for each selection. The criteria for the activity are to have each applicant speak
in front of a group, understand written and spoken instructions, and participate in group
work.” To be included in the group activity, applicants must have been short-listed. Two
administrative coordinators conduct the activity. These coordinators, who advise all
applicants and all students, have extensive knowledge of the program of study.
Letters of references
The respondents of 11 programs reported using reference letters. Seven reported asking
for two letters, two programs reported asking for three letters and two programs reported
asking for one letter. Letters from teachers were considered acceptable for eight of the
programs, letters from employers were considered acceptable for 10 of the programs,
while six programs indicated that anyone could write a reference letter.
Rationales for using letters are as follows:
31 March 2004
Page 30
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
‰ “We use them as a means of screening for academic character;”
‰ “We hope that this helps us identify potential strong students as well as those likely
to have problems;”
‰ “It gives us a confidential rating about specific qualities of the applicants and the
referee’s judgement about suitability for nursing;”
‰ “Letters help promote the commitment of the applicants, but since the format is
not standardized the weight given is minimal;”
‰ “It gives us a third-party perspective on the skills, abilities and potential of the
applicant;”
‰ “It is a policy of the college to ask for reference letters;” and
‰ “…to determine strengths and areas needing development.”
One respondent indicated that letters are used only for those in ”the special
consideration category.” Finally, one user of reference letters stated that the program is
reviewing this policy. However,, the reason for this review was not provided.
Additional information
Respondents of seven programs volunteered the following information:
Certificate of conduct, which attempts to screen people with criminal histories;
health and physical examination, which screens out people with health problems
that would prevent them from achieving the objectives of the program; and a
self-appraisal form in which the applicant explains why s/he is suited for nursing.
The DRP Reading Skills test is our biggest predictor of program success. Applicants
who are unable to achieve the required minimum score on this reading skills test
are not admitted, regardless of how well they have met the other academic
requirements.
Supplemental application includes a resumé and a personal statement. These
provide information about non-academic criteria such as leadership ability or
potential; experience working with others in a service, volunteer, team or other
capacity; health-related experience; personal attributes; insights about nursing,
health care; and overall interest in nursing as a profession.
Applicants are selected by assigning a score from one to six, with one being poor
and six being very strong. The scores are assigned based on the GPA or average.
For example, a student who had a high school average over 80 per cent, an
average of science courses – bio, chem and math – over 80 per cent and a GPA
of between 3.7-4.0 on the last nine credits of post-secondary work would be
awarded a score of six in each of the three categories … that score would be
divided by three (categories) and six would be their final score. If the student did
not have any post-secondary work, they would receive a score of six in each
category but that score would be divided by two… their score would be six. The
assigned scores are used to rank applicants and create a waiting list. The waiting
list is not carried over from one year to the next. After the class is filled in the fall,
the waiting list is deleted.
We select based on the length of time you have lived in our northern territory. This
gives preference to people who were born and raised here and have made an
investment in the north, and who are most likely to stay and work here. We have
31 March 2004
Page 31
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
had some success with this as over 87 per cent of our graduates are working in
the north.
We have a point system. Students earn up to 10 points: two for living in the
catchments area; one point for each year (maximum two) of previous
application; one point for each (up to two) biology course(s); one point for each
(up to two) English requirements; and one point for each (up to two) electives.
Half our intake (16) is selected based on this number of points, the rest are by
lottery (eight high school students and eight everyone else).
Students must have a permanent or temporary license. They have input into their
clinical placements in second and third year. These students are much better
able to enhance their critical thinking and clinical judgement skills if they are not
also focusing on learning basic skills and procedures.
Practical Nursing (LPN) Programs, Psychiatric Nursing (RPN) and
Diploma in Nursing Programs
Background and Data on Applicants and Offers in LPN, RPN and Diploma in Nursing
Programs
Representatives of 12 LPN programs responded to this survey. Nine of these programs
were located in colleges, one was in a university college and two respondents elected
not to answer this question. Representatives of three diploma-in-nursing programs
responded to the survey. Two programs were located in colleges, while the third
participant did not respond to this question. Only one response was received from a
psychiatric nursing program, which is located in a college. A variety of individuals
completed surveys for the three types of programs, including three deans, four program
heads and individuals in other roles such as faculty member, registrar, program
coordinator and curriculum advisor. We believe these individuals all had the
competence to respond to the survey. Table 17 provides details about the programs’
location. All programs used English as the language of instruction, except one of the
diploma nursing programs where French is used.
Table 17 – Location of LPN, RPN and Diploma in Nursing Programs
Province
LPN Programs
Diploma Nursing
n (%)
n (%)
Diploma
Psychiatric
Nursing
n (%)
Newfoundland
1 (8.3)
and Labrador
Prince Edward Island
1 (8.3)
New Brunswick
1 (8.3)
Quebec
Ontario
Manitoba
31 March 2004
1 (33,3)
1 (8.3)
1 (33,3)
Page 32
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
Province
LPN Programs
Diploma Nursing
n (%)
n (%)
Diploma
Psychiatric
Nursing
n (%)
Alberta
4 (33.3)
British Columbia
3 (25.0)
Missing
1 (8.3)
Total
12 (100)
1 (33,3)
1 (100)
3 (100)
1 (100)
Responses to the questions related to the number of applicants, offers and refusals of
offers received from 11 of the 12 LPN programs. The number of applications received
ranged from 67 to 673 for the LPN programs. Details about the LPN programs are
provided in Table 18. On average, LPN programs received 258 applications, with a
median of 199. In total, 2,839 applications were received.
Table 18 – Summary of Data on LPN Programs Applicants
Range in Number of
Applicants
Number of Programs
Represented
n
Number of
Applicants
Represented
Percentage of
Programs
Represented in Each
Category
Less than 100
2
143
18.2
100 to 199
4
609
36.4
200 to 299
1
200
9.1
300 to 399
2
742
18.2
400 to 499
1
472
9.1
500 to 699
1
673
9.1
Total
11
2839
100
The 11 LPN programs made offers to a total of 826 applicants. The number of offers
ranged from 14 to 210 with a mean of 75 and a median of 48. Table 19 summarizes the
number of applicants who received an offer.
31 March 2004
Page 33
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
Table 19 – Summary of Data on Offers to LPN Applicants
Range in Number of
Offers Made
Number of Programs
Represented
Number of Offers
Represented
Percentage of
Programs
Represented in
Each Category
Less than 50
6
213
54.5
50 to 99
3
203
27.3
200 to 299
2
410
18.2
Total
11
826
100
Since there were 2,839 LPN applicants, only 29.1 per cent were invited to enter an LPN
nursing program. Similar to the baccalaureate nursing programs, roughly three out of 10
applicants were offered a seat. Again, it likely that some applicants applied to more
than one nursing program, although we have no way to know. This could mean that
fewer than three applicants out of 10 were actually given offers. Nonetheless, the
number of applicants far exceeded the capacity of LPN programs.
Similar to the baccalaureate in nursing program, we cannot know if those who were not
accepted received offers from other programs. It is also possible that some would have
been admissible applicants had there been more seats. In addition, many applicants
may not have qualified even if there had been more seats available. Unfortunately, this
cannot be ascertained.
Among the 826 who were offered seats, 427 (51.7 per cent) declined the offer.
Unfortunately, two participants who initially provided information on the number of offers
made did not respond to the question about those who did not accept an offer. Data
about those who did not enter the given LPN program are presented in Table 20. In six of
the 11 programs, or 54.5 per cent of the total, fewer than 20 applicants refused an offer.
This proportion is again very similar to the proportion reported for baccalaureate
programs (56.6 per cent). This indicates again that those who had applied were very
committed to their choice. It is impossible to know from the data whether some of those
who refused an offer accepted an offer made by other program(s) of the sample or by
other types of nursing programs. Again, some applicants likely received offers from more
than one program in the sample. According to the data on the number of LPN programs
applicants, offers and non-registrants, supply of applicants far exceeds the number of
available seats.
Table 20 – Summary of the Data on LPN Applicants Who Refused Offers
Range in Number of
Those who Refused
an Offer
Number of Programs
Represented
Number of
Applicants who
Refused an Offer
Percentage of
Programs
Represented in
Each Category
0
2
0
18.2
1 to 19
4
25
36.4
100 to 199
3
402
27.3
Missing
2
-
18.2
31 March 2004
Page 34
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
Range in Number of
Those who Refused
an Offer
Number of Programs
Represented
Number of
Applicants who
Refused an Offer
Percentage of
Programs
Represented in
Each Category
Total
11
427
100
Because there were only three diploma nursing programs in the sample and one
psychiatric nursing program, little can be said other than presenting grouped data for
these four programs. The number of applicants to each of these programs ranged from
125 to 397. In total, there were 938 applicants. Offers were made to 364 applicants, or
38.8 per cent of the number of applicants. Two hundred-and-ninety-three applicants
refused the offer made to them; therefore only eight per cent of applicants were
accepted.
Challenges to the Selection Process in LPN, RPN and Diploma in Nursing Programs
Table 21 summarizes the data on challenges encountered in the selection process for
LPN programs.
Table 21 – Challenges to the Selection Process in LPN Programs
Challenge
Not a Challenge
Minor Challenge
Major Challenge
n (%)
n (%)
n (%)
Quantity of Applicants
9 (75.0)
2 (16.7)
1 (8.3)
Quality of Applicants
4 (33.3)
7 (58.3)
1 (8.3)
Resources Needed to
Process Applications
5 (41.7)
6 (50.0)
1 (8.3)
Time and Energy Spent
on Selecting Applicants
3 (25.0)
8 (66.7)
1 (8.3)
Attracting Applicants
from Underrepresented
Populations (Aboriginal,
males, rural/remote)
4 (33.3)
5 (41.7)
3 (25.0)
Having Selection Criteria
Recognized by Parent
Institution
4 (36.3)
6 (50.0)
2 (18.2)
Considered as a whole, it appears that challenges in the admission process are fairly
limited. Again, a comparison of percentages indicates that LPN and baccalaureate
nursing data are very similar. In general, it seems that LPN programs had more difficulties
finding quality applicants and more difficulty getting their parent institutions in
baccalaureate programs to recognize admission criteria.
Only one RPN program provided negative answers to all sub-questions related to
challenges to admission, thus indicating an absence of challenges. The three diploma
nursing programs responded that the quantity of applicants, the resources needed to
process applicants, and the nursing requirements recognized by the parent institution
31 March 2004
Page 35
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
were not challenges. Two of the three respondents indicated that attracting quality
applicants and the time and energy spent on the selection process were not challenges,
while the third respondent indicated these factors constituted a minor challenge. Finally,
attracting applicants from underrepresented populations was a minor challenge for one
program, a major challenge for another, and not a challenge for the remaining
program.
Management of the Student Selection Process in LPN, RPN and Diploma in Nursing
Programs
Three (25 per cent) of the 12 LPN programs reported they had an official admission
committee. This is a much lower proportion than what was found for the baccalaureate
nursing programs where 63.6 per cent of those programs had such committees. Data on
design and approval of admission policies in LPN programs are presented in Table 22.
Table 22 – Design and Approval of Admission Policies in LPN Programs
Designs the Policy
Approves the Policy
n
n
Parent institution
6
4
Dean/Director
5
4
Admission committee
1
1
Other
5
4
Individuals identified in Table 22 included the assistant registrar, a provincial body and
the college’s academic council. Five of the 12 survey respondents indicated they would
like to modify the criteria used for admission. In all cases, the parent institution determines
admission criteria and all respondents indicated they would like to be able to admit
based on academic performance. Four respondents further specified they have to use
the first come, first served method of selection, and one volunteered it would like to be
able to use interviews. Interestingly, two other programs that used the first come, first
served approach did not voice a desire to change. Representatives from the seven
remaining programs indicated they have some involvement in the process and would
not change their admission criteria.
A parent institution receives student applications in 10 (83.3 per cent) of the 12 LPN
programs. Only five respondents provided information about processing applications. In
one case, a member of the academic staff oversees the process; in two cases, support
staff handles the process; and in two other cases, other individuals do it. Again, this
proportion is similar to findings in baccalaureate programs.
Respondents of eight programs indicated that admission files are never sent to the LPN
programs. In two cases, respondents indicated that files were received once the
candidates had been admitted and that, in each case, a member of the support staff
processed them. Involvement of academic staff (two academic staff involved in three
cases and three academic staff in one case) occurred in four programs.
Five respondents provided information about the time spent reviewing applications. Two
reported that the process takes approximately 60 to 90 minutes per file, two reported
that it takes about two hours per file, and one indicated that it takes about five hours per
31 March 2004
Page 36
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
file. Finally, only two programs indicated being part of a multi-institutional admission
process; both used the Ontario College Application Services.
The respondents for the RPN program and for two of the three diploma nursing programs
indicated they have an admission committee. Data on design and approval of
admission policies in LPN programs are presented in Table 23.
Table 23 – Design and Approval of Admission Policies in Diploma Nursing and RPN
Programs
Designs the Policy
Approves the Policy
n
n
Parent institution
2
4
Dean/Director
2
3
Admission committee
3
1
Faculty members
1
1
Only one of the four programs indicated that, if it could, it would modify admission
policies. This respondent would like to be able to abolish the first come, first served policy
and admit based on academic performance. All respondents reported that the
registrar’s office of the parent institution receives student applications. One respondent
indicated that files were transferred to the program’s department as soon as they
arrived; two indicated they were transferred once the applicants had been conditionally
admitted;, and one indicated they were transferred once the applicants had been fully
admitted. In three of the four programs, once files have been received, a faculty
member finalizes the admission process. Two respondents indicated it takes 30 to 45
minutes to complete the process and one indicated it takes approximately 15 minutes.
None of the programs were part of a multi-institutional admission process.
Overall Admission Criteria in LPN, RPN and Diploma in Nursing Programs
Table 24 provides detailed, combined information about each admission criterion used in
the LPN, RPN and diploma nursing programs. It is apparent that high school GPA,
prerequisite courses and grades in prerequisite courses were the most commonly used
criteria. First come, first served was the fourth most commonly reported selection criterion.
Six of the seven positive responses came from LPN programs. This means that half of the
LPN programs that responded to this survey admit on a first come, first served basis. The
common use of this criterion is clearly different from baccalaureate programs where it
was used in only nine per cent of cases. Under the category “other,” one LPN respondent
reported the use of a Mathematics and English assessment test, another LPN respondent
stated the program gave bonus points to applicants with post-secondary or university
education, and a diploma nursing program indicated it asked for a reading skill test, CPR,
immunization and verification of the criminal record.
Table 24 - Data on Admission Criteria Used by LPN, RPN and Diploma Nursing Programs in
the Selection Process
Criteria
31 March 2004
Number of Yes (%)
Number of No (%)
Page 37
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
High school GPA
10 (62.5)
6 (37.5)
Undergraduate GPA
3 (18.8)
13 (81.3)
CEGEP/College GPA
2 (12.5)*
14 (87.5)
Prerequisite course(s)
10 (62.5)
6 (37.5)
Grade(s) in prerequisite course(s)
9 (56.3)
7 (43.8)
First come, first served
7 (43.8)
9 (56.3)
Community service
4 (25.0)*
12 (75.0)
Previous work experience
4 (25.0)*
12 (75.0)
Resumé
3 (18.8)*
13 (81.3)
Diploma completed
2 (12.5)
14 (87.5)
Reference letters
3 (18.5)*
14 (87.5)
Individual interview of applicants
1 (6.3)*
15 (93.8)
Entry examination
1 (6.3)*
15 (93.8)
Personal essay
1 (6.3)*
15 (93.8)
Province of origin
1 (6.3)*
15 (93.8)
Region of origin
1 (6.3)*
15 (93.8)
Other
3 (12.5)
14 (87.5)
* All responses came from an LPN program.
Table 25 provides the criteria used in admissions by order of importance for the total
sample. Note this order does not indicate if a selected criterion was the first, second or
third most important. The four criteria most commonly viewed as most important were
also the most commonly used among the three types of programs.
Table 25 – Importance of Selection Criteria in LPN, RPN and Diploma Nursing Programs
Criteria
Number of Yes (%)
Number of No (%)
Prerequisite course(s)
8 (50.0)
8 (50.0)
Grades in prerequisite course (s)
8 (50.0)
8 (50.0)
High school GPA
7 (43.8)
9 (56.3)
First come, first served
4 (25.0)*
12 (75.0)
Reference letters
3 (18.8)*
13 (81.3)
Previous work experience
3 (18.8)*
13 (81.3)
Undergraduate GPA
1 (6.3)**
15 (93.8)
Individual interviews of applicants
1 (6.3)*
15 (93.8)
Rank within cohort
1 (6.3)*
15 (93.8)
31 March 2004
Page 38
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
Community service
1 (6.3)*
15 (93.8)
Entry examination
1 (6.3)*
15 (93.8)
Resumé
1 (6.3)*
15 (93.8)
Other
1 (6.3)***
15 (93.8)
* All responses from an LPN program
** Response from the RPN program
*** Response from a diploma nursing program
Admissions of Underrepresented Individuals in LPN, RPN and Diploma Nursing Programs
Three of the LPN programs reserved seats for Aboriginal students, while the RPN and
diploma nursing programs did not reserve any. Only one of these programs provided
information about the number of seats reserved. The participant indicated that it kept
two seats or five per cent of the total number of seats for these students.
Among the three types of program, only one LPN program reserved seats for students
from remote/rural areas. One LPN program that responded negatively to the questions
about Aboriginal seats and rural/remote areas seats stated that its program had
“separate satellite” programs for these students. One LPN program responded that it
reserves seats for male students, but did not provide further details.
Admission of International Students in LPN, RPN and Diploma Nursing Programs
The RPN program participant responded that it “possibly admits one international student
per year.” The tentative response makes us wonder if it is really the case. Five LPN
programs reported admitting international students, but did not provide numbers of
admissions, while one diploma nursing program reported admitting around three of these
candidates a year. Two LPN program respondents stated they assess language skills using
the TOEFL, while the respondent from the diploma program indicated it assesses English
language and spoken English proficiency.
Details about Specific Selection Criteria in LPN, RPN and Diploma Nursing Programs
Educational backgrounds
A series of sub-questions examined the educational background usually required for
applicants to nursing programs. Data about these are presented in Table 26. Many
respondents did not provide complete information on these questions. Respondents
found the questions related to the use GPA of confusing. It is apparent to us that the
survey designers did not think some of the questions would create ambiguity. For
example, it is apparent that individuals with a baccalaureate degree in nursing would
not go to study in a LPN program.
Five respondents (three from a diploma nursing program, one from an LPN program and
the RPN respondent) indicated that mature students could be admitted without high
school but needed all prerequisite courses. The respondent of another LPN program
stated that admission criteria were waived for applicants with a baccalaureate degree.
Table 26 – Educational Background Usually Required in LPN, RPN and Diploma Nursing
Programs
31 March 2004
Page 39
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
Education
Background
Normally
required,
routinely
accepted
n (%)
{n of type of
program}
Accepted on
an exceptional
basis
n (%)
{n of type of
program}
Never
accepted
Missing
data
n (%)
{n of type of
program}
n (%)
2 (12.5)
Some secondary
education (high
school not
completed)
4 (25.0)
4 (38.1)
6 (37.5)
{3 LPN, 1 RN*}
{2 LPN, 1 RN, 1
RPN}
{5 LPN, 1 RN}
High school diploma
15 (93.8)
1 (6.2)
{11 LPN, 3 RN,
1 RPN}
Some CEGEP or
college education
related to nursing
6 (37.5)
3 (18.8)
1 (6.3)
{5 LPN, 1 RN}
{3 LPN}
{1 RN}
Some CEGEP or
college education
not related to
nursing
5 (31.3)
1 (6.3)
3 (18.8)
{4 LPN, 1 RN}
{1 LPN}
{2 LPN, 1 RN}
CEGEP or college
nursing certificate or
nursing diploma
4 (25.0)
1 (6.3)
2 (12.5)
{2 LPN, 2 RN}
{1 LPN}
{2 LPN}
CEGEP or college
certificate or
diploma not related
to nursing
5 (31.3)
1 (6.3)
3 (18.8)
{4 LPN, 1 RN}
{1 LPN}
{2 LPN, 1 RN}
Some university
education in or
related to nursing
7 (43.8)
3 (18.8)
2 (12.5)
{5 LPN, 2 RN}
{2 LPN, 1 RPN}
{1 LPN, 1 RN}
Some university
education not
related to nursing
7 (43.8)
1 (6.3)
3 (18.8)
{5 LPN, 2 RN}
{1 LPN}
{2 LPN, 1 RN}
Baccalaureate in or
related to nursing
3 (18.8)
2 (12.5)
2 (12.5)
{3 LPN}
{2 LPN}
{2 RN}
Baccalaureate not
related to nursing
5 (31.3)
3 (18.8)
2 (12.5)
{4 LPN, 1 RN}
{2 LPN, 1 RPN}
{1 LPN, 1 RN}
31 March 2004
6 (35.5)
7 (43.8)
9 (56.3)
7 (43.8)
4 (25.0)
5 (31.3)
7 (43.8)
Page 40
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
* The abbreviation RN is used for diploma nursing programs to facilitate the use of this
table.
GPA Most Commonly Used
Seven programs (43.8 per cent) identified a high school GPA as the most commonly used
GPA, while two programs (12.5 per cent) identified a college GPA. Only three of the 16
programs reported ranking applicants within their cohorts. Respondents did not provide
any further comments on the topic.
The respondents of only three programs reported “announcing” to potential applicants
the minimum GPA that would be needed for admission in fall 2003. This GPA was the
same as the lowest GPA admitted in fall 2003. Detailed data are presented in Table 27.
One participant shared that it is difficult to assess “equivalence between different
grading systems.” Another one stated, “Since raising the admission to the current level,
attrition in Semester one has dropped significantly.”
Table 27 - “Announced” Minimum GPAs and Lowest GPA Admitted in Fall 2003 in LPN,
RPN and Diploma Nursing Programs
Announced Minimum GPA
n of programs
Lowest GPA Admitted
67%
1
67.5%
70%
1
70%
78.8%
1
78.8%
Course subject prerequisites
Course subject prerequisites are presented in Tables 28 and 29. Except for French, the
courses included in the survey were found to be commonly used prerequisites. In
addition to the courses listed in the survey, three programs identified other requirements:
‰ asks university transfer students to come with university-level anatomy, physiology
and microbiology;
‰ applicants must have university credits in statistics and two social sciences
courses; and
‰ asks for one course at the university level in each of the following topics: English,
psychology and statistics.
Table 28 - Course Subject Prerequisites in LPN, RPN and Diploma Nursing Programs
Course Subject
English
Not a
Prerequisite
n (%)
1 (6.3)
Biology
Chemistry
31 March 2004
3 (18.8)
Prerequisite
Passing
Requirement
Prerequisite Grade
must Exceed a
Determined Standard
n (%)
n (%)
4 (25.0)
11 (68.8)
6 (37.5)
10 (62.5)
4 (25.0)
2 (12.5)
Missing
Data
n (%)
7 (43.8)
Page 41
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
Course Subject
Not a
Prerequisite
n (%)
Mathematics
Prerequisite
Passing
Requirement
Prerequisite Grade
must Exceed a
Determined Standard
n (%)
n (%)
7 (43.8)
9 (56.3)
1 (5.3)
Physics
3 (18.8)
2 (12.5)
French
3 (18.8)
1 (6.3)
Missing
Data
n (%)
10 (62.5)
12 (75.0)
It is apparent from the data presented in Tables 28 and 29 that the prerequisites in
diploma nursing programs and RPN nursing programs are similar to those in
baccalaureate programs. The LPN programs’ prerequisites are significantly different:
three of these programs reported not requiring chemistry, while seven chose not to
answer this question. It is likely that if they required physics they would not have omitted
this question. Seven of those missing physics and the three negative responses about
using physics as a prerequisite were also from LPN programs.
Table 28 – Course Subjects Most Frequently Required in LPN, RPN and Diploma Nursing
Programs
Course subject
Programs
Requiring the
Subject
n (%)
Biology
16 (100)
Mathematics
16 (100)
English
15 (93.8)
Chemistry
6 (37.5)
Eleven programs provided rationales for selecting prerequisite courses. Nine stated that
the selected courses were predictors of success and prepared students for nursing
courses. Four of the LPN respondents indicated that math was important to facilitate
calculating medication. The remaining two respondents indicated they use prerequisites
because of provincial regulations. Following are statements from three respondents from
LPN programs:
Prior to the application of these entrance prerequisites (most recent three years), we
have historical evidence that students who had a general grade 12 only were
academically disadvantaged and struggled with the demands of the program.
Students who do not achieve a minimum of C+ in the prerequisites have a very high
attrition rate in our program.
Students with a strong academic base in English, biology and mathematics do not
have the academic struggle that students with a weaker base have in these
subjects.
Interviews and letters of reference in LPN, RPN and diploma nursing programs
31 March 2004
Page 42
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
Only one respondent (from an LPN program) stated that the program used interviews. It
did so “to meet and share information, as well as tell them about the program, to help
them be sure they are up for the challenge.” An instructor and the “training coordinator”
interview all applicants. The interview is described as “situational and direct.” Only three
respondents indicated using letters of reference. In each case, they were used to
provide more information about work ethics, commitment to employers and
dependability. Two respondents added that they require two letters of reference, which
could come from educators and employers.
3.2.3 Interviews of individuals from other disciplines than nursing
As part of the Canadian environmental scan of student selection processes in nursing
and their relationship to student attrition rates, six interviews were conducted with
professionals both within and external to health disciplines. The programs are located in
Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia. Three respondents were from
health disciplines: two physiotherapy (PT) programs and one occupational therapy (OT)
program. The other three non-health related disciplines represented were early
childhood education (ECE), education (one year program, EDUC) and engineering
(ENG). All six were undergraduate programs at a university except for early childhood
education, which was at a college. The respondents were in the following positions:
interim division head, chief of administration, director of clinical practice, program
coordinator, director and associate dean. Years of experience are found in Table 29.
Table 29 - Years of Experience
Years as
education
executive
or
manager
Years as
educator
Years of
practical
experience
Years in
present role
or position
Up to 2 years
3-5 years
6-10 years
11-20 years
> 20 years
1
3
0
2
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
1
2
3
2
2
1
1
0
Respondents have at least six to 10 years as educators and practitioners, and three of
the six have more recently been involved as an education executive or in their present
role.
The respondents were asked the following question about the interaction between
selection of students and attrition: “Is reducing attrition a matter of choosing students
more carefully, of managing their program experience more carefully, or both? If both,
how do the two approaches interact?” Five respondents answered the question as
“both” and provided the following comments:
31 March 2004
Page 43
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
If the students are unsuitable they will not stay in the program. (Physiotherapy)
Reducing attrition requires both proper admissions procedures and managing the
students’ experiences. The two areas interact in how the faculty monitor students
and review their progress from the initial orientation and openness to students
throughout their classroom and field experience. (Occupational therapy)
There is an English skills test administered to all applicants, which proves to be a
good filter. The program typically has 500 applicants for 90 student places. There
is an assessment process at regular intervals of the program to monitor student
progress during the program experience. (Early childhood education)
The selection process is very thorough. There are approximately 5,000 applicants
for 612 positions. Applicants are graded on academic achievement and a
written submission. Diversity, collegiality, leadership, education skills and the
quality of the submission are assessed. In managing the education experience,
each applicant is closely monitored to ensure full support for his or her success.
(Education)
The admission requirement is an average of 80 per cent in five specific subjects
(calculus, one other math, chemistry, physics and English – students need not
even graduate from high school). This average has recently been raised from 70
per cent. Problems were identified that related to lower standards. [With the
change] attrition has dropped from 25-30 per cent to under 20 per cent. The
school offers an orientation regarding the rigors of the program and aspects of
the profession. (Engineering).
Table 30 contains comments related to recruitment and entry.
Table 30 – Characteristics of Recruitment and Entry into Programs
PT
PT
OT
ECE
EDUC
ENG
Easy to get into, easy to graduate
Easy to get into, difficult to graduate
Difficult to get into, graduation fairly
well assured
X
X
X
X
Other
X
X
Comments from the two program respondents who indicated “other” are as follows:
There are 700 applicants for 100 positions. The academic standard for entry is high
so the program is considered difficult to get into. The workload is very high (110 full
credits) so graduation is not assured but is considered difficult. (OT)
High academic standard for entry, lots of work required to graduate. (ENG)
When asked if getting quality applicants is a problem, four of the six indicated “there was
no problem at all.” Early childhood education rated this item as a “minor” problem,
which may relate to the fact it takes the first 90 students who pass the English skills test.
Engineering also rated the item as a “minor” problem but did not elaborate.
31 March 2004
Page 44
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
The representatives from four programs reported that getting the quality of applicants
they wanted in terms of “academic strengths, other skills, relevant experience and
personal values” was not a problem. One of the physiotherapy program respondents
indicated it was a “minor” problem. The ECE program respondent rated it as a “major”
problem and commented, “Many applicants are young students with little or no life
and/or practical experience.”
In terms of attracting applicants from underrepresented populations such as men,
Aboriginal, and rural/remote, four program respondents indicated it is a “minor”
problem, while two others called it a “major” problem.
Examples of comments from programs reporting a “minor” problem:
There are now more women than men in the program but male participation is
increasing – not sure why as there is no special effort for recruiting men.
Aboriginals receive special consideration but there has been little success in
attracting Aboriginal applicants. Rural/remote applications have not been a
problem. (PT)
Although there are only two or three applicants from underrepresented
populations the program did consider this as a problem. There are no special
programs and not quotas/targets/goals with respect to these populations. (ECE)
Fourteen per cent of places are reserved for underrepresented groups. There is
an ACCESS program to assist students who are disadvantaged – learning
disabilities, visible minorities, disabled, etc. It offers additional materials to support
their application and other services as necessary on a case-by-case basis.
(EDUC)
There is no special program for women (the underrepresented gender for
engineering). Female enrollment is up to 25 per cent now and is not considered a
problem. There are special scholarships for Aboriginal students but this is not seen
as a solution. The real problem is getting the academic standards in high schools
up to the 80 per cent entry level. The Engineering faculty offers a ‘Discover E’
program – engineering camps for students from eight to 14 years of age to
encourage interest and attract future students. It is too early to assess the results.
(ENG)
Examples of comments from programs reporting a “major” problem:
There are no quotas for underrepresented populations, other than Aboriginal.
Promotion materials include males. Interview panels must include at least one of
the other gender and an Aboriginal panel member is required on the Interview
Panel for an Aboriginal applicant. There is a special category of admission for
Aboriginal students, who are highly underrepresented. The school is looking for a
10-15 per cent participation rate (to mirror the population statistics). They are
accepting aboriginal applicants from across Canada although [those from the
province] are generally given preference for admission. The disabled are also
underrepresented. This is yet to be addressed. (PT)
There are very few men in the program – not reflective of the population.
Aboriginal applicants are rare. There is very little problem attracting rural
applicants. Disabled applicants are assessed on an individual basis. There are no
special recruitment programs for any underrepresented populations. (OT)
31 March 2004
Page 45
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
When asked if programs have adequate resources to conduct student selection
properly, three programs reported “no problem.” Two reported a “minor” problem with
comments such as “very heavy workload at the selection period.” One reported a
“major” problem and commented, “the program receives no help in assessing the
applications it receives. The University Admissions handles the CEGEP applications. All the
adult [mature students] applications and the international applications need to be
reviewed by a panel of three persons in the program. This takes a lot of time.”
In terms of the “time and energy selection consumes,” two programs reported “no
problem.” Two reported a “minor” problem, and two reported a “major” problem.
Comments from those with a “major” problem follow:
The program would prefer to do interviews but there is no support – neither in
personnel to help nor in funding to hire any assistants.
The process takes a lot of time with 500 applicants.
All respondents reported no problem in having their “distinct requirements recognized by
the parent institution.” In terms of general problems with selection, four programs
indicated “no” problems. One participant stated, “There are not enough spots for
people to meet the demands for graduates. The school is turning away good students
and potentially good graduates.” (PT). The other PT program reported, “The school would
like additional resources (financial and personnel) to travel to rural and remote areas for
career promotion and selection. There has been some activity here but not enough.”
The criteria and processes for selecting applicants from the six programs are depicted in
Table 31. General and specific academic performances were definitely used more
frequently than other criteria and some considered them as predictors of success.
Table 31 – Criteria and Processes for Selecting Applicants
Criteria,
processes
Importance for Selection
Significance as a Predictor of
Program Completion versus Attrition
High
Moderate
Not Used
High
Moderate
None
General
academics
PT(1),
PT(2),
OT,
EDUC
ECE
-
-
PT(1)
PT(2)
Specific
academics,
particular
courses or
subjects
PT(2),
OT,
EDUC,
ENG
PT(1)
ECE
OT (adults
only), *ENG
PT(1)
PT(2)
Prior diploma,
degree
OT,
EDUC
PT(2)
PT(1),
ECE
OT
(international)
-
PT(2)
unknown
Tests
(knowledge,
personality,
aptitude…)
-
-
All 6
programs
-
-
PT(2)
unknown
31 March 2004
Page 46
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
Criteria,
processes
Importance for Selection
Significance as a Predictor of
Program Completion versus Attrition
Group
screening
activities
-
-
All 6
programs
-
-
-
Essay, portfolio
**EDUC
-
PT(2),
ECE, OT
-
-
-
Relevant work,
volunteer
activities,
community
service
EDUC
PT(1),
PT(2), ECE
OT
-
PT(1)
-
References
-
PT(1)
PT(2),OT,
ECE,
EDUC,
ENG
-
PT(1)
Other
OT***
ECE****
-
-
-
-
*Engineering Program – 80 per cent average on five specific courses is a high
predictor of program completion.
**Education Program uses a “statement of experience, not a portfolio.”
***Occupational Therapy Program uses a “letter of motivation” for mature applicants.
****Early Childhood Education Program uses a “first come, first served” selection
process.
Early Childhood Education, Education and OT do not track the significance of predictors
of program completion in the way asked for in the question above. OT keeps anecdotal
information. In summary, the data on these programs is similar to that which was found
for baccalaureate nursing programs, academic performance being the key factor in OT,
PT, ENG and Education.
31 March 2004
Page 47
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
4. ANALYSIS
Interpretation of most findings has been provided while presenting the data. In summary,
it was found there is no shortage of applicants interested in nursing education; however,
it seems the quality of applicants and the availability of resources to devote to the
selection process are at times an issue. Nonetheless, the majority of programs did not go
below their advertised GPA in the admission of the 2003 cohort. We found that
academic performance is key to admission in the majority of baccalaureate programs,
while a significant proportion of LPN programs rely on first come, first served policy.
Baccalaureate programs that used the “first come, first served” method were located in
colleges. We know from experience that this practice has been customary in a number
of community colleges. The majority of respondents using this selection method, in both
LPN and baccalaureate programs, would like to have more control over their admission
criteria and rely more on academic performance. Few programs use interviews, letters of
reference or other methods of selection. Some respondents indicated a desire to be able
to use these as complementary methods. One wonders whether additional resources for
the admission process would result in use of these complementary methods. All types of
programs asked for similar prerequisite courses and many respondents provided rationale
for using them as prerequisites. These rationales were certainly akin to findings in the
literature reviewed for this project and comparable to what was found in the survey of
other disciplines.
Although a relatively low number of programs reserved seats for Aboriginal students, few
were able to fill these seats. The intent to admit these students does not translate into
significant numbers. Few seats were reserved for students from rural and remote areas
and this did not seem to greatly concern participants in this study. It may be that students
from these areas are present in nursing programs and that, like male students, they are
competitive with other applicants. International students are admitted in a large
proportion of baccalaureate programs and in some LPN programs. Although it is
unfortunate that a question did not address the admission of new Canadians, we
suspect that programs would have struggled to answer this question; human rights
regulations make it difficult to collect such data. Anecdotal evidence at our university
indicates that new Canadians quite regularly face challenges because of language
barriers.
31 March 2004
Page 48
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
5. CONCLUSIONS
The survey results provide a snapshot of the selection process in nursing programs in
Canada. More similarities than differences were found. These results suggest that,
although few criteria are used, they tend to be useful towards the selection of students.
In the following section, we make eight recommendations based on our findings and on
the literature review.
31 March 2004
Page 49
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Baccalaureate programs should continue to use GPA, the commonly used
prerequisites (English, biology, chemistry, physics and French), and grades in
prerequisites as central admission criteria.
2. LPN programs should seriously consider the addition of chemistry as a prerequisite
in light of LPNs’ increasing level of responsibilities in the area of medication
administration.
3. The practice of admitting on a first come, first served basis should be abolished in
all types of nursing programs. We understand that parent institutions often impose
this policy.
4. Considering the limitations described in recommendation 3, national organizations
should encourage all provincial nursing education regulatory bodies to admit all
students on merit rather than use chance practices such as lotteries;
5. National nursing associations should seek funding to evaluate the value of using
complementary methods in the admission process. For example, it would be useful
to offer additional resources to selected faculties/schools located in each region
in Canada. With these, schools could to carry out a common, structured interview
process, and to systematically study the extent to which this screening method
increases retention in nursing programs. Conducting a multi-site study would be
efficient and could lead to a quality evaluation about the value of conducting
admission interviews.
6. A national effort should be made to increase the number of Aboriginal students in
nursing programs and measures taken to ensure these students receive adequate
funding and support.
7. More research should be done about the admission of new Canadians into
nursing programs and a systematic national effort, prior to admission to nursing
programs, should provide them with the language skills needed for success in the
profession.
8. In light of the difficulty encountered by some programs of attracting “quality
applicants,” national organizations should make concerted efforts to increase
awareness about the rigour of nursing education.
31 March 2004
Page 50
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
APPENDIX A: REFERENCES
Bolan, C., & Grainger, P. (2003). High school to nursing. The Canadian Nurse,
99(3), 18-22.
Buckingham, G. & Maylock, A. (1994). Nurse Education Today, 14, 209-215.
Byrd, G., Garza, C., & Nieswiadomy, R. (1999). Predictors of successful completion
of a baccalaureate nursing program. Nurse Educator, 24(6), 33-37.
California Postsecondary Education Commission (2003). Admission Policies and
Attrition in California Community College Nursing Programs. Sacramento,
California: Author.
Carpio, B., O’Mara, L., & Hezekiah, J. (1996). Predictors of success on the
Canadian nurses association testing services (CNATS) examination.
Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 28(4), 115-123.
Glick, O., McClelland, E., & Yang, J. (1986). NCLEX-RN: predicting the
performance of graduates of an integrated baccalaureate nursing program.
Journal of Professional Nursing, March-April, 98-103.
Hoffman, K. (2003). Measuring attrition among students in nursing programs in
Canada: A discussion paper and a pilot process for studying the issue.
Canadian Nurses Association: Ottawa, ON.
Huch, M., Leonard, R., & Gutsch, K. (1992). Nursing education: developing
specification equations for selection and retention. Journal of Professional
Nursing, 8(3), 170-175.
Wilson, M. (2001). Predicting student retention and academic achievement in
Western United States Associate Degree in nursing programs. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, Faculty of Rossier School of Education, University of
Southern California.
31 March 2004
Page 51
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
APPENDIX B: BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ansari, W. (2002). Student nurse satisfaction levels with their courses: Part l –
Effects of demographic variables. Nurse Education Today, 22, 159-170.
Ansari, W. (2002). Student nurse satisfaction levels with their courses: Part ll –
Effects of academic variables. Nurse Education Today, 22, 171-180.
Bolan, C., & Grainger, P. (2003). High school to nursing. The Canadian Nurse,
99(3), 18-22.
Buckingham, G. & Maylock, A. (1994). Nurse Education Today, 14, 209-215.
Byrd, G., Garza, C., & Nieswiadomy, R. (1999). Predictors of successful completion
of a baccalaureate nursing program. Nurse Educator, 24(6), 33-37.
California Postsecondary Education Commission (2003). Admission Policies and
Attrition in California Community College Nursing Programs. Sacramento,
California: Author.
Campbell, A. & Davis, S. (1990). Enrichment for academic success: Helping at-risk
students. Nurse educator, 15(6), 33-37.
Campbell, A. & Dickson, C. (1996). Predicting student success: A 10-year review
using integrative review and meta-analysis. Journal of Professional Nursing,
12(1), 47-59.
Carpio, B., O’Mara, L., & Hezekiah, J. (1996). Predictors of success on the
Canadian nurses association testing services (CNATS) examination.
Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 28(4), 115-123.
Feldman, H. (Ed.)(2003). The Nursing Shortage: Strategies for Recruitment and
Retention in Clinical Practice and Education. New York, NY: Springer
Publishing Co.
Glick, O., McClelland, E., & Yang, J. (1986). NCLEX-RN: Predicting the
performance of graduates of an integrated baccalaureate nursing program.
Journal of Professional Nursing, March-April, 98-103.
Glossop, C. (2002). Student nurse attrition: Use of an exit-interview procedure to
determine students’ leaving reasons. Nurse Education Today, 22, 375-386.
Gretchen, M., Rahr, R., & Allen, R. (1990). The use of pre-admission data to
predict levels of success in selected allied health study. The Occupational
Therapy Journal of Research, 10(6), 367 – 375.
Grubbs, L. (1989). The response of higher education to the shortage of nursing
school applicants. Journal of Nursing Education, 28(7), 295-297.
Hoffman, K. (2003). Measuring Attrition Among Students in Nursing Programs in
Canada: A Discussion Paper and a Pilot Process for Studying the Issue.
Canadian Nurses Association: Ottawa, ON.
31 March 2004
Page 52
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
Harvey, V., & McMurray, N., (1994). Self-efficacy: A means of identifying problems
in nursing education and career progress. International Journal of Nursing
Studies, 31(5), 471-485.
Huch, M., Leonard, R., & Gutsch, K. (1992). Nursing education: Developing
specification equations for selection and retention. Journal of Professional
Nursing, 8(3),170-175.
Jeffreys, M. (2002). Student issues. Nurse Educator, 27(1), 16-19.
Last, L. & Fulbrook, P. (2003). Why do students leave? Suggestions from a Delphi
study. Nurse Education Today, 23, 449-458.
Mally, E., Rotenberg, A., Rina, S., & Bergman, R. (1997). Reasons for student
attrition on nursing courses: A study. Nursing Standard, 11(23), 34-38.
Rognstad, M-K. (2002). Recruitment to and motivation for nursing education and
the nursing profession. Journal of Nursing Education, 41(7)321-325.
Schmalz, G., Rahr, R., & Allen, R. (1990). The use of pre-admission data to predict
levels of success in selected allied health students. The Occupational
Therapy Journal of Research, 10(6), 367-375.
Sherrod, R., Harrison, L., Lowery, B., Wood, F., Edwards, R., Gaskins, S., & Buttram, T.
(1992). Freshmen baccalaureate nursing students’ perceptions of their
academic and nonacademic experiences: Implications for research.
Journal of Professional Nursing, 8(4), 203-208.
Timmins, F., & Kaliszer, M., (2002). Aspects of nurse education programmes that
frequently cause stress to nursing students-aft-finding sample survey. Nurse
Education Today, 22, 203-211.
Wells, M. (2003). An epidemiologic approach to addressing student attrition in
nursing programs. Journal of Professional Nursing, 19(4), 230-236.
Wharrad, H., Chapple, M., & Price, N. (2003). Predictors of academic success in a
Bachelor of Nursing course. Nurse Education Today, 23, 246-254.
Wilson, M. (2001). Predicting student retention and academic achievement in
Western United States Associate Degree in nursing programs. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, Faculty of Rossier School of Education, University of
Southern California.
Wold, J. & Worth, C. (1990). Baccalaureate student nurse success prediction: A
replication. Journal of Nursing Education, 29(2), 84-89.
31 March 2004
Page 53
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
APPENDIX C: SURVEY, INTERVIEW AND FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS
Student Selection Process Survey For Schools of Nursing
IMPORTANT!
DEADLINE FEBRUARY 28th, 2004
Dear Dean, Dear Director, Dear Nurse Educator,
As you know, the Canadian Nursing Advisory Committee (CNAC) projects are underway
and they require cooperation from a multitude of partners in nursing, health care and
other professions.
WE NEED YOUR INPUT FOR THE SUCCESS OF THIS PROJECT. It is important to identify ways to
relieve part of the mounting pressures within Canadian nursing education.
The Canadian Nurses Association (CNA), Canadian Practical Nurses Association (CPNA),
Registered Psychiatric Nurses of Canada (RPNC), Canadian Association of Schools of
Nursing (CASN), Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions (CFNU), Canadian Healthcare
Association (CHA), and Academy of Chief Executive Nurses (ACEN) are undertaking a
collaborative project to facilitate the implementation of recommendations contained in
the final report of the Canadian Nursing Advisory Committee (CNAC). The report was
released by federal / provincial / territorial governments in 2002. It includes 51
recommendations designed to create quality workplaces for nurses.
There has been some action in response to the majority of the CNAC recommendations.
This new collaborative project, funded through Health Canada, will focus on those
recommendations where there has been little or no action. The project includes literature
reviews, surveys, focus groups and data analysis. Nurses in all communities of practice
(clinical, education, management and research) and students across the country are
invited (randomly chosen) to participate in various activities. ALL RESPONSES WILL BE KEPT
CONFIDENTIAL.
Student Attrition and Student Selection Processes Projects
The national problem of nurse shortages and the decrease in the number of potential
nursing students has been in the past and continues to be major concern for the
healthcare community. In recent years, the situation has underlined the need for finding
ways to attract or recruit students to the field of nursing as well as to retain those who are
currently studying nursing in order to lower student attrition rates. As part of the major
CNAC proposal, two projects were designed in December of 2003 to help address this
issue. Student Selection Processes was designed to describe selection processes for
nursing, including identification of infrastructure models that maximize retention. Student
Attrition was designed to identify conditions necessary to minimize student attrition rates.
This questionnaire asks about the following topics:
-
identification of your Program
-
general selection process issues
-
how student selection is managed
31 March 2004
Page 54
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
-
criteria for selecting students
-
details on particular criteria and methods: GPA, course subject prerequisites,
individual interviews. group activities of students, letters of reference, other
This survey is being managed by Fair Surveys Inc., an independent consulting firm in
Ottawa on behalf of CASN, CPNA, CAPNE and RPNC. Fair Surveys will keep your
responses confidential. Statistical information will be presented in aggregate form.
Comments will be presented verbatim (i.e. exactly as they were written). Please do not
identify yourself in your comments in order to maintain full confidentiality.
Please forward this questionnaire to the person in your school who is best able to provide
this information. We request that the questionnaire be completed and submitted before
February 28th, 2004.
The questionnaire begins on the next page
Student Selection Process Survey for Schools of Nursing
Section A. Program Background and Data
1. To which Program do your responses apply? Check one only and fill out this
questionnaire about that Program. If your School provides more than one Program,
please fill out a separate questionnaire on each Program.
__ Registered Nurse (Baccalaureate – 4 year program)
__ Registered Nurse (Diploma – 3 year program)
__ Licensed Practical Nursing
__ Registered Psychiatric Nursing
2. Type of parent institution: __ University __ College __ University College
3. Province
4. What is your role in this Program? Check all that apply
__ Dean or Director
__ Program Head
__ Educator
__ Administrative Officer
__ other: please describe
5. How many applications did you receive for this Program in Fall 2003?
6. How many applicants did you accept initially?
7. How many accepted applicants did NOT enroll in your Program?
8. What is the language(s) of instruction of the Program?
Section B. Selection Issues Overview
What are the main challenges that this Program faces in the area of student
selection?
31 March 2004
Page 55
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
no
problem
minor
problem
major
problem
9. Getting the quantity of applicants we
want
10. Getting the quality of applicants we
want (in terms of academic strengths,
other skills, relevant experience, personal
values etc.)
11. Attracting applicants from
Underrepresented populations (such as
men, Aboriginal, rural/remote)
12. Adequate resources to conduct
selection properly
13. The time and energy that selection
consumes
14. Having the distinct requirements of
nursing recognized by our parent
institution, in order to tailor selection
processes and use criteria that make
sense for our Program
15. Please discuss your degree of autonomy in establishing admission criteria for
your programs. Specifically address criteria that are imposed by your institution.
For example in some institutions the higher administration determines what is an
acceptable GPA, or that all students will be admitted based on a lottery system.
16. If you had the option, would you use different criteria or modify the criteria
used for admission?
__ No __ Yes. If yes, please describe the criteria that you would use
Section C. Management of the Student Selection (Admission) Process
Questions on admission criteria and selection methods appear later. This Section
focusses on management and administration.
17. Is there an official Admissions Committee for this Program?
__ no
__ yes. If yes, please describe the committee (role, number and types of
members, who chairs it, to whom it reports, frequency and length of meetings.)
18. Who designs the admission policies and process for your Program? Check all
that apply
__ the parent institution
__ our Dean/ Director or other leader
31 March 2004
Page 56
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
__ our Admissions Committee
__ other: please identify
19. Who approves the admission policies and process for your Program? Check
all that apply
__ the parent institution
__ our Dean/ Director or other leader
__ our Admissions Committee
__ other: please identify
20. Initial receipt and verification of applications:
__ Applications are received directly by the Nursing Education
department/school/faculty
__ Applications are first received by the central registrar’s office of the parent
institution
21. If applications are first received by a central location, when are the files sent
to your department/school/faculty? Be as specific as possible (for example, in
some institution the school of nursing does not receive the file until all of its
components have been received).
22. Once received in your department/school/faculty, the processing of
applications is overseen by
__ An academic staff member
__ A support staff member
__ Other
Please identify “other”
23. After applications are received in your department/school/faculty, they are
processed by
__ (give number of) academic staff member(s)
__ (give number of) support staff member(s)
__ (give number of) others
Please identify “others”
24. Please estimate the average time devoted by all those involved (support,
academic, other) to each application.
25. Please describe any aspects of the selection process that have not been
covered in the questions above.
26. Is your Program part of a multi-institutional admission process? (For example,
in some regions a student can apply to a number of universities by completing
only one form.)
31 March 2004
Page 57
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
__ No
__ Yes. If yes, please comment: Are you satisfied with this system? What changes
would you like to see? What are the strengths of such a system?
Section D. Overall Admission Criteria
27. Place a check mark beside all methods currently used in your admission
process.
-
High school GPA
-
CEGEP GPA
-
Undergraduate program GPA
-
Rank of student within high-school or CEGEP cohort
-
Prerequisite course(s)
-
Grades in prerequisite course(s)
-
Interviews of individual applicants
-
Group screening activity (i.e. evaluating applicants while they are involved in a group
activity)
-
Letters of reference
-
Personal essay
-
Previous work experience
-
Community service
-
Entry examination
-
Resumé/curriculum vitae
-
Aptitude test
-
Personality test
-
Admitted on the basis of first come, first served
-
Admitted on the basis of having completed a diploma, regardless of the
grades obtained in that diploma
-
Lottery
-
The region of origin within a province is taken into account
-
The province of origin is taken into account
-
Other
Please identify “other”
28. Which of these criteria are the three most important?
-
High school GPA
31 March 2004
Page 58
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
-
CEGEP GPA
-
Undergraduate program GPA
-
Rank of student within high-school or CEGEP cohort
-
Prerequisite course(s)
-
Grades in prerequisite course(s)
-
Interviews of individual applicants
-
Group screening activity (i.e. evaluating applicants while they are involved in a group
activity)
-
Letters of reference
-
Personal essay
-
Previous work experience
-
Community service
-
Entry examination
-
Resumé/curriculum vitae
-
Aptitude test
-
Personality test
-
Admitted on the basis of first come, first served
-
Admitted on the basis of having completed a diploma, regardless of the
grades obtained in that diploma
-
Lottery
-
The region of origin within a province is taken into account
-
The province of origin is taken into account
-
Other
29. Do you reserve seats for Aboriginal students?
__No __ Yes If yes, how many and on what basis are these students admitted?
30. Do you reserve seats for students from rural and remote areas?
__No __ Yes If yes, how many and on what basis are these students admitted?
31. Do you reserve seats for male students?
__No __ Yes If yes, how many and on what basis are these students admitted?
32. Do you admit international students?
__No __ Yes If yes, how many? Do you use different and/or additional admission
criteria for them? Do you assess their skills in the language of instruction?
31 March 2004
Page 59
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
Which of the following credentials or educational backgrounds do you normally
require or routinely accept for admission to your Program? Which ones will you
also consider on an exceptional basis? Which do you never accept? Put a
check mark in the appropriate space on each row
normally required,
routinely
accepted
accepted on
exceptional
basis
never
accepted
33. some secondary
education (i.e. HS not
completed)
34. High School completion
(diploma)
35. some CEGEP or college
education related to nursing
36. some CEGEP or college
education not related to
nursing
37. CEGEP or college nursing
certificate or diploma
38. CEGEP or college
certificate or diploma not
related to nursing
39. some university
education in or related to
nursing
40. some university
education not related to
nursing
41. Baccalaureate in or
related to nursing
42. Baccalaureate not
related to nursing
43. Please comment on your criteria and targets for considering candidates on
an exceptional basis (e.g. rationale for waiving the normal requirements, special
criteria that you invoke, numbers of such candidates whom you typically
accept)
Section E. Use of GPA (Grade Point Average)
Different Programs have different streams of entrants – from high school, from
community college (or CEGEP in Québec) etc. They may accept students from
31 March 2004
Page 60
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
more than one such stream. Moreover, some Programs go further back than
others into a candidate’s academic record – they might want the (older) high
school marks as well as the (more recent) college marks. In each case, Grade
Point Average might be an important criterion. Therefore, this Section asks you
about your use of GPA as an admission criterion, not just once, but for up to
three areas of academic experience.
If you do not take GPA into account, go to Section F.
44. Which GPA do you use the most frequently for student selection?
__ High School
__ CEGEP
__ College, community college
__ Other
Please identify “Other”
45. For admissions in Fall 2003, what was the minimum required GPA of this type
that you announced to potential applicants?
46. What was the lowest GPA of this type that you actually accepted for
admissions in Fall 2003?
47. When you apply this type of GPA as an admission criterion, do you also
consider the rank of the applicant within his/her cohort?
__ Yes __ No
48. Please comment on difficulties or controversies in using this type of GPA as an
admissions criterion
49. Which GPA do you use the second most frequently for student selection?
__ High School
__ CEGEP
__ College, community college
__ Other
Please identify “Other”
50. For admissions in Fall 2003, what was the minimum required GPA of this type
that you announced to potential applicants?
51. What was the lowest GPA of this type that you actually accepted for
admissions in Fall 2003?
52. When you apply this type of GPA as an admission criterion, do you also
consider the rank of the applicant within his/her cohort?
__ Yes __ No
31 March 2004
Page 61
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
53. Please comment on difficulties or controversies in using this type of GPA as an
admissions criterion
54. Which GPA do you use the third most frequently for student selection?
__ High School
__ CEGEP
__ College, community college
__ Other
Please identify “Other”
55. For admissions in Fall 2003, what was the minimum required GPA of this type
that you announced to potential applicants?
56. What was the lowest GPA of this type that you actually accepted for
admissions in Fall 2003?
57. When you apply this type of GPA as an admission criterion, do you also
consider the rank of the applicant within his/her cohort?
__ Yes __ No
58. Please comment on difficulties or controversies in using this type of GPA as an
admissions criterion
Section F. Course or Subject prerequisites
Please indicate which of the following course subjects are prerequisites for
admission, and whether the mark or grade achieved is also considered. If you
have no such prerequisites, go to Section G.
NO, not a
prerequisite
YES, a
prerequisite, pass
only needed
YES, a prerequisite,
and grade must
exceed a standard
59. English
60. French
61. Biology
62. Chemistry
63. Mathematics
64. Physics
65. Other (first)
66. Other (second)
67. Other (third)
68. Please identify the other course or courses:
31 March 2004
Page 62
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
69. Provide the rationale, including scientific evidence, for having these courses
as prerequisites.
70. Provide the rationale for considering grades in particular courses (e.g.
relationship to successful practice, relationship to retention/attrition)
71. Do you take into account the number of times an applicant had to repeat a
course, particularly in the sciences? __ Yes __ No
Section G. Individual interviews
72. Do you conduct individual interviews of applicants in your admission process?
__ Yes __ No If “no,” go to Section H.
73. What is your rationale for interviewing students as part of the student
selection?
74. Which criteria or conditions must an applicant meet in order to be called for
an interview?
75. Is the interview standardized?
__ No __Yes
76. What type of questions do you use?
77. Please specify the number and qualifications of persons who conduct the
interviews
Section H. Screening Activity with groups of applicants
78. Do you employ a Screening Activity with groups of applicants in your
admission process?
__ Yes __ No If “no,” go to Section I.
79. What is your rationale for employing Screening Activities with groups of
applicants as part of student selection?
80. Please describe the activity briefly, including the number of applicants in a
group
81. Which criteria or conditions must an applicant meet in order to be included in
the activity?
82. Please specify the number and qualifications of persons involved in the
evaluation of the activity
Section I. Letters of reference
83. Do you employ Letters of reference in your admission process? __ Yes __ No If
“no,” go to Section J.
84. What is your rationale for employing Letters of reference as part of student
selection?
85. How many letters of references do you require?
31 March 2004
Page 63
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
__ one
__ two
__ three
__ four or more
86. Who is acceptable as the source of a Letter of reference? Check all that
apply
__ teachers/professors
__ employers
__ any person (other than a relative) who knows the applicant
Section J. Other Methods
87. Please describe and provide the rationale for any other method or criteria
that you use in student selection, other than those already covered by detailed
questions. That is, please provide information on methods or criteria other than
GPA, particular course subject prerequisites, individual interviews, screening
activities of groups of students, and letters of reference.
Thank you for your time in completing the questionnaire and the information you
have provided. Return the completed questionnaire as an attachment to an email to [email protected] or by fax to 1-775-908-7330
31 March 2004
Page 64
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
APPENDIX D– SELECTION CRITERIA FOR PROJECT
The following section outlines the criteria used by CASN, CASN Executive Committee,
and CNAC Education Steering Committee to guide the selection of the lead
faculty/researchers, individuals for the telephone interviews, and sample schools as
champions to encourage completion and dissemination of surveys under the very tight
time constraints. It is important to note that participation in these surveys was completely
voluntary, thus, it was difficult to count the potential number of respondents in several
cases. This is particularly true for the Clinical Placements survey of Nursing Employers and
to some extent the number of students (actual student level data are available only for
2001-02). Response rates, therefore, were difficult to determine.
CRITERIA FOR CHOOSING FACULTY/RESEARCHERS
ƒ
Expertise in the area (research, teaching, projects)
ƒ
Credentials
ƒ
Geographic Location
ƒ
Institutional Type (University, University-college, College)
ƒ
Program Type (RN, LPN, Registered Psychiatric Nurse)
ƒ
Languages
ƒ
Number for project (individual, partnership)
Names of potential researchers who indicated interest were forwarded to CASN
Executive Committee for selection as well as the Steering Committee for input and
approval. Once researchers were selected according to the criteria, the names of all
others who had applied for the lead on the projects were forwarded to the selected
lead researchers as potential resources.
SAMPLING FOR INDIVIDUALS (for surveys, interview and focus groups)
ƒ
Representative
ƒ
Responsive
ƒ
Languages
ƒ
Geographic location (important for student sampling)
ƒ
Institutional Types
ƒ
Program (RN, LPN, Registered Psychiatric Nurse)
Focus Groups
A total of four virtual focus groups were planned with regards to student attrition:
(1) Students in Registered Nursing program;
(2) Students in Licensed Practical Nursing program;
(3) Students in Registered Psychiatric Nursing Program; and
(4) Nursing Employers.
31 March 2004
Page 65
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
The manner in which the students were selected was entirely voluntary. CASN sent a
notice to sample schools, and eventually all member programs of the three regulatory
bodies, encouraging faculty to invite their students to participate in these focus groups.
For confidentiality and ethical considerations, students who were interested were asked
to contact the third party professional consulting group (Fair Surveys Inc.).
CASN identified several nursing employers from across the country through the ACEN list
as well as through the CNAC Education Steering Committee, according to the above
criteria. Furthermore, as part of a weekly communiqué, CASN stated the need for nursing
employers to participate in the focus groups. Again, Fair Surveys Inc. was given as the
main contact to individuals who were interested.
Fair Surveys Inc. was given the potential list of interviewees and, on behalf of CASN and
the Steering Committee, contacted the individuals and conducted the interviews. The
results were provided without personal descriptors.
INTERVIEW
Two different sets of interviews were outlined in the initial planning: other professionals
(health and non-health) with regards to Student Attrition; and deans/directors of nursing
with regards to Nurse Educator Careers.
A third set of interviews was identified well into the survey development process. The
researchers, CASN and Steering Committee agreed that more information about specific
courses in clinical placements would be essential to determine the content being taught.
Initially this information was designed as part of the Clinical Placements School of Nursing
survey; however, the survey proved to be too long (i.e. over 100 questions) and quite
difficult to convert into HTML form for web-posting. It was decided to conduct extra
telephone interviews with some of the sample schools (refer to next section for details on
criteria selection) to receive more detailed information on Clinical Placements.
Again, Fair Surveys Inc. was given the list of potential participants to contact on behalf of
the Steering Committee. Refer to project discussion papers for specifics on numbers of
interviews conducted.
CRITERIA FOR SAMPLING SCHOOLS OF NURSING
ƒ
Institutional Types
ƒ
Program Types
ƒ
Geographic Location
ƒ
Language
ƒ
Responsiveness (are they schools that respond to surveys, questions?)
ƒ
Representative (representative of different size schools – small & large mix, typical
of their province, and types of programs/institutions)
Initially, because of the short timeframe to collect data, sample schools were designated
to ensure enough respondents; certain schools were selected as champions to
encourage participation. Note that surveying was NOT LIMITED to the sample schools. By
personally contacting the deans/directors of the sample schools (which included RN, LPN
and RPN programs), CASN and the Steering Committee ensured that at least most would
be aware of the survey during this very hectic time. (Refer to Limitations and Constraints
for further clarification.) Approximately 38 schools were contacted as champions with 34
schools positively responding (Refer to Table below). Once all the sample schools were
31 March 2004
Page 66
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
contacted, messages were sent out to them, as well as to the other RN, LPN and RPN
schools through the Steering Committee members and to the CEGEPs through the
president of their association. The intention was to make the surveys accessible to all
schools of nursing across Canada (Refer to Supplement B for list of RN, LPN, RPN member
schools).
Note the primary contact for the schools of nursing was the dean/director who was
asked to disseminate the notices and invitations about the seven surveys to the
appropriate respondents – faculty, students and nursing employers affiliated with the
institution. Interested respondents volunteered as outlined in the instructions. They were
first asked to indicate to Fair Surveys Inc. to which of the seven surveys listed they would
like to respond. Once they requested the surveys, the link (URL) specific to each survey
was sent to them.
Refer to description above for criteria for selection for interviews and focus groups.
SAMPLE SCHOOLS SELECTED
Region
Province
Newfoundland
Atlantic
Nova Scotia
Ontario
31 March 2004
Sample School
Type of
Program
Region
Sample
School
Type of
Program
Memorial
University of
Newfoundland
RN
West
University
of Alberta
RN
RN/LPN
Grant
MacEwan
Community
College
RN/LPN/RPN
Western
Regional
School of
Nursing
RN
Grande
Prairie
Regional
College
RN
St. Francis
Xavier
University
RN
Keyano
College
RN
University
College of
Cape Breton
RN
Red Deer
College
RN
Laurentian
University
RN
Norquest
College
LPN
Northern
College
RN/LPN
Bow Valley
College
LPN
Cambrian
College
RN/LPN
Kwantlen
University
College
RN/LPN
Boreal College
RN/LPN
Douglas
College
RN/LPN/RPN
Centre for
Nursing Studies
Province
Alberta
British
Columbia
Page 67
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
Region
Province
Sample School
Type of
Program
Sault St. Marie
College
RN
University of
Western
Ontario
RN
Fanshawe
College
RN/LPN
University of
Ottawa
Algonquin
College
La Cite
Collegiale
31 March 2004
Province
RN
RN/LPN
Manitoba
RN/LPN
Ordre des
infirmières et
infirmiers du
Québec
Quebec
Region
West
CEGEP
Association
RN
McGill
University
RN
Université
Laval
RN
Saskatchewan
Sample
School
Type of
Program
UniversityCollege of
the
Cariboo
RN/LPN
North
Island
College
RN/LPN
British
Columbia
Institute of
Technology
RN
University
of Victoria
RN
University
of
Manitoba
RN
Red River
College
RN
Keewatin
College
RN
Brandon
University
RN/RPN
Assiniboine
College
LPN
SIAST
RN/LPN/RPN
Page 68
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
APPENDIX E: ETHICAL GUIDELINES
SUPPLEMENT A
CES GUIDELINES FOR ETHICAL CONDUCT
COMPETENCE
Evaluators are to be competent in their provision of service.
1. Evaluators should apply systematic methods of inquiry appropriate to the evaluation.
2. Evaluators should possess or provide content knowledge appropriate for the
evaluation.
3. Evaluators should continuously strive to improve their methodological and practice
skills.
INTEGRITY
Evaluators are to act with integrity in their relationships with all stakeholders.
1. Evaluators should accurately represent their level of skills and knowledge.
2. Evaluators should declare any conflict of interest to clients before embarking on an
evaluation project and at any point where such conflict occurs. This includes conflict of
interest on the part of either evaluator or stakeholder.
3. Evaluators should be sensitive to the cultural and social environment of all stakeholders
and conduct themselves in a manner appropriate to this environment.
4. Evaluators should confer with the client on contractual decisions such as:
confidentiality; privacy; communication; and ownership of findings and reports.
ACCOUNTABILITY
Evaluators are to be accountable for their performance and their product.
1. Evaluators should be responsible for the provision of information to clients to facilitate
their decision-making concerning the selection of appropriate evaluation strategies and
methodologies. Such information should include the limitations of selected methodology.
2. Evaluators should be responsible for the clear, accurate and fair, written and/or oral
presentation of study findings and limitations, and recommendations.
3. Evaluators should be responsible in their fiscal decision-making so that expenditures are
accounted for and clients receive good value for their dollars.
4. Evaluators should be responsible for the completion of the evaluation within a
reasonable time as agreed to with the clients. Such agreements should acknowledge
unprecedented delays resulting from factors beyond the evaluator's control.
****************
Gerald Halpern is a member of the American Evaluation Association. Fair Surveys
subscribes to the AEA ethical standards:
The Program Evaluation Standards
31 March 2004
Page 69
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
Summary of the Standards
Utility Standards
The utility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will serve the information
needs of intended users.
U1 Stakeholder Identification--Persons involved in or affected by the evaluation should
be identified, so that their needs can be addressed.
U2 Evaluator Credibility--The persons conducting the evaluation should be both
trustworthy and competent to perform the evaluation, so that the evaluation findings
achieve maximum credibility and acceptance.
U3 Information Scope and Selection--Information collected should be broadly selected
to address pertinent questions about the program and be responsive to the needs and
interests of clients and other specified stakeholders.
U4 Values Identification--The perspectives, procedures and rationale used to interpret the
findings should be carefully described, so that the bases for value judgements are clear.
U5 Report Clarity--Evaluation reports should clearly describe the program being
evaluated, including its context, and the purposes, procedures and findings of the
evaluation, so that essential information is provided and easily understood.
U6 Report Timeliness and Dissemination--Significant interim findings and evaluation reports
should be disseminated to intended users, so that they can be used in a timely fashion.
U7 Evaluation Impact--Evaluations should be planned, conducted and reported in ways
that encourage follow-through by stakeholders, so that the likelihood that the evaluation
will be used is increased.
Feasibility Standards
The feasibility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will be realistic,
prudent, diplomatic and frugal.
F1 Practical Procedures – The evaluation procedures should be practical, to keep
disruption to a minimum while needed information is obtained.
F2 Political Viability – The evaluation should be planned and conducted in anticipation of
the different positions of various interest groups, so that their cooperation may be
obtained, and so that possible attempts by any of these groups to curtail evaluation
operations or to bias or misapply the results can be averted or counteracted.
F3 Cost Effectiveness – The evaluation should be efficient and produce information of
sufficient value, so that the resources expended can be justified.
Propriety Standards
The propriety standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will be conducted
legally, ethically, and with due regard for the welfare of those involved in the evaluation,
as well as those affected by its results.
P1 Service Orientation – Evaluations should be designed to assist organizations in
addressing and effectively serving the needs of the full range of targeted participants.
P2 Formal Agreements – Obligations of the formal parties to an evaluation (what is to be
done, how, by whom, when) should be agreed to in writing, so that these parties are
obligated to adhere to all conditions of the agreement or formally to renegotiate it.
31 March 2004
Page 70
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
P3 Rights of Human Subjects – Evaluations should be designed and conducted to respect
and protect the rights and welfare of human subjects.
P4 Human Interactions – Evaluators should respect human dignity and worth in their
interactions with other persons associated with an evaluation, so that participants are not
threatened or harmed.
P5 Complete and Fair Assessment – The evaluation should be complete and fair in its
examination and recording of the strengths and weaknesses of the program being
evaluated, so that strengths can be built upon and problem areas addressed.
P6 Disclosure of Findings – The formal parties to an evaluation should ensure that the full
set of evaluation findings, along with pertinent limitations, are made accessible to the
persons affected by the evaluation and any others with expressed legal rights to receive
the results.
P7 Conflict of Interest – Conflict of interest should be dealt with openly and honestly, so
that it does not compromise the evaluation processes and results.
P8 Fiscal Responsibility – The evaluator’s allocation and expenditure of resources should
reflect sound accountability procedures and otherwise be prudent and ethically
responsible, so that expenditures are accounted for and appropriate.
Accuracy Standards
The accuracy standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will reveal and
convey technically adequate information about the features that determine the worth
or merit of the program being evaluated.
A1 Program Documentation – The program being evaluated should be described and
documented clearly and accurately, so that the program is clearly identified.
A2 Context Analysis – The context in which the program exists should be examined in
enough detail, so that its likely influences on the program can be identified.
A3 Described Purposes and Procedures – The purposes and procedures of the evaluation
should be monitored and described in enough detail that they can be identified and
assessed.
A4 Defensible Information Sources – The sources of information used in a program
evaluation should be described in enough detail that the adequacy of the information
can be assessed.
A5 Valid Information – The information gathering procedures should be chosen or
developed and then implemented so that they will assure that the interpretation arrived
at is valid for the intended use.
A6 Reliable Information – The information gathering procedures should be chosen or
developed and then implemented so that they will assure that the information obtained
is sufficiently reliable for the intended use.
A7 Systematic Information – The information collected, processed and reported in an
evaluation should be systematically reviewed, and any errors found should be corrected.
A8 Analysis of Quantitative Information – Quantitative information in an evaluation should
be appropriately and systematically analyzed, so that evaluation questions are
effectively answered.
31 March 2004
Page 71
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
A9 Analysis of Qualitative Information – Qualitative information in an evaluation should
be appropriately and systematically analyzed, so that evaluation questions are
effectively answered.
A10 Justified Conclusions – The conclusions reached in an evaluation should be explicitly
justified, so that stakeholders can assess them.
A11 Impartial Reporting – Reporting procedures should guard against distortion caused
by personal feelings and biases of any party to the evaluation, so that evaluation reports
fairly reflect the evaluation findings.
A12 Meta-evaluation – The evaluation itself should be formatively and summatively
evaluated against these and other pertinent standards, so that its conduct is
appropriately guided and that, on completion, stakeholders can closely examine its
strengths and weaknesses.
****************
Robert Czerny
phone (613) 728-0658, fax (613) 728-8989
Agora Management Associates
Fair Surveys Inc www.fairsurveys.com
SynParSys Consulting Inc www.synparsys.com
APPENDIX F: CASN, LPN, RPN, CAPNE MEMBERS
CASN Members
Institution
Algonquin College
LPN Members
Schools of Psychiatric
Nursing
Institution
Institution
Alberta and the
Northwest Territories
Boréal College
Algonquin College of
Applied Arts and
Technology
Assiniboine Community
College
Brandon University
Aurora College
Athabasca University
British Columbia Institute
of Technology (BCIT)
Brock University
Cambrian College
Camosun College
Bow Valley College
British Columbia and
Yukon
Cambrian College of
Applied Arts and
Technology
Canadore College
Camosun College
Canadore College of
Applied Arts and
Technology
Centennial College
Capilano College
31 March 2004
CAPNE Board Members
Institution
Vancouver Community
College
Alberta
A diploma program (91
credits) is offered
through Grant MacEwan
College.
Assiniboine Community
College
Manitoba
Yukon College
Saskatchewan Institute of
Applied Science and
Technology (SIAST)
A Bachelor of Science in
Psychiatric Nursing is
offered by Brandon
University in both
Brandon & Winnipeg.
Mohawk College of
Applied Arts and
Technology
BC
The program is offered
through Douglas
College.
NBCC - Saint John
College of the North
Atlantic - Corner Brook
Campus
Centre for Nursing
Studies, St. John's, NL
Holland College
Nova Scotia Community
College (NSCC)
Page 72
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
CASN Members
Institution
Centre for Nursing Studies
LPN Members
Schools of Psychiatric
Nursing
CAPNE Board Members
Institution
Institution
Institution
Carlton Trail Regional
College
Cité Collégiale
College of New
Caledonia
CCNB - Bathurst
College of the Rockies
CCNB - Dieppe
Conestoga College
CCNB - Edmundston
Centennial College of
Applied Arts and
Technology
Centre for Nursing
Studies
CNA - Corner Brook
Campus
Confederation College
Dalhousie University
Douglas College
Durham College
Fanshawe College
First Nations University of
Canada
George Brown College
Georgian College
Grande Prairie Regional
College
Grant MacEwan
Community College
Humber College
Keewatin Community
College
Keyano College
Kwantlen University
College
Lakehead University
Lambton College
Langara College
Laurentian University
Lethbridge Community
College
CCNB - Campbellton
Collège Boréal
Collège de Bois-deBoulogne
Collège de la région de
l'Amiante
College of New
Caledonia
College of the Rockies
Confederation College
of Applied Arts and
Technology
Cumberland Regional
College
Cypress Hills Regional
College
Douglas College
Durham College
Fanshawe College of
Applied Arts and
Technology
George Brown College
of Applied Arts and
Technology
Georgian College of
Applied Arts and
Technology
Holland College
Humber College of
Applied Arts and
Technology
Kwantlen University
College
Loyalist College
Malaspina UniversityCollege
La Cité collégiale
McGill University
Lambton College of
31 March 2004
Saskatchewan
The Psychiatric Nursing
Program is currently
looking to a governmentimposed resolution due
to approval issues from
the Association.
Lakeland College
Page 73
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
CASN Members
Institution
LPN Members
Schools of Psychiatric
Nursing
CAPNE Board Members
Institution
Institution
Institution
Mohawk College
Applied Arts and
Technology
Lethbridge Community
College
Loyalist College of
Applied Arts and
Technology
Malaspina UniversityCollege
Mohawk College of
Applied Arts and
Technology
Mount Royal College
NBCC - Saint John
Nipissing University
Niagara College
North Island College
NorQuest College
Northern College
Okanagan University
College
North Island College
North West Regional
College
Northern College of
Applied Arts and
Technology
Queen's University
Northern Lakes College
Red Deer College
Northern Lights College
Red River College
Northlands College
Nova Scotia Community
College (NSCC)
Okanagan University
College
McMaster University
Medicine Hat College
Memorial University of
Newfoundland
Nunavut Arctic College
Ryerson University
Sault College
Selkirk College
Seneca College
SIAST
Sir Sandford Fleming
College
St. Clair College
St. Francis Xavier
University
Open Learning Agency
Parkland Regional
College
Portage College
Saskatchewan Institute of
Applied Science and
Technology (SIAST)
Saskatchewan,
Manitoba and Nunavut
Region
Université de Montréal
Selkirk College
Seneca College of
Applied Arts and
Technology
Sir Sandford Fleming
College
Southeast Regional
College
Sprott-Shaw Community
College
St. Clair College of
Applied Arts and
Technology
Université de Sherbrooke
Université du Québec en
Abitibi-Témiscamingue
St. Lawrence College
The University College of
the Cariboo
St. Lawrence College
Trent University
Trinity Western University
Université de Moncton
31 March 2004
Page 74
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
CASN Members
Institution
Université du Québec à
Chicoutimi
Université du Québec à
Rimouski
Université du Québec à
Trois-Rivières
Université du Québec en
Outaouais
LPN Members
Schools of Psychiatric
Nursing
CAPNE Board Members
Institution
Institution
Institution
University College of
Cape Breton
University College of the
Fraser Valley
Vancouver Community
College (VCC)
Yukon College
Université Laval
University College of the
Fraser Valley
University of Alberta
University of British
Columbia
University of Calgary
University of Lethbridge
University of Manitoba
University of New
Brunswick
University of Northern
British Columbia
University of Ontario
Institute of Technology
(UOIT)
University of Ottawa
University of PEI
University of
Saskatchewan
University of Toronto
University of Victoria
University of Western
Ontario
University of Windsor
University College of
Cape Breton
The University College of
the Cariboo
Western Regional School
of Nursing
York University
31 March 2004
Page 75
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
APPENDIX G: POTENTIAL RESPONDENTS
BREAKDOWN OF NUMBER OF UNIVERSITIES, UNIVERSITY-COLLEGES & COLLEGES
CASN Members
Universities
41
University-Colleges
6
Colleges
43
Total
91
CPNA Members
Colleges
63
University-Colleges
6
Total
69
RPNC Members
Colleges
3
Universities
1
Total
4
Common Members between CPNA & CASN
University-Colleges
6
Colleges
30
Total
36
Common Members between CASN and RPNC
Colleges
2
Universities
1
Total
3
Common Members between RPNC and CAPNE
Colleges
1
Total
1
Note that RPNC members are common with either CPNA or CASN members. Hence, the
list notes their differences with either when calculating total potential numbers. That is,
they have a total of four members: three are in common with CASN and one is in
common with CPNA.
CEGEPS
The total number of CEGEPS
42
Therefore,
Potential Number that could have received the surveys:
31 March 2004
Page 76
Educational Preparation
Objective A: Student Selection Processes
Universities
41 (includes RPNC University)
University-Colleges
6
Colleges
76 (includes the 1 different RPNC college)
CEGEPS
42
Total
165 for the potential number that could have
received the surveys
NOTE:
We arrived at 76 as the total number of “different” colleges because:
• 30 is the number of Colleges common between the CASN and the LPN
Membership
To get the colleges from both which are not common between the two:
43 (CASN) -30 (Common; includes 2 RPNC colleges) = 13 different at CASN
63 (RPNC and the one common RPN/CPNA college) – 30 (Common; includes 2
RPNC colleges) = 33 different at LPN
Therefore we have
13 (different CASN) + 33 (different LPN; includes 1 RPNC different college) + 30
Common = 76 different colleges.
31 March 2004
Page 77