Creating a Peer Review Process for Faculty-Developed Next Generation NCLEX Items : Nurse Educator

Journal Logo

Advanced Search
Articles

Creating a Peer Review Process for Faculty-Developed Next Generation NCLEX Items

Hensel, Desirée PhD, RN, PCNS-BC, CNE, CHSE; Billings, Diane M. EdD, RN, FAAN, ANEF

Author Information

President and CEO (Dr Hensel), Hensel Nursing Education Consulting, Dorset, Vermont; and Chancellor's Professor Emeritus (Dr Billings), Indiana University School of Nursing, Indianapolis.

Correspondence: Dr Desirée Hensel, Hensel Nursing Education Consulting, PO Box 1007, Dorset, VT 05251 ([email protected]).

The project leaders thank Dr Rebecca Wiseman, Director, Maryland Nursing Workforce Center, and Dr Matt Rietschel, Assistant Dean, Technology Strategy and Operations, University of Maryland, for support on this project.

The Maryland NextGen Test Bank Project was funded by the Maryland Nursing Workforce Center as part of a grant from the Maryland Higher Education Commission Nurse Support Program II # 20-125.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal's website (www.nurseeducatoronline.com).

Accepted for publication: October 11, 2022

Early Access: November 16, 2022

Cite this article as: Hensel D, Billings DM. Creating a peer review process for faculty-developed Next Generation NCLEX items. Nurse Educ. 2023;48(2):65-70. doi:10.1097/NNE.0000000000001322

Nurse Educator 48(2):p 65-70, March/April 2023. | DOI: 10.1097/NNE.0000000000001322

Abstract

Background: 

This article reports the findings from a pilot study of a peer review process used with a group of faculty champions who were writing items for a state-wide initiative to establish a Next Generation NCLEX item teaching test bank.

Methods: 

Champions were oriented to the peer review process in a face-to-face session and completed reviews using the Clinical Judgment Item Peer Review Form created for the project.

Results: 

Eighteen faculty from 13 different schools attended the session and completed 55 reviews of 40 cases and 35 stand-alone items. Champions took approximately an hour to complete each case study and related stand-alone item review and give actionable feedback.

Conclusions: 

The peer review process benefits reviewers and authors learning to write Next Generation NCLEX questions. The process used in this project can be replicated by other faculty in their own programs.

© 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Full Text Access for Subscribers:

Not a Subscriber?

Buy
Request Permissions

You can read the full text of this article if you:

Access through Ovid