Skip to main content

A scoping review of admission criteria and selection methods in nursing education

Abstract

Background

Nursing education institutions are required to select and train applicants who have appropriate characteristics for delivering effective healthcare. Unlike other healthcare professions and despite the need to attract and select a competent workforce, there has been no comprehensive analysis of the selection criteria and methods used to recruit nursing students. As there is relatively limited prior research available, we conducted a scoping review to explore and synthesise the existing evidence regarding admission criteria and selection methods of nursing students and for the purpose of identifying an agenda for future research in this field.

Methods

Our scoping review follows the Arksey and O’Malley five-step proposition including identifying the research question and relevant studies, study selection, tabulation of data, and summarizing and reporting the results. Seven databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, ERIC, SID, Irandoc and PsycINFO) were searched systematically using relevant keywords. Articles on admission of undergraduate nursing students published in both English and/or Persian from 2006 to 2019 were retrieved.

Results

Existing research evidence suggests that nursing students are largely selected on the basis of two criteria - “cognitive-academic abilities” and “non-cognitive abilities.” Cognitive-academic abilities were assessed in four main dimensions of mathematics, language, natural sciences and reasoning skills mainly through standardized tests and academic records. Our review shows a wide range of non-cognitive characteristics are evaluated in nursing applicants including: morality, interpersonal communication skills and psychological strength. The selection method most commonly used to assess characteristics was through interviews (panel interviews or multiple mini interviews). Other methods included references, personal statements and personality assessment tools.

Conclusions

This is the first scoping review of literature regarding nursing education selection and recruitment. Results can be used to inform nursing education policymakers and institutions in the design of their selection practices. Future research should concentrate on the evaluation and improvement methods of student selection including content and predictive validity analysis of multiple mini interview and standardized tests, development of cost-effective selection methods and job analysis studies to identify specific non-cognitive characteristics for nursing.

Peer Review reports

Background

Student selection in the health professions is increasingly being recognised as an important issue [1]. The ultimate goal of student selection is to identify who will go on to be the most effective clinicians in delivering patient care, which ultimately relates to positive health outcomes [2]. Selection of students who can successfully complete their education and have necessary professional qualifications is currently considered a main challenge of health education institutions in the world [3].

Nurses, who play a key role in promoting individual and community health [4], comprise the largest group of health care workforce [5] with approximately 35 million nurses and midwives worldwide. Choosing the right student for the nursing profession will ensure job compatibility, improves nursing workforce performance in the future and ensures the safety and well-being of patients [6]. Additionally it maximizes the effectiveness of health systems and can ultimately lead to improved nursing care. It also helps to better the public image of the nursing profession in the society [7].

Recently, the number of nursing program applications has increased both internationally and in Iran [8, 9]. One of the major challenges in the nursing education is selecting competent applicants who are most likely to accomplish the training program successfully, and make a long-term effective contribution to their profession, the general public, and the community [10]. This issue has received much attention in recent years, largely due to growing concerns of diminishing quality of nursing care, high attrition rates, limited resources and students’ academic failure [11,12,13]. In addition, nursing instructors and educators [14] have reported a rise in unprofessional attitudes and behaviours of nursing students, further demonstrating the need for the assessment of the professional skills of applicants to nursing, in addition to academic performance [7].

Selection for nursing education in Iran

Selection methods for entering the nursing profession is considered a key nursing challenge in Iran. Currently, the fit between nursing applicants’ personal characteristics and requirements of the nursing profession are not considered. This has reduced the efficiency of nurses’ performance and impeded the development and maintenance of a sustained, efficient workforce [15, 16]. Since the 1980s, the only criterion utilised in Iran has been success in the University Entrance Exam, which takes the format of a multiple choice written test [17]. A large number of graduated from high school sit the entrance exam annually and admit different majors based on their ranks in this exam [18]. This exam caters for all majors, and hence it cannot take specific features and perquisites for each profession into account [19], where arguably criteria for the health professions may be different to other disciplines and professions.

Several obstacles have impacted the nursing student admission system and nursing profession in Iran in recent years. A significant number of high school graduates admitted to nursing schools through the current system leave before completion because of the mismatch between their personal traits and those required by the nursing profession or they lack sufficient motivation to become qualified nurses [20]. Another important negative effect is reduced efficiency and effectiveness of nurses in their job duties, which is often attributed to sub-optimal selection. In most cases, failure of individuals to effectively perform their job in the organization arises from inconsistency of their psychological characteristics with the job they are undertaking rather than the lack of technical skills or intelligence [21]. This can lead to reduced satisfaction, job failure [22], increased job burnout, decreased performance [21] and reduction of nursing care quality [23].

Nursing education institutions are responsible for selecting and training applicants who have the characteristics necessary for developing and transforming the future of the nursing profession [24, 25]. They are required to have clear admission policies relating to the selection process and minimum admission criteria [26]. However, there is a Lack of information based on research evidence regarding nursing students’ admission criteria and selection practices. Given this knowledge gap and the importance of selecting the right candidates for entry into the nursing profession, a comprehensive analysis of existing research on admission criteria and selection methods of undergraduate nursing students was conducted.

Objectives and review questions

This study aimed to review existing research evidence regarding nursing students’ selection criteria and selection methods. The research questions were:

  1. 1)

    What criteria are being used to select applicants?

  2. 2)

    Which selection methods are being used to assess applicants as part of selection into undergraduate nursing students?

  3. 3)

    What does the evidence show regarding the predictive validity of selection methods with students’ academic performance?

Method

Study design

This scoping review was conducted based on the PRISMA guidelines (see the supplementary data 1) [27, 28]. The five steps included: identifying the research questions; identifying relevant studies; study selection; tabulation of data; and collating, summarizing and reporting the results [29].

Search strategy

Systematic searches were conducted in databases from April to August 2019 by two researchers. Preliminary searches on PubMed and CINAHL for student selection criteria and methods were performed using the keywords “criteria”, “selection methods”, “nursing school”, “admission criteria” and “nursing student.” The title and abstract of articles were reviewed and new keywords were identified for the full article search. The final search was performed using the following keywords in PubMed, SID, Irandoc, CINAHL, Scopus, ERIC and PsycINFO databases using the Boolean operators “OR” and “AND”:

  • “Criteria” OR “cognitive” OR “Non cognitive” OR “admission criteria”

  • “nursing student” OR “nursing application” OR “nursing education” OR nursing candidate

  • “selection” OR “admission” OR “entry” OR “entrance” OR “recruitment” OR “prerequisite”

  • “selection methods” OR “Selection process”

  • “test” OR “interview” OR “predictive” OR “psychometric” OR “personality” OR “emotional intelligence” OR “aptitude test” OR “academic record” OR “academic attainment” OR “performance” OR “success”

Search for Persian Literature had no result. The references of the selected articles were also searched manually.

Study selection

Studies were selected according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria were Persian and English articles on admission of undergraduate nursing students published from 2006 to 2019. Commentaries, editorials and opinion papers were excluded. The title, abstract and full text of the articles was reviewed by four researchers (VZ, AG, LV AND FB) according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Any disagreements resolved by discussion and consensus with the research team. The flow diagram for the article selection process is summarized in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure1

Flow diagram of study selection

Data extraction

Key information extracted from included articles included the author, year, country, main purpose, participants, study design and main results by two reviewers. The data chart was performed independently by two reviewers and then the results were discussed. Data charting was continuously updated in an iterative process (Table 1). The extracted data then were analyzed and interpreted.

Table 1 Study characteristics of included articles (N = 44)

Results

Literature search

A total of 5417 articles were found from databases search, duplicate articles were removed, and 3045 articles entered the title and abstract review phase. After excluding unrelated studies, the full text of 182 articles were evaluated in terms of inclusion criteria and 44 articles were included in the final review.

Study characteristics

Most studies (n = 20) were from the USA followed by the UK (n = 9), Australia (n = 4), Finland (n = 3), Canada (n = 3) and one study from each of the countries New Zealand, Pakistan, Oman, Sweden, Africa, and Italy. Thirty-two articles were research studies, 4 were review articles and 8 were thesis and doctoral dissertations. Study characteristics are presented in Table 1.

Nursing students’ selection criteria

The Review identified that nursing students are selected based on two criteria: (1) cognitive-academic abilities and (2) non-cognitive abilities. These two criteria are explained below.

Cognitive-academic abilities

Most studies considered cognitive-academic abilities as an essential criterion for nursing student admission. The four most common cognitive-academic competencies evaluated in nursing applicants included (1) reasoning skills (analysis ability, deductive and inductive reasoning, inference, critical thinking, problem-solving, decision-making evaluation, logic); (2) mathematical skills (math, numeracy, basic calculation, applied math); (3) language skills (English writing, reading comprehension, reading, vocabulary, English reading, general knowledge of the language, word knowledge, literacy, verbal); and (4) natural science skills (chemistry, physics, biology, anatomy and physiology). Nursing applicants were assessed for language and mathematical skills in the majority of studies, and few studies focused on assessing reasoning and natural science skills of nursing applicants (Tables 1 and 3).

Non-cognitive abilities

Reviewed studies revealed that non-cognitive abilities examined in nursing applicants include communication skills, teamwork, dynamism, morality, psychological strength, Emotional intelligence and warmth (As seen in Table 2).

Table 2 Non-cognitive abilities used in the selection process for nursing students

Methods used to assess nursing student selection criteria

Results of the review indicated that two main methods are used to assess the cognitive-academic competencies of nursing applicants are:

  1. 1

    On-site test for selection (conducted either before or during the Student selection process): According to the reviewed studies, standardized tests are often used to measure cognitive-academic abilities in this method (Table 3).

  2. 2

    Academic achievement records: In most studies, academic records have been used as the most common criterion for selecting a student for nursing education, typically based on the high school grade point average (GPA) [8, 13, 14, 32, 35, 37, 45, 46, 49, 52, 58, 61, 68]. Studies have reported prior academic achievement of applicants in general, but it was not possible to further analyze the specific cognitive-academic abilities acquired from academic records of applicants.

Table 3 Onsite selection methods of assessing cognitive-academic abilities

Based on the review results, the TEAS was the most commonly used test, yet reliability of test was only confirmed in one study (NDRT test: Nelson-Denny Reading Test) [50]. The reliability or validity of other selection tests reported based on previous assessments by instrument developers in the studies [36, 39, 47, 51, 55, 59, 61]. In other studies, the reliability and validity of the test used was not reported [30, 31, 34, 40, 41, 43, 49, 56, 57, 60].

Four main methods were found to assess the non-cognitive abilities of nursing applicants. Interviews (panel interviews or multiple mini interviews) are the main method used to assess communication skills, teamwork morale, ethical insights, and empathy. Personal statements were another selection method, commonly used to assess motivation and self-assessment of personal characteristics. Some nursing institutes also use recommendation letters provided by teachers and there was limited used of personality tests (Table 1).

Methods of student selection and relationship with academic performance

The relationship of selection methods and academic performance was reported positive in 20 articles and neither positive nor negative in 5 articles. The relationship of academic performance with standardized tests (15 articles) and academic records (13 articles) has been examined more than other methods of student selection. Only two articles reported a positive relationship between interviews (individual interview and multiple mini interviews) and academic performance. In most studies, academic success and passing the NCLEX exam (National Council Licensure Examination) have been used as a criterion for assessing academic performance. The relationship between the selection methods (i.e. HSRT: Health Sciences Reasoning Test) and clinical performance has been examined in only one study without identifying a positive or negative relationship (Table 4).

Table 4 The Relationship between student selection methods and academic performance in reviewed studies

Discussion

This study assessed existing published literature on the admission criteria and selection methods of undergraduate nursing students. Results showed that academic-cognitive and non-cognitive abilities are the main two criteria in the process of selecting students for nursing programs. According to the results of this review, the academic-cognitive abilities of the applicants are mainly examined through the academic records and standardized tests, and the non-cognitive abilities are investigated through the interviews, personal statements and references.

Review of the selected studies showed that academic abilities of applicants are assessed in three main areas of mathematics, language and natural sciences skills which aligns with the World Health Organization recommendations for selection criteria in nursing students [26]. Basic science skills were suggested in previous studies without any complete explanation. In this study, the most important basic science skills were identified. According to the results of this review, academic abilities are good predictors of academic success of nursing students [8, 39, 40, 51, 56, 57, 61].

Cognitive abilities were another criterion for selecting the nursing student in the reviewed studies. Although the cognitive abilities are very important for all students of the higher education institutions [70], however, the investigation of this criterion among the nursing applicants is of special importance [67]. Cognitive abilities are very crucial in the complex working environments, including the nursing [70]. The nursing field is complex and the undergraduate students must acquire the necessary qualifications for nursing in a relatively short period of time [71]. Therefore, the cognitive preparation is necessary for the individuals to succeed in the theoretical and clinical courses [72]. The research findings also indicate that the nursing applicants who have been investigated according to the reasoning skills have the theoretical and clinical success during their training [59]. The nurses’ cognitive abilities play a key role in the problem-solving skills, the clinical decision-making power, and as a results diagnosing the patient needs and selecting the best nursing practices [73, 74]. This could directly affect the patient’s safety and improvement [75]. However, the results of this study showed that cognitive abilities of applicants have been assessed in few articles. In this regard, the European Federation of Nurses Association has acknowledged that although this skill is considered an important competence in nursing education, it is usually neglected and under-valued when selecting nursing students [76]. These findings demonstrate the need for assessing reasoning skills for selecting nursing students.

The results of this study showed that the cognitive-academic abilities of applicants are assessed mainly through academic records or standardized tests [37, 46]. In order to evaluate this ability, the research evidence suggests that the standardized tests and academic records are more relevant to the future academic performance of the nursing students than the other methods (interview and non-standardized tests) [6, 30, 36, 51, 55, 57, 59, 61], and are better predictors of nursing students’ academic success [30, 39]. However, the findings of this study indicated that none of the standardized tests evaluate all of the four cognitive-academic skills in one test. On the other hand, there is little research evidence on the validity and reliability of nursing standardized tests [30, 31, 34, 46, 49, 51, 56,57,58, 60, 61]. In addition, the most important criticism of using academic records as a selection criterion is heterogeneity of scores, since they are obtained from different institutions, leading to bias in the selection of nursing students [8]. It is worth mentioning that academic records can be a good criterion for students’ selection provided that valid standardized tests are nationally conducted.

The non-cognitive skills were another criterion for selecting the nursing student in the reviewed studies. It is important to select nursing students with non-cognitive, professionally tailored characteristics to provide safe and high quality care [77]. According to research findings, traits such as empathy and morality of nursing students do not change during their training which highlights the importance of their assessment when entering the nursing profession [78]. Researchers have concluded that academic-cognitive abilities are necessary but not sufficient for becoming a qualified nurse and this criterion alone cannot guarantee ethical and appropriate practice in nursing [66]. Individual values, interests and motivations are not considered in this approach, and individuals with high academic-cognitive abilities cannot be considered competent and qualified nurses merely through education [66]. According to Ones et al., cognitive abilities along with non-cognitive abilities lead to better performance of an individual in a job [79]. Therefore, non-cognitive characteristics should be considered a key criterion in nursing student’s selection [8, 66].

This review indicates that assessment of non-cognitive abilities is generally done through interview (traditional, multiple mini interview), personal statements, references and personality assessmentt [8, 32, 37, 45, 47]. Interviews are the most common method for assessing non-cognitive abilities such as communication and teamwork skills [32, 37, 45, 47, 52, 58], despite evidence that traditional interviews lack predictive validity and are not a powerful tool for selecting nursing students [8, 45, 80]. Interviews are strongly influenced by interviewers [81] and hence are highly associated with bias in the selection process [37]. More recently, some universities have begun using multiple mini interviews to select applicants [47], which have been found to have higher validity and reliability compared to traditional interviews [47, 58]. However, limited studies exist on the predictive validity of MMI [6, 47]. Construct validity of MMI remains a challenge, and there is insufficient consensus on the dimensions that applicants need to be examined in multiple mini interviews and thus requires further research evidence [47, 52]. Multiple mini interview is also a costly method because it requires station design as well as more manpower and role players [47, 82, 83]. Personal statements are another method used to assess non-cognitive characteristics including motivation and self-evaluation [8, 45]. There is little research evidence to confirm the predictive validity of personal statements, and most research evidence indicates that this method lacks validity and reliability as a selection tool [8, 45, 46, 52]. On the other hand, the content of personal statements may lead to unfair judgment in the selection of applicants [84]. There is limited studies regarding the use of references as a student selection method and their use is not recommended due to low reliability and validity [8, 46, 52]. Despite these findings, most nursing schools widely use personal statements and references for student selection. Some studies have suggested personality assessment to assess non-cognitive abilities. The results of a Meta-analysis on the predictive validity of personality assessment showed an insignificant relationship between personality predictors and job criteria [79]. Despite low validity, these tests have been widely used in selecting health care professionals for many years [85].

In addition to the above-mentioned methods, selection centers and situational judgment tests are also used for assessing the non-cognitive abilities suggested for medical students. Research evidence regarding the use of selection centers for selecting medical applicants indicates high validity of this method, but it can be costly for institutions [86, 87]. Situational judgment tests have also been recognized as a reliable valid method for assessing non-cognitive abilities and are used to examine a wide range of non-cognitive traits for selecting many large-scale job applicants [88, 89]. Despite the use of situational judgment tests for student selection in some health care professions [90,91,92,93,94], no research evidence was found regarding the use of this method for nursing student selection.

Limitations

The findings of this scoping review must be interpreted with caution because the quality of the selected articles was not evaluated. Therefore, articles of varying quality were included in this study and the results may be of limited reliability.

Conclusion

The results of this scoping review can be used by nursing education policymakers and institutes for comprehensive assessment of applicants in terms of their suitability for the nursing education. Both academic-cognitive and non-cognitive abilities should be considered when selecting a student for entry into nursing education. Future studies should be directed toward assessing and improving methods of student selection. According to the reviewed studies, there is limited evidence on content and predictive validity of selection methods including MMIs and standardized tests. Longitudinal studies (examining students during the course of study and career) are required to assess predictive validity of these methods. The findings of this review showed insufficient consensus among researchers about which non-cognitive characteristics should be examined in nursing applicants. Further research is required to identify attributes considered essential for success during nursing training and nursing practice. The relative contribution of each selection criterion in the student admission system is also unclear; therefore, further research is needed to weigh the selection criteria. Given the lack of research evidence on the situational judgment tests in nursing education despite its cost-effectiveness and large-scale feasibility, it is suggested to design these tests to examine the non-cognitive characteristics of applicants.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

GPA:

Grade point average

NDRT:

Nelson-Denny Reading Test

NCLEX:

National Council Licensure Examination

ACT:

American College Test

TEAS:

Test of essential academic skills

HSRT:

Health Sciences Reasoning Test

HESI:

Health Education Systems Inc

MMI:

Multiple mini interview

BSN:

Bachelor of Science in Nursing

NLN:

National League for Nursing

RN:

Registered Nurse

NCEA:

National Certificate of Educational Achievement

SAT:

Scholastic Achievement Test

NET:

Nurse Entrance Test

WGCTA:

Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal

References

  1. 1.

    Patterson F, Griffin B, Hanson MD. Opening editorial: selection and recruitment in medical education. MedEdPublish. 2018;7. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.15694/mep.2018.0000222.1.

  2. 2.

    Mahon KE, Henderson MK, Kirch DG. Selecting tomorrow’s physicians: the key to the future health care workforce. Acad Med. 2013;88(12):1806–11. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000023.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Ezeala CC, Ezeala MO, Swami N. Strengthening the admissions process in health care professional education: focus on a premier Pacific Island medical college. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2012;9(11). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3352/jeehp.2012.9.11.

  4. 4.

    Smiley RA, Lauer P, Bienemy C, Berg JG, Shireman E, Reneau KA, et al. The 2017 national nursing workforce survey. J Nurs Regul. 2018;9(3):S1–S88. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/S2155-8256(18)30131-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    World Health Organization. Global age-friendly cities: a guide. World Health Organization; 2007. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/43755..

  6. 6.

    Gale J, Ooms A, Grant R, Paget K, Marks-Maran D. Student nurse selection and predictability of academic success: the Multiple Mini Interview project. Nurse Educ Today. 2016;40:123–7. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.01.031.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Wilson A, Chur-Hansen A, Marshall A, Air T. Should nursing-related work experience be a prerequisite for acceptance into a nursing programme?: a study of students’ reasons for withdrawing from undergraduate nursing at an Australian university. Nurse Educ Today. 2011;31(5):456–60. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.nedt.2010.09.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Timer JE, Clauson MI. The use of selective admissions tools to predict students’ success in an advanced standing baccalaureate nursing program. Nurse Educ Today. 2011;31(6):601–6. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.nedt.2010.10.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Rankin B. Emotional intelligence: enhancing values-based practice and compassionate care in nursing. J Adv Nurs. 2013;69(12):2717–25. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1111/jan.12161.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Wood C. Choosing the ‘right’people for nursing: can we recruit to care? Br J Nurs. 2014;23(10):528–30. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.12968/bjon.2014.23.10.528.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Codier E. Emotional intelligence: enhancing value-based practice and compassionate care in nursing. Evid Based Nurs. 2015;18(1):8. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1136/eb-2014-101733.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Francis R. Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust public inquiry: executive summary. London: Stationery Office; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Wambuguh O, Eckfield M, Van Hofwegen L. Examining the importance of admissions criteria in predicting nursing program success. Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh. 2016;13(1):87–96. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1515/ijnes-2015-0088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Ahmad MM, Safadi RR. Entry criteria and nursing students’ success. Jordan Med J. 2009;43(3):189–95.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Esmaeili M, Dehghan-Nayeri N, Negarandeh R. A review of the opportunities and challenges facing the nursing associations in Iran. Int Nurs Rev. 2012;59(2):168–74. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1111/j.1466-7657.2012.00981.x.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Azizi FI. Nursing challenges in Iran. Nurs Midwif Stud. 2014;3(2):e19906. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.17795/nmsjournal19906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Farrokhi-Khajeh-Pasha Y, Nedjat S, Mohammadi A, Rad EM, Majdzadeh R, Monajemi F, et al. The validity of Iran’s national university entrance examination (Konkoor) for predicting medical students’ academic performance. BMC Med Educ. 2012;12(1):60. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/1472-6920-12-60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Nedjat S, Bore M, Majdzadeh R, Rashidian A, Munro D, Powis D, et al. Comparing the cognitive, personality and moral characteristics of high school and graduate medical entrants to the Tehran University of Medical Sciences in Iran. Med Teach. 2013;35(12):e1632–e7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Tayebi Z, Dehghan-Nayeri N, Negarandeh R, Shahbazi S. Motives for entering nursing in Iran: a qualitative study. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2013;18(1):59.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Khomeiran RT, Deans C. Nursing education in Iran: past, present, and future. Nurse Educ Today. 2007;27(7):708–14. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.nedt.2006.10.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Ahmadi MS. Predicting job stress and burnout based on personality characteristics of nurses. Knowledge Res Appl Psychol. 2016;17(2):99–107.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Farsi Z, Dehghan-Nayeri N, Negarandeh R, Broomand S. Nursing profession in Iran: an overview of opportunities and challenges. Jpn J Nurs Sci. 2010;7(1):9–18. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1111/j.1742-7924.2010.00137.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Atashzadeh Shoorideh F, Rasouli M, Zagheri Tafreshi M. Nurses’ turnover process: a qualitative research. J Qual Res Health Sci. 2014;3(1):62–79.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Creech CJ, Aplin-Kalisz C. Developing a selection method for graduate nursing students. J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2011;23(8):404–9. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1111/j.1745-7599.2011.00626.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Callwood A, Allan H, Courtenay M. Are current strategies for pre-registration student nurse and student midwife selection ‘fit for purpose’ from a UK perspective? Introducing the multiple mini interview. Nurse Educ Today. 2012;32(8):835–7. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.nedt.2012.05.019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    World Health Organization (WHO): Nursing & Midwifery: Human Resources for Health Global standards for the initial education of professional nurses and midwives. 2009, From: http://www.who.int/hrh/nursing_midwifery/hrh_global_standards_education.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Khalil H, Peters M, Godfrey CM, McInerney P, Soares CB, Parker D. An evidence-based approach to scoping reviews. Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs. 2016;13(2):118–23. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1111/wvn.12144.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):69. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1080/1364557032000119616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Stuenkel DL. At-risk students: do theory grades+ standardized examinations= success? Nurse Educ. 2006;31(5):207–12. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1097/00006223-200609000-00007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Newton SE, Smith LH, Moore G, Magnan M. Predicting early academic achievement in a baccalaureate nursing program. J Prof Nurs. 2007;23(3):144–9. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.profnurs.2006.07.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Hayes LJ. Recruitment strategies for baccalaureate nursing students in Ontario. J Nurs Educ. 2007;46(6):261–8. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3928/01484834-20070601-05.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Whitehead E, Mason T, Ellis J. The future of nursing: career choices in potential student nurses. Br J Nurs. 2007;6(8):491–6. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.12968/bjon.2007.16.8.23422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Newton SE, Moore G. Use of aptitude to understand bachelor of science in nursing student attrition and readiness for the National Council Licensure Examination-Registered Nurse. J Prof Nurs. 2009;25(5):273–8. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.profnurs.2009.01.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    McGahee TW, Gramling L, Reid T. NCLEX-RN success: are there predictors. South Online J Nurs Res. 2010;10(4):208–21.

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Wolkowitz AA, Kelley JA. Academic predictors of success in a nursing program. J Nurs Educ. 2010;49(9):498–503. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3928/01484834-20100524-09.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Schmidt B, MacWilliams B. Admission criteria for undergraduate nursing programs: a systematic review. Nurse Educ. 2011;36(4):171–4. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1097/NNE.0b013e31821fdb9d.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Shulruf B, Wang YG, Zhao YJ, Baker H. Rethinking the admission criteria to nursing school. Nurse Educ Today. 2011;31(8):727–32. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.nedt.2010.11.024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Hernandez M. Correlating quantitative nursing preadmission variables, ATI test results, and program outcomes including retention, graduation, and licensure. PhD thesis. Northern Illinois University; 2011.

  40. 40.

    Dante A, Valoppi G, Saiani L, Palese A. Factors associated with nursing students’ academic success or failure: a retrospective Italian multicenter study. Nurse Educ Today. 2011;31(1):59–64. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.nedt.2010.03.016.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Grossbach A, Kuncel NR. The predictive validity of nursing admission measures for performance on the national council licensure examination: a meta-analysis. J Prof Nurs. 2011;27(2):124–8. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.profnurs.2010.09.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Pitt V, Powis D, Levett-Jones T, Hunter S. Factors influencing nursing students’ academic and clinical performance and attrition: an integrative literature review. Nurse Educ Today. 2012;32(8):903–13. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.nedt.2012.04.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Jarmulowicz MA. Assessment of admission criteria and selection process for nurse education programs. PhD thesis. University of Walden; 2012.

  44. 44.

    Herrera C. Student retention in higher education: examining the patterns of selection, preparation, retention, and graduation of nursing students in the undergraduate pre-licensure nursing program. PhD thesis. Arizona State University; 2012.

  45. 45.

    Rodgers S, Stenhouse R, McCreaddie M, Small P. Recruitment, selection and retention of nursing and midwifery students in Scottish Universities. Nurse Educ Today. 2013;33(11):1301–10. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.02.024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Ruth-Sahd LA. A call to action: nursing education must embrace change and move forward. Dimens Crit Care Nurs. 2014;33(1):28–33. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1097/DCC.0000000000000020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Perkins A, Burton L, Dray B, Elcock K. Evaluation of a multiple-mini-interview protocol used as a selection tool for entry to an undergraduate nursing programme. Nurse Educ Today. 2013;33(5):465–9. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.nedt.2012.04.023.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Usher K, West C, MacManus M, Waqa S, Stewart L, Henry R, et al. Motivations to nurse: an exploration of what motivates students in Pacific Island countries to enter nursing. Int J Nurs Pract. 2013;19(5):447–54. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1111/ijn.12095.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Lancia L, Petrucci C, Giorgi F, Dante A, Cifone MG. Academic success or failure in nursing students: results of a retrospective observational study. Nurse Educ Today. 2013;33(12):1501–5. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.05.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Lajoie DL. Reading comprehension and nursing education: a missing variable associated with nursing student attrition?. PhD thesis. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee; 2013.

  51. 51.

    Underwood LM, Williams LL, Lee MB, Brunnert KA. Predicting baccalaureate nursing students’ first-semester outcomes: Hesi admission assessment. J Prof Nurs. 2013;29(2):S38–42. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.profnurs.2012.07.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Taylor R, Macduff C, Stephen A. A national study of selection processes for student nurses and midwives. Nurse Educ Today. 2014;34(8):1155–60. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.nedt.2014.04.024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Jones-Schenk J, Harper MG. Emotional intelligence: an admission criterion alternative to cumulative grade point averages for prelicensure students. Nurse Educ Today. 2014;34(3):413–20. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.03.018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Waugh A, Smith D, Horsburgh D, Gray M. Towards a values-based person specification for recruitment of compassionate nursing and midwifery candidates: a study of registered and student nurses’ and midwives’ perceptions of prerequisite attributes and key skills. Nurse Educ Today. 2014;34(9):1190–5. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.12.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Bremner MN, Blake BJ, Long JM, Yanosky DJ. Setting a benchmark for the test of essential academic skills (TEAS) V: striving for first-semester success in nursing school. J Nurs Educ. 2014;53(9):537–40. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3928/01484834-20140821-12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Harner A. Components of the test of essential academic skills as a predictor of first year success in a baccalaureate nursing program. PhD thesis. University of Florida Gulf Coast; 2014.

  57. 57.

    Hinderer KA, DiBartolo MC, Walsh CM. HESI admission assessment (A2) examination scores, program progression, and NCLEX-RN success in baccalaureate nursing: an exploratory study of dependable academic indicators of success. J Prof Nurs. 2014;30(5):436–42. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.profnurs.2014.01.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Sanneh L, Mbuiya A. Use of different selection methods in nursing education and other healthcare professions: a literature review. Bachelor theses. Helsinki Metropolia University of Applied Sciences; 2015.

  59. 59.

    Pitt V, Powis D, Levett-Jones T, Hunter S. The influence of critical thinking skills on performance and progression in a pre-registration nursing program. Nurse Educ Today. 2015;35(1):125–31. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.nedt.2014.08.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Elkins N. Predictors of retention and passing the national council licensure examination for registered nurses. Open J Nurs. 2015;5(03):218–25. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.4236/ojn.2015.53026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Crouch SJ. Predicting success in nursing programs. J Coll Teach Learn. 2015;12(1):45–54. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.19030/tlc.v12i1.9069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Macduff C, Stephen A, Taylor R. Decision precision or holistic heuristic?: insights on on-site selection of student nurses and midwives. Nurse Educ Pract. 2016;16(1):40–6. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.nepr.2015.06.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Simelane RS. Perceptions of nurse educators regarding selection criteria of first-year nursing students in the West Rand Region Nursing College. Master’s thesis. University of South Africa; 2017.

  64. 64.

    Callwood A, Cooke D, Bolger S, Lemanska A, Allan H. The reliability and validity of multiple mini interviews (MMIs) in values based recruitment to nursing, midwifery and paramedic practice programmes: findings from an evaluation study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018;77:138–44. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.10.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Callwood A, Jeevaratnam K, Kotronoulas G, Schneider A, Lewis L, Nadarajah VD. Personal domains assessed in multiple mini interviews (MMIs) for healthcare student selection: a narrative synthesis systematic review. Nurse Educ Today. 2018;64:56–64. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.01.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Talman K, Hupli M, Puukka P, Leino-Kilpi H, Haavisto E. The predictive value of two on-site selection methods of undergraduate nursing students: a cohort study. J Nurs Educ Pract. 2018;8(7):12–21. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.5430/jnep.v8n7p12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Haavisto E, Hupli M, Hahtela N, Heikkilä A, Huovila P, Moisio E-L, et al. Structure and content of a new entrance exam to select undergraduate nursing students. Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh. 2019;16(1):1–15. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1515/ijnes-2018-0008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Yousafzai II, Jamil B. Relationship between admission criteria and academic performance: a correlational study in nursing students. Pak J Med Sci. 2019;35(3):858–61. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.12669/pjms.35.3.217.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    McNeill C, Erskine A, Ellis R, Traynor M. Developing nurse match: a selection tool for evoking and scoring an applicant’s nursing values and attributes. Nurs Open. 2019;6(1):59–71. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1002/nop2.183.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Ghanizadeh A. The interplay between reflective thinking, critical thinking, self-monitoring, and academic achievement in higher education. High Educ. 2017;74(1):101–14. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/s10734-016-0031-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    American Nurses Association (ANA). Nursing: scope and standards of practice. 2nd ed. Maryland: Silver Spring, MD; 2010.

  72. 72.

    McNelis AM, Wellman DS, Krothe JS, Hrisomalos DD, McElveen JL, South RJ. Revision and evaluation of the Indiana University School of Nursing baccalaureate admission process. J Prof Nurs. 2010;26(3):188–95. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.profnurs.2010.01.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Chan ZC. A systematic review of critical thinking in nursing education. Nurse Educ Today. 2013;33(3):236–40. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.01.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Kerman Saravi F, Rigi N, Dokht S, Ebrahimy TE. Critical thinking skills in Zahedan University of Medical Sciences freshman nursing students and graduated in 2009–2011. J Qual Res Health Sci. 2011;11(1and 2):7–17.

    Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Simmons B. Clinical reasoning: concept analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2010;66(5):1151–8. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05262.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    European Federation of Nurses Associations (EFN). EFN Guideline for the Implementation of ARTICLE 31 of the Mutual Recognition of Professional Qualifications Directive 2005/36/EC, Amended by Directive 2013/55/EU. EFN Competency Framework Adopted at the EFN General Assembly, April 2015, Brussels. 2015. http://www.efnweb.be/wp-content/uploads/EFN-Competency-Framework-19-05-2015.pdf. Accessed 16 Sept 2019.

  77. 77.

    Patterson F, Ferguson E, Thomas S. Using job analysis to identify core and specific competencies: implications for selection and recruitment. Med Educ. 2008;42(12):1195–204. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03174.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Pitt V, Powis D, Levett-Jones T, Hunter S. Nursing students’ personal qualities: a descriptive study. Nurse Educ Today. 2014;34(9):1196–200. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.nedt.2014.05.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Ones DS, Dilchert S, Viswesvaran C, Judge TA. In support of personality assessment in organizational settings. Pers Psychol. 2007;60(4):995–1027. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00099.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Salvatori P. Reliability and validity of admissions tools used to select students for the health professions. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2001;6(2):159–75. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1023/A:1011489618208.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Quintero AJ, Segal LS, King TS, Black KP. The personal interview: assessing the potential for personality similarity to bias the selection of orthopaedic residents. Acad Med. 2009;84(10):1364–72. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181b6a9af.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Rosenfeld JM, Reiter HI, Trinh K, Eva KW. A cost efficiency comparison between the multiple mini-interview and traditional admissions interviews. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2008;13(1):43–58. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/s10459-006-9029-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Eva KW, Reiter HI, Trinh K, Wasi P, Rosenfeld J, Norman GR. Predictive validity of the multiple mini-interview for selecting medical trainees. Med Educ. 2009;43(8):767–75. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03407.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Kumwenda B, Dowell J, Husbands A. Is embellishing UCAS personal statements accepted practice in applications to medicine and dentistry? Med Teach. 2013;35(7):599–603. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3109/0142159X.2013.798402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Hojat M, Erdmann JB, Gonnella JS. Personality assessments and outcomes in medical education and the practice of medicine: AMEE guide no. 79. Med Teach. 2013;35(7):e1267–e301. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3109/0142159X.2013.785654.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Ziv A, Rubin O, Moshinsky A, Gafni N, Kotler M, Dagan Y, et al. MOR: a simulation-based assessment centre for evaluating the personal and interpersonal qualities of medical school candidates. Med Educ. 2008;42(10):991–8. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03161.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Smal K. Educational assessment center techniques for entrance selection in medical school. Acad Med. 2002;77(7):737. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1097/00001888-200207000-00022.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Lievens F, Peeters H, Schollaert E. Situational judgment tests: a review of recent research. Pers Rev. 2008;37(4):426–41. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1108/00483480810877598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Patterson F, Ashworth V, Zibarras L, Coan P, Kerrin M, O’Neill P. Evaluations of situational judgement tests to assess non-academic attributes in selection. Med Educ. 2012;46(9):850–68. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04336.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Luschin-Ebengreuth M, Dimai HP, Ithaler D, Neges HM, Reibnegger G. Situational judgment test as an additional tool in a medical admission test: an observational investigation. BMC Res Notes. 2015;8(1):81. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s13104-015-1033-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Patterson F, Galbraith K, Flaxman C, Kirkpatrick CM. Evaluation of a situational judgement test to develop non-academic skills in pharmacy students. Am J Pharm Educ. 2019;83(10):7074. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.5688/ajpe7074.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Rowett E, Patterson F, Cousans F, Elley K. Using a situational judgement test for selection into dental core training: a preliminary analysis. Br Dent J. 2017;222(9):715. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1038/sj.bdj.2017.410.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Taylor N, Mehra S, Elley K, Patterson F, Cousans F. The value of situational judgement tests for assessing non-academic attributes in dental selection. Br Dent J. 2016;220(11):565–6. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1038/sj.bdj.2016.406.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Smith DT, Tiffin PA. Evaluating the validity of the selection measures used for the UK’s foundation medical training programme: a national cohort study. BMJ Open. 2018;8(7):e021918. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-02191.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank all researchers whose articles were used in this review study. We wish to acknowledge the contribution of the external consultant, Professor Fiona Patterson of the University of Cambridge, and Emma Morley at Work Psychology Group who advise and feedback greatly improved this manuscript.

Funding

This study was financially supported by Tabriz University of Medical Sciences. The funding part had no role in the design of the study, the collection, analysis and interpretation of the data, or in writing the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

VZ: concept design, data collection, analysis and interpretation, drafting of manuscript; AG: participated in the study design, data collection and analysis, manuscript revision; LV: participated in the study design and analysis; FB: data collection, analysis and interpretation, drafting of manuscript; ML: analysis and interpretation, critical revision of manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Farzaneh Bagheriyeh.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Approval code of ethics with number: IR.TBMED.REC.1397.583.

Consent to participate: Not applicable

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

None of the authors had a conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zamanzadeh, V., Ghahramanian, A., Valizadeh, L. et al. A scoping review of admission criteria and selection methods in nursing education. BMC Nurs 19, 121 (2020). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12912-020-00510-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Admission criteria
  • Selection methods
  • Nursing student selection
  • Nursing education
\