Table 1 Factor loadings and inter-factor correlation coefficient

 My supervisor showed a positive attitude towards supervision

0.741

0.153

0.062

−0.113

− 0.021

 I felt that I received individual supervision

0.842

−0.019

0.075

−0.042

−0.064

 I continuously received feedback from my supervisor

0.881

−0.069

0.109

−0.078

0.034

 Overall I am satisfied with the supervision I received

0.891

−0.094

0.096

0.045

−0.083

 The supervision was based on a relationship of equality and promoted my learning

0.833

−0.003

0.045

0.062

0.030

 There was a mutual interaction in the supervisory relationship

0.772

0.102

−0.141

0.067

0.107

 Mutual respect and approval prevailed in the supervisory relationship

0.766

0.187

−0.145

0.121

−0.048

 The supervisory relationship was characterized by a sense of trust

0.739

0.128

− 0.108

0.042

0.033

 In my opinion, the nurse teacher was capable of integrating theoretical knowledge and everyday practice of nursing

−0.083

0.905

−0.096

0.044

0.024

 The teacher was capable of operationalizing the learning goals of this clinical placement

0.051

0.550

−0.017

0.230

0.012

 The nurse teacher helped me to reduce the theory-practice gap

0.068

0.622

0.007

0.166

0.066

 The nurse teacher was like a member of the nursing team

0.224

0.456

0.039

0.105

0.091

 The nurse teacher was capable of giving his or her pedagogical expertise to the clinical team

0.284

0.337

−0.035

0.222

0.068

 The nurse teacher and the clinical team worked together in supporting my learning

0.261

0.510

−0.016

0.075

0.114

 The common meetings between myself, my mentor, and my nurse teacher were comfortable experiences

0.094

0.846

0.052

−0.132

− 0.050

 In our common meetings I felt that we were colleagues

0.125

0.661

0.274

−0.266

0.044

 The focus of the meetings was on my learning needs

0.021

0.666

0.331

−0.113

−0.010

 The staff members were easy to approach

−0.076

0.342

0.780

−0.093

−0.252

 I felt comfortable going to the ward at the start of my shift

0.053

−0.129

0.669

−0.294

0.529

 During staff meetings (e.g., before shifts) I felt comfortable taking part in the discussions

0.105

−0.126

0.778

−0.075

0.222

 There was a positive atmosphere on the ward

−0.044

0.178

0.611

0.056

0.145

 The staff members were generally interested in student supervision

0.007

0.086

0.466

0.284

0.025

 The staff learned to know the students by their personal names

0.028

−0.326

0.318

0.234

0.364

 There were sufficient meaningful learning situations on the ward

−0.258

0.153

0.522

0.475

0.014

 The learning situations were multidimensional in terms of content

0.098

−0.017

0.517

0.305

0.068

 The ward can be regarded as a good learning environment

0.114

−0.013

0.673

0.331

−0.295

 The ward’s nursing philosophy was clearly defined

0.152

0.010

0.022

0.508

0.209

 Patients received individual nursing care

−0.040

−0.012

−0.081

0.782

0.087

 There were no problems in the information flow related to patients’ care

0.111

0.015

0.032

0.820

−0.103

 Documentation of nursing (e.g., nursing plans, daily recording of nursing procedures, etc.) was clear

0.227

−0.200

0.172

0.630

−0.035

 The WM regarded the staff on her/his ward as a key resource

−0.215

0.158

−0.024

0.466

0.382

 The WM was a team member

−0.012

0.065

−0.121

0.036

0.943

 Feedback from the WM could easily be considered as a learning situation

0.005

0.115

−0.015

0.004

0.860

 The effort of individual employees was appreciated

0.047

0.087

0.079

0.171

0.593

 Eigenvalues

17.37

1.99

1.35

1.30

1.09

 Total percentage and cumulative addition

51.1%

5.8%

4.0%

3.8%

3.2%

S-d1

S-d2

S-d3

S-d4

S-d5

S-d1

1.000

S-d2

0.695

1.000

S-d3

0.605

0.541

1.000

S-d4

0.649

0.607

0.581

1.000

S-d5

0.563

0.537

0.554

0.569

1.000

Cronbach’s alpha for each factor

0.946

0.925

0.893

0.834

0.883

Cronbach’s alpha on total scale