Swedish student nurses’ perception of peer learning as an educational model during clinical practice in a hospital setting—an evaluation study

Table 5 Item statistics and comparison of means for students in year one and three

	Total population (n = 135)		Year one (n = 62)	Year three (n = 73)	p-value^a
	Mean (SD)	Median^b	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)
To what extent did you learn during the peer learning activities?	3.19 (0.719)	to a high degree	3.33 (0.351)	3.07 (0.757)	0.050
To what extent did you gain new theoretical knowledge?	2.95 (0.829)	to a high degree	3.03 (0.802)	2.88 (0.849)	0.237
To what extent did you gain new practical skills?	3.10 (0.843)	to a high degree	3.18 (0.806)	3.04 (0.873)	0.363
To what extent did you think theory and practice have been merged during peer learning activities?	3.13 (0.733)	to a high degree	3.21 (0.661)	3.06 (0.785)	0.264
Were you properly prepared for your teaching function?	2.77 (0.818)	to a high degree	2.70 (0.760)	2.82 (0.867)	0.329
To what extent do you think that the peer learning activities are complements to traditional precepting?	3.14 (0.848)	to a high degree	3.18 (0.742)	3.11 (0.934)	0.994
Was your preceptor/s properly prepared for the peer learning activities?	3.37 (0.773)	to a very high degree	3.41 (0.739)	3.33 (0.805)	0.654
Were the peer learning activities relevant for your coming profession as a nurse?	3.40 (0.765)	to a very high degree	3.60 (0.557)	3.23 (0.874)	0.017

^aMann–Whitney U-test, significance level 5 %, significant levels in italics
^b1 = not at all 2 = to some extent 3 = to a high degree 4 = to a very high degree

ISSN: 1472-6955