Cognitive competence and curriculum content in nurse anesthesia training: a small-scale comparative study

Cognitive competence and curriculum content in nurse anesthesia training: a small-scale comparative study | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Cognitive competence and curriculum content in nurse anesthesia training: a small-scale comparative study Barry Swerdlow, Lisa Osborne-Smith, Douglas Arditti, Lisa J. Hatfield This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2034431/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background: Advanced practice nursing in the United States is shifting toward doctoral certification, most commonly a Doctor of Nursing Practice degree. However, there is limited evidence that this transition improves clinical competence. The aim of this study was to determine whether modifications in a nurse anesthesia curriculum that transitioned from a Master of Nursing to a Doctor of Nursing Practice program were associated with improved cognitive performance using an oral examination. Methods: This study was a small-scale investigation that used a quantitative method to compare two consecutive cohorts of students from a single, university-based nurse anesthesia program. Results: After completing an expanded curriculum, Doctor of Nursing Practicenurse anesthesia students performed significantly better than Master of Nursing students on oral examination, with improvement in cognitive domains previously identified as areas of underperformance. Conclusion: Targeted curricular additions in a Doctor of Nursing Practice program correlated with improvements in nurse anesthesia student cognitive competence as measured by an oral examination. Advanced practice nursing education DNP Doctor of Nursing Practice Graduate nursing education Nurse anesthesia Cognitive competence Figures Figure 1 Background In recent years, although there has been significant development of master’s level education of advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) in many countries, practice-focused doctoral education of these practitioners, including nurse anesthetists, has become increasingly commonplace in the United States [1 – 3]. These changes occurred largely because of the position of the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) and the subsequent recommendations of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA) and the Council on Accreditation of Nurse Anesthesia Educational Programs that a doctoral degree should become the entry level to practice by 2025 [1, 4, 5]. The benefits for doctoral education identified by the AACN included the need for “advanced competencies for increasingly complex clinical” roles and for “enhanced knowledge to improve nursing practice and patient outcomes” [4]. One aspect of the DNP mandate in APRN training focuses on the development of skills needed to translate evidence-based care to practice and to transform health care systems quality and safety [4, 6]. These primary justifications for practice-focused doctoral education are based on reports from the Institute of Medicine identifying a need to improve health professionals’ performances [4]. Notwithstanding ongoing changes in certification options predicated on this rationale, there has been little published evidence that Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP; or equivalent doctoral degree) preparation improves the quality of clinical care delivered by APRNs [7]. For example, recent survey data indicate that graduates of DNP programs outside academia largely provide direct patient care and that employers in this setting view these graduates as equivalent to APRNs with master’s degrees [7]. Nevertheless, these employers noted that DNP graduates had better assessment and collaboration skills, and a better appreciation for evidence-based clinical guidelines with an improved ability to translate such evidence into clinical routines [2, 7]. This latter observation is consistent with self-reported competencies of DNP-prepared nurses in practice [8]. However, despite a need for more data to address the value of doctoral APRN education – except for descriptive findings from surveys – there are no studies comparing the clinical competencies of DNP and Master of Nursing (MN) trained APRNs [2]. As such, it is unclear whether nurse anesthesia educational systems redesigned as DNP programs improve the clinical competence of their graduate trainees compared with previous MN or Master of Science in Nursing (MSN) programs. In general, assessment of clinical competence by nurse anesthesia programs (NAPs) and other APRN programs has been challenging [9, 10]. Although the purpose of the National Certifying Examination administered by the National Board of Certification and Recertification of Nurse Anesthetists is to ensure clinical competence and thereby promote patient safety [11], these examinations utilize select-response questions that only assess knowledge base, the equivalent of the first level of Miler’s Pyramid of Assessment – “knows” [12]. To address the question of whether an examinee “knows how,” examinations need to document what students will do when they encounter patient situations. In NAPs, this performance analysis is often fulfilled by clinical instructors’ observations of students during perioperative encounters, but such determinations are commonly related to the accuracy of diagnosis and specific management decisions rather than to the associated reasoning process [12]. In contrast, oral examinations provide a means to precisely test abstract reasoning and critical thinking skills [13, 14]. Simulation-based examination can provide similar cognitive evaluation but there are complexities to testing critical thinking in a high-fidelity environment where the primary goal is to “show(s) how” rather than to demonstrate “know(s) how” [15, 16]. Recently, an oral examination strategy modeled on the American Board of Anesthesiology Standardized Oral Examination (mock oral board examination or MOBE) [13] has been successfully employed for this purpose in a cohort of MN nurse anesthesia students [17]. As a result, oral examinations were added as a benchmark in this NAP’s new DNP curriculum. This institution’s use of oral examinations in both the previous MN and current DNP curricula offers a unique opportunity to compare outcomes related to the curricular change. The present study was designed to evaluate performances on MOBE in consecutive cohorts of MN NAP and DNP NAP students. The MOBEs were conducted at a similar juncture in the students’ training, including similar cumulative clinical hours, and the study was formulated to assess whether innovative curricular modifications associated with the development of practice-focused doctoral education for NAPs positively impacts the cognitive competence of trainees. Methods The primary question addressed by this research study was whether targeted changes in the didactic curriculum implemented as part of the transition from an MN to a DNP program at a single institution affected the cognitive competence of nurse anesthesia students. The investigation received approval by the Oregon Health & Science Institutional Review Board. Participation in the investigation was voluntary, all participants were treated with confidentiality, and all participants signed consent forms. The study was conducted in two parts: first with the program’s final MN cohort and then with its initial DNP cohort. MOBEs employed with the two cohorts were nearly identical, with only minor modifications, some of which were related to health and safety considerations stemming from the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The MN cohort study has been previously reported [17]; therefore, the description of methods is limited, and methodological differences between the MN and DNP MOBE studies are highlighted. Commonalities between the MN and DNP MOBEs All students in both the MN and DNP cohorts agreed to participate in the study. No student in either group had taken an oral examination previously. The examinations occurred at a similar point in the graduate curricula, at the end of the anesthesia specialty didactic content for both cohorts. The format for administering the examination was the same for both groups: a clinical scenario “stem” provided immediately prior to the examination, followed by a series of questions for 30 minutes related to perioperative management of a hypothetical case based on that “stem.” In both cohorts, each MOBE was used twice (see below). This required development of an additional MOBE for the larger DNP cohort: five of the six DNP MOBEs were identical to the five MN MOBEs. The additional DNP MOBE, written by the same NAP faculty member who wrote the other five MOBEs, contained comparable content. The same examiner conducted the oral examinations for all students in both cohorts and, in both the MN and DNP examinations, this examiner was the only person to directly interact with the student examinees. Both MOBEs were rated by three faculty members (including the examiner). The examiner/rater and one of the two non-examiner raters were identical in the DNP and MN MOBEs. The examinations in both cohorts were assessed using an identical Scoring Rubric (Figure 1). This rubric had three domains: Clinical Analysis, Fund of Anesthesia Knowledge, and Communication Skills, and within each domain there were three assessments (“subsets”) labeled A, B, and C. The ratings were needs improvement (1 point), marginal pass (2 points), or pass (3 points), for a total of 27 possible points per MOBE. For raters, depending on the nature of the subset task, needs improvement was defined as performing the task poorly or < 50% of the time; marginal pass was defined as performing the task adequately or between 50-100% of the time; and pass was defined as performing the task well or 100% of the time. Pre-examination rater consensus review of the examinations was performed in the same manner in each of the two examinations [17]. Differences between the MN and DNP MOBEs Differences between the MN and DNP MOBEs are summarized in Table 1. MOBEs were administered at a comparable time in each program (after completion of basic and advanced principles of anesthesia) but the two curricula differed in length, and the DNP curriculum included foundational DNP courses that were not part of the MN program. The MN NAP group consisted of 10 students who had completed 14 months of their course of study (total 27 months) including approximately 880 clinical hours. The DNP NAP group consisted of 12 students who had finished 20 months of their course of study (total 36 months) that included approximately 550 clinical hours. The DNP cohort had less in-person high-fidelity simulation experiences compared with the MN cohort because of COVID-19. At the time of their oral examination, the DNP students had completed the foundational DNP courses shared by all university DNP APRN programs (including Ethics, Informatics, Roles, Critical Appraisal of Evidence, Policy and Population Health, Improvement Science, Economics and Finance, and Leadership) and two new courses that were added to the NAP DNP curriculum: “Selected Topics in Pathophysiology” and “Anesthesia and Co-Existing Diseases.” Table 1 – Differing Features of Master of Nursing and Doctor of Nursing Practice Mock Oral Board Examinations. MOBE = mock oral board examination; MN = Master of Nursing; DNP = Doctor of Nursing Practice; NAP = nurse anesthesia program; TLC = Teaching and Learning Center MOBE Parameter MN MOBE DNP MOBE Pre-MOBE curriculum MN DNP Size of cohort 10 12 Number of MOBEs 5 6 Length of study 1 day 2 days Raters 2 NAP Faculty; 1 TLC Faculty 3 NAP Faculty Student audience Yes No Academic consequence No Yes Audiovisual recording Yes No Examinee feedback from raters Delayed Immediate Post-test questionnaire completion < 48 Hours Immediate Because of the increased size of the DNP cohort, their examinations were conducted over two consecutive days and involved six (rather than five) different scenarios. The same MOBE was repeated for consecutive DNP students to avoid the possibility of sharing information, whereas five examinations were repeated between same day morning and afternoon sessions for the MN cohort. Face masks were worn by all individuals for the DNP MOBEs during the COVID-19 pandemic. DNP MOBEs were rated by three nurse anesthesia faculty members, compared with the MN MOBEs that were rated by two nurse anesthesia faculty members and a faculty member from the Oregon Health & Science University Teaching and Learning Center (TLC). In addition, MN MOBE performances did not affect course grades, and they were not used for benchmark purposes. For the DNP cohort, student scores were part of course grades, and performance on the MOBE served a benchmark function. As such, unlike the MN MOBE, failure of the DNP MOBE was associated with significant academic consequences. The latter fact also made it necessary for the DNP examinations to be conducted without a student audience. In contrast with the MN MOBEs, the DNP cohort examinations were not recorded, and after the raters conferred, the scores were immediately shared with students. Data analysis Responses from the DNP MOBE were compared with the corresponding findings from the MN MOBE [17]. Specifically, the following mean scores were compared: (a) MOBE total scores; (b) MOBE domain scores (Clinical Analysis, Fund of Knowledge, and Communication); and (c) MOBE domain subset scores. These scores were evaluated by independent t -tests with statistical significance assessed by p -values as well as point estimation with 95% confidence intervals. Although scores were reconciled by the raters during each post-examination debrief for both MOBE exercises – resulting in complete agreement of the final scores that were employed for benchmark purposes – only pre-reconciled scores were used to compare MOBE performance of the two groups to avoid any group pressure associated with these ratings. The mean scores of the three raters served as best approximations to accurate scores, and these values were used for all comparisons of rubric ratings. Results MOBE performance MN and DNP MOBE scores are presented in Table 2 and Table 3. DNP students performed substantially better than MN students in the domains of Clinical Analysis and Fund of Anesthesia Knowledge. Student performances in domain subsets IA (postponement of surgery based on sound judgment), IB (formulation of differential diagnoses), IC (troubleshooting intraoperative problems), IIA (defines the specifics of appropriate preoperative evaluations), and IIC (choice of appropriate anesthetic management based on an understanding of pathophysiology) were significantly higher in the DNP cohort relative to the MN cohort. Both cohorts performed equally well in the domain of Communication. Table 2 – Comparison of Oral Examination Performances of Two Cohorts. * Indicates a significant p -value. SD = Standard Deviation; DNP = Doctor of Nursing Practice; MN = Master of Nursing Performance Cohort Mean SD P -value Point Estimate 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Clinical Analysis Domain DNP 8.22 0.62 <.001* 2.59 2.00 3.18 MN 5.63 0.67 Fund of Knowledge Domain DNP 7.64 0.81 <.001* 1.47 0.78 2.16 MN 6.17 0.70 Communication Domain DNP 8.72 0.17 .05 0.25 -0.13 0.65 MN 8.47 0.50 Total Score DNP 24.58 1.22 <.001* 4.32 3.18 5.45 MN 20.26 1.26 Table 3 – Comparison of Domain Subset Scores of Two Cohorts . * Indicates a significant p -value. SD = Standard Deviation; DNP = Doctor of Nursing Practice; MN = Master of Nursing Domain Subset Cohort Mean SD P -value Point Estimate 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper IA DNP 2.88 0.29 <.001* 0.75 0.36 1.15 MN 2.13 0.57 Clinical Analysis IB DNP 2.69 0.30 <.001* 0.99 0.73 1.26 MN 1.70 0.29 IC DNP 2.64 0.26 <.001* 0.83 0.61 1.06 MN 1.80 0.23 IIA DNP MN 2.53 2.07 0.41 0.38 .014* 0.46 0.11 0.81 Fund of Knowledge IIB DNP 2.56 0.43 .282 0.19 -0.17 0.55 MN 2.37 0.37 IIC DNP 2.61 0.37 <.001* 0.84 0.56 1.13 MN 1.77 0.22 IIIA DNP MN 2.86 2.90 0.22 0.16 .650 -0.04 -0.22 0.14 Communication IIIB DNP 2.97 0.96 .067 0.20 -0.05 0.27 MN 2.77 0.35 IIIC DNP 2.89 0.16 .307 0.09 -0.97 0.27 MN 2.80 0.23 Unlike MN students, DNP students demonstrated no areas of consistent underperformance. There was only one instance in the DNP cohort of a domain subset score of “1” (congruently by two raters in the Fund of Anesthesia Knowledge section assessing preoperative evaluations and interventions) versus 23 such low domain subset scores among MN students. The near absence of pre-reconciled scores of “1” in the DNP MOBE is reflected in the higher mean domain and domain subset scores in that group and provides another parameter for cohort performance comparison. The “passing” rate (overall mean score > 2.0) for both the DNP and MN cohorts using reconciled scores was 100%. Discussion Ensuring competence of graduate trainees remains a paramount goal of all US APRN programs including NAPs awarding Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP or DrNP), Doctor of Nurse Anesthesia Practice (DNAP), and Doctor of Management Practice in Nurse Anesthesia (DMPNA) degrees [1]. The need for such competence in an increasingly complex health care system resulting from the “burgeoning growth” [4] of science and technology provided the foundation for the original AACN Position Statement on the Practice Doctorate in Nursing, and it was the perception that additional training would enhance patient outcomes that first defined the potential benefits of such programs [4]. Because oral examination assesses domains that correlate with clinical performance [13, 18], this form of evaluation may be useful not only as a benchmark prior to student immersion in clinical rotations, but it also may serve to test whether the additional educational opportunities available in a practice doctorate education enhance student competence and patient safety. This concept is applicable to all APRN specialties, not just NAPs. As such, oral examination provides a means to test the hypothesis that such programs truly enhance patient-centric nursing practice. DNP MOBE versus MN MOBE performance results The most noteworthy finding of this study was that DNP students, after completing targeted additions to their curriculum, performed significantly better than recent MN students on their MOBEs in nearly all areas testing clinical analysis and fund of anesthesia knowledge. This observation is important because, although both MN and DNP cohorts achieved passing ratings, cognitive competence represents a continuum (as does clinical competence in general) with improved performance beyond a “pass” threshold having tangible value. In contrast with these areas of testing, both cohorts performed equally well in the domain of Communication. This evaluative section was included because of the vital role of communication in ensuring perioperative patient safety by anesthesia providers [19]. Because the major distinction between these cohorts related to differing didactic curricula (cohorts had similar professional backgrounds; they were separated chronologically by one year in the same institution with identical instructors), outcome differences most likely related to differences in their curricular preparation. Furthermore, relative increases in the mean test scores of DNP students were most notable for the three areas of maximum under-performance by the MN cohort – domain subsets IB, IC, and IIC (Table 3) – and improvements in these cognitive domains represented the expressed focus of changes implemented in the DNP curriculum. These results were significant despite the small size of the study groups and suggest that cognitive competence issues following completion of a didactic and simulation MN course of study (as identified by oral examination) can be effectively addressed by curricular modifications instituted as part of a robust DNP program. Targeted changes in curriculum were made possible by an expanded DNP program (27 months vs. 36 months) that allowed two new courses to be introduced for improving clinical analysis and fund of knowledge in specific areas. Time constraints in the MN program did not allow for these courses, and there were fewer opportunities for repetition of concepts throughout that course of study. The Selected Topics in Pathophysiology course was designed to enhance students’ understanding of how disease processes relate to perioperative clinical considerations. During the Anesthesia and Co-Existing Disease course, students repeatedly applied abstract reasoning to common adverse perioperative events, and presented this information in an organized, oral format – a skill that requires practice and is critical to professional development. Teaching students in this manner to employ metacognitive approaches (directing students to think about what they are thinking including recognizing when they do not understand something) can be a powerful tool for learners and may play an important role in preventing errors in formulating differential diagnoses by monitoring and regulating reasoning [20, 21, 22]. A longer DNP program of study permitted effective curricular expansion, with the development of skills necessary for superior performance on the examination, including both critical thinking abilities and mental processing related to effective articulation of answers. Such cognitive competence represents an essential component of clinical competence [23], and similar expansion of the course of study in other APRN DNP programs has been suggested to improve safe patient care compared with MN-prepared graduates [2]. In interpreting the implications of this comparison, it is important to consider that the scores for the DNP cohort were linked to course grades while student performances on the MN MOBE were used for feedback purposes only and were not associated with institutional consequences. Hence, it is possible that improved ratings in the latter group may relate to this additional academic incentive [24]. On the other hand, the most notable improvements in the DNP cohort occurred in those cognitive domains targeted by changes in their modified course of study. This finding suggests that a significant contribution to their superior oral examination performance relates to those curricular modifications. MOBE as a benchmark evaluation in a NAP Another finding of this study concerns the ability of MOBE to function as a benchmark evaluation at a critical juncture in nurse anesthesia training, namely just before transition from classroom teaching into clinical practice. The MOBE in this study was designed to meet the specifications of a good benchmark evaluation. These included selection of performance indicators that were (a) essential to professional success, (b) both qualitative and quantitative in nature, and (c) reproducible, to enable comparison with new performance occurring after initiatives arising from benchmarking had been implemented [25]. The scoring rubric in MOBE evaluated cognitive domains critical to competent professional conduct: clinical analysis, fund of anesthesia knowledge, and communication skills. Many of the domain subsets related to generation of precompiled responses and abstract reasoning associated with perioperative adverse event management, critical elements in dynamic decision making that are essential to safe anesthesia [19]. The Scoring Rubric contained a mix of parameters that were amenable to quantitative scoring (e.g., choice of appropriate monitors) and qualitative scoring (e.g., communication skills). Furthermore, the performance indicators employed by MOBE could reproducibly be re-evaluated to enable comparison between different cohorts, as demonstrated by the present study’s comparison of DNP and MN student groups. Benchmark examinations should be both summative and formative [25] – they not only provide data on performance, but also, they are designed for quality enhancement. By highlighting areas needing improvement, benchmark examinations are useful to define educational targets and objectives and allow discovery of approaches to ensure future excellence [25]. The MOBE used in this study originally was designed for precisely these purposes and successfully identified three areas of underperformance involving critical thinking in MN NAP students [17]. As a result, modifications were implemented in the new DNP NAP curriculum designed to address these areas of performance, and the significantly improved performance of the current DNP cohort with MOBE likely represents a validation of its formative function. Limitations An important limitation of this investigation relates to the small sizes of the cohorts. On the other hand, significant differences in performance between these two groups were clear despite these small numbers – and the differences occurred most notably in “targeted” cognitive domains. This latter finding suggests that our conclusions likely have validity despite this limitation. Confounding variables in this study included (a) minor differences between the MOBE processes (Table 1), and (b) somewhat differing teaching experiences for the two study groups (in addition to modifications in the DNP curriculum that amounted to 6 months of additional preclinical education): the DNP cohort received its final one year of didactic instruction almost entirely online due to the COVID-19 pandemic and, compared with the MN group at the time of the oral examination, they had completed less high-fidelity simulation training and less clinical training (550 versus 880 hours) for the same reason. These factors, however, do not explain the performance improvements of the DNP cohort relative to the MN cohort, because COVID-19 restrictions on in-person teaching likely adversely affected quality of instruction (as faculty and students transitioned rapidly online without preparation) and thereby disadvantaged this group (similarly true of their reduced hours in simulation training and in patient-care roles). Likewise, it is doubtful that minor differences in study methodology biased outcomes significantly. Conclusions In this study, the results of oral examinations provided the first clear evidence of a difference in MN-prepared and DNP-prepared students’ cognitive competence: the current investigation suggests that curricular modifications associated with a transition between these two programs of study within one institution can result in improved oral examination outcomes that assess student reasoning processes and correlate with enhanced clinical performance [13, 26, 27]. Because these data derive from a single program involving identical didactic and simulation instructors with back-to-back cohorts (conditions that also restricted cohort sizes, a significant limitation of this study), these improved outcomes likely are due to the associated curricular changes. The investigation’s findings suggest that DNP educational processes may provide more effectively for trainees who not only “know” data but also “know how” to apply those data in clinical practice, and therefore support the ultimate goals of APRN programs transitioning to doctoral practice models. Additional questions that merit exploration relate to whether the observed improvements in cognitive performance during nurse anesthesia DNP MOBEs persist once students enter the full-time clinical phase of their training and thereafter (i.e., do MN and DNP-trained CRNAs differ in terms of clinical performance and patient outcomes?). Furthermore, while there are survey findings and self-reported data to suggest that DNP-prepared APRNs have an improved ability to translate evidence-based guidelines into clinical practice [2, 7, 8], additional studies of whether such translational innovation is more common in DNP CRNAs versus MN CRNAs represents a useful related line of inquiry. Lastly, the utility of MOBEs as evaluative techniques in other APRN specialties deserves investigation, where oral examinations potentially can provide both formative and summative analyses in a manner similar to NAPs. Abbreviations AACN: American Association of Colleges of Nursing; APRN: Advanced practice registered nurse; CRNA: Certified registered nurse anesthetist; COVID-19: Coronavirus disease of 2019; DMPNA: Doctor of management practice in nurse anesthesia; DNAP: Doctor of nurse anesthesia practice; DNP: Doctor of nursing practice; DrNP: Doctor of nursing practice; MN: Master of nursing; MSN: Master of science in nursing; MOBE: Mock oral board examination; NAP: Nurse anesthesia program; TLC: Teaching and Learning Center Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate The study was carried out with the approval of the Oregon Health & Science University Institutional Review Board. All methods were performed in accordance with the ethics guidelines outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. The participants received written information about the aim of the study, that participation was anonymous and voluntary, and that participants had the right to withdraw at any time. The participants provided written informed consent prior to enrollment in the study. Consent for publication Not applicable Availability of data and materials The raw data sets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to concerns related to participants’ confidentiality but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Funding No external funding. Open access funding provided by the Hahn-Block Foundation. Authors’ Contributions Study design: B.S., L.O. Data collection: All authors. Data analysis: B.S., L.O. Writing manuscript text: B.S., L.O. Review and approval of final manuscript: All authors. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Gail Armstrong, PhD, DNP, ACNS-BC, CNE for her recommendations and guidance. References Hawkins R, Nezat G. Doctoral education: which degree to pursue? AANA J. 2009;77(2): 92–96. https://www.aana.com/docs/default-source/aana-journal-web-documents-1/educnews_0409_p92-96.pdf?sfvrsn=e24c5ab1_6 . Accessed 1 Sep 2022. McCauley LA, Broome ME, Frazier L, Hayes R, Kurth A, Musil CM, et al. Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) degree in the United States: reflecting, readjusting, and getting back on track. Nurs Outlook. 2020;68(4):494–503. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2020.03.008 . Rosa W, Fitzgerald M, Davis S, Farley JE, Khanyola J, Kwong J, et al. Leveraging nurse practitioner capacities to achieve global health for all: COVID-19 and beyond. Int Nurs Rev. 2020;67(4):554–9. doi:10.111/inr.12632. American Association of Colleges of Nursing. AACN position statement on the practice doctorate in nursing. 2004. https://www.aacnnursing.org/DNP/Position-Statement . Accessed 1 Sep 2022. Council on Accreditation of Nurse Anesthesia Educational Programs. Position statements. Position statement on doctoral education for nurse anesthetists. 2021. https://www.coacrna.org/about-coa/position-statements/ . Accessed 3 Sep 2022. Starnes-Ott K, Arnaud M, Rooney L, Lewis M. Using complex adaptive theory to guide the transition to DNP nurse anesthesia education. J Prof Nurs. 2020;36(3):123–7. doi: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2019.10.004 . Beeber AS, Palmer C, Waldrop J, Lynn MR, Jones CB. The role of Doctor of Nursing Practice-prepared nurses in practice settings. Nurs Outlook. 2019;67(4):354–64. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2019.02.006 . Kesten KS, Moran K, Beebe SL, Conrad D, Burson R, Corrigan C, et al. Drivers for seeking the doctor of nursing practice degree and competencies acquired as reported by nurses in practice. J Am Assoc Nurs Pract. 2021;34(1):70–8. doi: 10.1097/JXX.0000000000000593 . Clifford T. Competency assessment. J Perianesth Nursing. 2020;35(2):222–3. doi:10.106/j.jopan.2020.01.002. Kesten KS, Brown HF, Meeker MC. Assessment of APRN student competency using simulation: a pilot study. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2015;36(5):332–4. doi: 10.5480/15-1649 . National Board of Certification and Recertification of Nurse Anesthetists. NBCRNA certification. 2020. https://www.nbcrna.com/initial-certification . Accessed 1 Sep 2022. Miller G. The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Acad Med. 1990;65(9 Suppl):63–7. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199009000-00045 . Sun H, Warner DO, Patterson AJ, Harman AE, Rathmell JP, Keegan MT, et al. The American Board of Anesthesiology’s Standardized Oral Examination for initial board certification. Anes Analg. 2019;129(5):1394–400. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004263 . Waas V, Wakeford R, Neighbour R, Van der Vleuten C. Achieving acceptable reliability in oral examinations: An analysis of the Royal College of General Practitioners Membership Examination’s oral component. Med Educ. 2003;37(2):126–31. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01417.x . Miller C, Serkan T, Schwengel D, Isaac G, Schiavi A. Development of a simulated objective structured clinical exam for the APPLIED Certification Exam in Anesthesiology: a two-year experience informed by feedback from exam candidates. J Educ Periop Med. 2019;21(4):E633. https://www.ncbi.nim.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7039675/pdf/i2333-0406-21-4-miller.pdf . Accessed 1 Sep 2022. Witheridge A, Ferns G, Scott-Smith W. Revisiting Miller’s pyramid in medical education: the gap between traditional assessment and diagnostic reasoning. Int J Med Educ. 2019;10:191–192. doi:10-5116/ijme.5d9b.0c37. Swerdlow B, Osborne-Smith L, Hatfield LJ, Korin TL, Jacobs SK. Mock oral board examination in nurse anesthesia education. J Nurs Educ. 2021;60(4):229–34. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20210322-09 . Wang T, Sun H, Zhou Y, Chen D, Harman A, Isaak RS, et al. Construct validation of the American Board of Anesthesiology’s APPLIED Examination for initial certification. Anes Analg. 2021;133(1):226–32. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000005364 . Gaba DM, Fish KJ, Howard SK, Burden AR. Principles of anesthesia crisis resource management. In: Gaba DM, Fish KJ, Howard SK, Burden AR, editors. Crisis management in anesthesiology. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2015. pp. 25–53. Scordo KA. Differential diagnosis: Correctly putting the pieces of the puzzle together. AACN Adv Crit Care. 2014;25(3):230–6. doi: 10.1097/NCI.0000000000000035 . Swerdlow B, Osborne-Smith L. A cognitive template for management of perioperative adverse events. AANA J; in press. Weidman J, Baker K. The cognitive science of learning: Concepts and strategies for the educator and learner. Anes Analg. 2015;121(6):1586–99. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000890 . Scott IA, Hubbard RE, Crock C, Campbell T, Perera M. Developing critical thinking skills for delivering optimal care. Int Med J. 2021;51(4):488–93. doi: 10.1111/imj.15272 . Ba-Ali S, Jemec GBE, Sander B, Toft PB, Homoe P, Lund-Andersen H. The effect of two grading systems on the performance of medical students during oral examinations. Dan Med J. 2017; 64 (3):A5328. https://www.ugeskriftet.dk/dmj/effect-two-grading-systems-performance-medical-students-during-oral-examinations . Accessed 3 Sep 2022. Meade PH. A guide to benchmarking. 2007. https://planning.curtin.edu.au/local/docs/Guide_to_Benchmarking_Oct2007.pdf . Accessed 1 Sep 2022. Baker K, Sun H, Harman A, Poon KT, Rathmell JP. Clinical performance scores are independently associated with the American Board of Anesthesiology Certification Examination scores. Anes Analg. 2016;122(6):1992–9. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001288 . Zhou Y, Sun H, Culley DJ, Young A, Harman AE, Warner DO. Effectiveness of written and oral specialty certification examinations to predict actions against the medical licenses of anesthesiologists. Anesthesiology. 2017;126(6):1171–9. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000001623 . Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-2034431","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":137220296,"identity":"aa91266e-8363-4b5f-af58-f52ea4d00eda","order_by":0,"name":"Barry Swerdlow","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Oregon Health \u0026 Science University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Barry","middleName":"","lastName":"Swerdlow","suffix":""},{"id":137220297,"identity":"d77bfa42-45bb-4b05-bf6c-ad4450fac4d5","order_by":1,"name":"Lisa Osborne-Smith","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Oregon Health \u0026 Science University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Lisa","middleName":"","lastName":"Osborne-Smith","suffix":""},{"id":137220298,"identity":"b5e3833f-5504-4e88-ad50-427a50f51cbe","order_by":2,"name":"Douglas Arditti","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Oregon Health \u0026 Science University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Douglas","middleName":"","lastName":"Arditti","suffix":""},{"id":137220302,"identity":"54299d0d-1e21-4b23-92f8-c015f96a3e4f","order_by":3,"name":"Lisa J. Hatfield","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Oregon Health \u0026 Science University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Lisa","middleName":"J.","lastName":"Hatfield","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2022-09-05 15:14:21","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-2034431/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2034431/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":26672466,"identity":"d9619eb7-6b96-4b3e-8591-15f2183140dd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2022-09-19 20:38:40","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":68152,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eScoring Rubric.\u003c/strong\u003e Scores of 3 (\u003cem\u003epass\u003c/em\u003e), 2 (\u003cem\u003emarginal pass\u003c/em\u003e), or 1 (\u003cem\u003eneeds improvement\u003c/em\u003e) were assigned to each student in each domain subset. See text for details.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-2034431/v1/61cb2fd5ed966f2ef6813aa9.png"},{"id":31287946,"identity":"0491563d-3796-42d3-a218-6ef471c6e871","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-01-09 07:29:42","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":438337,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-2034431/v1/73f1c8e0-4da7-4e06-92bd-894d0fe29bcc.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Cognitive competence and curriculum content in nurse anesthesia training: a small-scale comparative study","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn recent years, although there has been significant development of master\u0026rsquo;s level education of advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) in many countries, practice-focused doctoral education of these practitioners, including nurse anesthetists, has become increasingly commonplace in the United States [1 \u0026ndash; 3]. These changes occurred largely because of the position of the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) and the subsequent recommendations of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA) and the Council on Accreditation of Nurse Anesthesia Educational Programs that a doctoral degree should become the entry level to practice by 2025 [1, 4, 5]. The benefits for doctoral education identified by the AACN included the need for \u0026ldquo;advanced competencies for increasingly complex clinical\u0026rdquo; roles and for \u0026ldquo;enhanced knowledge to improve nursing practice and patient outcomes\u0026rdquo; [4]. One aspect of the DNP mandate in APRN training focuses on the development of skills needed to translate evidence-based care to practice and to transform health care systems quality and safety [4, 6]. These primary justifications for practice-focused doctoral education are based on reports from the Institute of Medicine identifying a need to improve health professionals\u0026rsquo; performances [4].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNotwithstanding ongoing changes in certification options predicated on this rationale, there has been little published evidence that Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP; or equivalent doctoral degree) preparation improves the quality of clinical care delivered by APRNs [7]. For example, recent survey data indicate that graduates of DNP programs outside academia largely provide direct patient care and that employers in this setting view these graduates as equivalent to APRNs with master\u0026rsquo;s degrees [7]. Nevertheless, these employers noted that DNP graduates had better assessment and collaboration skills, and a better appreciation for evidence-based clinical guidelines with an improved ability to translate such evidence into clinical routines [2, 7]. This latter observation is consistent with self-reported competencies of DNP-prepared nurses in practice [8]. However, despite a need for more data to address the value of doctoral APRN education \u0026ndash; except for descriptive findings from surveys \u0026ndash; there are no studies comparing the clinical competencies of DNP and Master of Nursing (MN) trained APRNs [2].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs such, it is unclear whether nurse anesthesia educational systems redesigned as DNP programs improve the clinical competence of their graduate trainees compared with previous MN or Master of Science in Nursing (MSN) programs. In general, assessment of clinical competence by nurse anesthesia programs (NAPs) and other APRN programs has been challenging [9, 10]. Although the purpose of the National Certifying Examination administered by the National Board of Certification and Recertification of Nurse Anesthetists is to ensure clinical competence and thereby promote patient safety [11], these examinations utilize select-response questions that only assess knowledge base, the equivalent of the first level of Miler\u0026rsquo;s Pyramid of Assessment \u0026ndash; \u0026ldquo;knows\u0026rdquo; [12]. To address the question of whether an examinee \u0026ldquo;knows how,\u0026rdquo; examinations need to document what students will do when they encounter patient situations. In NAPs, this performance analysis is often fulfilled by clinical instructors\u0026rsquo; observations of students during perioperative encounters, but such determinations are commonly related to the accuracy of diagnosis and specific management decisions rather than to the associated reasoning process [12].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn contrast, oral examinations provide a means to precisely test abstract reasoning and critical thinking skills [13, 14]. Simulation-based examination can provide similar cognitive evaluation but there are complexities to testing critical thinking in a high-fidelity environment where the primary goal is to \u0026ldquo;show(s) how\u0026rdquo; rather than to demonstrate \u0026ldquo;know(s) how\u0026rdquo; [15, 16]. Recently, an oral examination strategy modeled on the American Board of Anesthesiology Standardized Oral Examination (mock oral board examination or MOBE) [13] has been successfully employed for this purpose in a cohort of MN nurse anesthesia students [17]. As a result, oral examinations were added as a benchmark in this NAP\u0026rsquo;s new DNP curriculum. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis institution\u0026rsquo;s use of oral examinations in both the previous MN and current DNP curricula offers a unique opportunity to compare outcomes related to the curricular change. The present study was designed to evaluate performances on MOBE in consecutive cohorts of MN NAP and DNP NAP students. The MOBEs were conducted at a similar juncture in the students\u0026rsquo; training, including similar cumulative clinical hours, and the study was formulated to assess whether innovative curricular modifications associated with the development of practice-focused doctoral education for NAPs positively impacts the cognitive competence of trainees.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe primary question addressed by this research study was whether targeted changes in the didactic curriculum implemented as part of the transition from an MN to a DNP program at a single institution affected the cognitive competence of nurse anesthesia students. The investigation received approval by the Oregon Health \u0026amp; Science Institutional Review Board. Participation in the investigation was voluntary, all participants were treated with confidentiality, and all participants signed consent forms. The study was conducted in two parts: first with the program\u0026rsquo;s final MN cohort and then with its initial DNP cohort. MOBEs employed with the two cohorts were nearly identical, with only minor modifications, some of which were related to health and safety considerations stemming from the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The MN cohort study has been previously reported [17]; therefore, the description of methods is limited, and methodological differences between the MN and DNP MOBE studies are highlighted.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommonalities between the MN and DNP MOBEs\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll students in both the MN and DNP cohorts agreed to participate in the study. No student in either group had taken an oral examination previously. The examinations occurred at a similar point in the graduate curricula, at the end of the anesthesia specialty didactic content for both cohorts. The format for administering the examination was the same for both groups: a clinical scenario \u0026ldquo;stem\u0026rdquo; provided immediately prior to the examination, followed by a series of questions for 30 minutes related to perioperative management of a hypothetical case based on that \u0026ldquo;stem.\u0026rdquo; In both cohorts, each MOBE was used twice (see below). This required development of an additional MOBE for the larger DNP cohort: five of the six DNP MOBEs were identical to the five MN MOBEs. The additional DNP MOBE, written by the same NAP faculty member who wrote the other five MOBEs, contained comparable content. The same examiner conducted the oral examinations for all students in both cohorts and, in both the MN and DNP examinations, this examiner was the only person to directly interact with the student examinees. Both MOBEs were rated by three faculty members (including the examiner). The examiner/rater and one of the two non-examiner raters were identical in the DNP and MN MOBEs.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe examinations in both cohorts were assessed using an identical Scoring Rubric (Figure 1). This rubric had three domains: Clinical Analysis, Fund of Anesthesia Knowledge, and Communication Skills, and within each domain there were three assessments (\u0026ldquo;subsets\u0026rdquo;) labeled A, B, and C. The ratings were \u003cem\u003eneeds improvement\u003c/em\u003e (1 point), \u003cem\u003emarginal pass\u003c/em\u003e (2 points), or \u003cem\u003epass\u003c/em\u003e (3 points), for a total of 27 possible points per MOBE. For raters, depending on the nature of the subset task, needs improvement was defined as performing the task poorly or \u0026lt; 50% of the time; marginal pass was defined as performing the task adequately or between 50-100% of the time; and pass was defined as performing the task well or 100% of the time. Pre-examination rater consensus review of the examinations was performed in the same manner in each of the two examinations [17].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDifferences between the MN and DNP MOBEs\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDifferences between the MN and DNP MOBEs are summarized in Table 1. MOBEs were administered at a comparable time in each program (after completion of basic and advanced principles of anesthesia) but the two curricula differed in length, and the DNP curriculum included foundational DNP courses that were not part of the MN program. The MN NAP group consisted of 10 students who had completed 14 months of their course of study (total 27 months) including approximately 880 clinical hours. The DNP NAP group consisted of 12 students who had finished 20 months of their course of study (total 36 months) that included approximately 550 clinical hours. The DNP cohort had less in-person high-fidelity simulation experiences compared with the MN cohort because of COVID-19. At the time of their oral examination, the DNP students had completed the foundational DNP courses shared by all university DNP APRN programs (including Ethics, Informatics, Roles, Critical Appraisal of Evidence, Policy and Population Health, Improvement Science, Economics and Finance, and Leadership) and two new courses that were added to the NAP DNP curriculum: \u0026ldquo;Selected Topics in Pathophysiology\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;Anesthesia and Co-Existing Diseases.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1 \u0026ndash; Differing Features of Master of Nursing and Doctor of Nursing Practice Mock Oral Board Examinations.\u003c/strong\u003e MOBE = mock oral board examination; MN = Master of Nursing; DNP = Doctor of Nursing Practice; NAP = nurse anesthesia program; TLC = Teaching and Learning Center\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellpadding=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" width=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"36.4951768488746%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMOBE Parameter\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.762057877813504%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMN MOBE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"29.742765273311896%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDNP MOBE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"36.4951768488746%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePre-MOBE curriculum\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.762057877813504%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"29.742765273311896%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDNP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"36.4951768488746%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSize of cohort\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.762057877813504%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"29.742765273311896%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"36.4951768488746%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumber of MOBEs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.762057877813504%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"29.742765273311896%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"36.4951768488746%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLength of study\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.762057877813504%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 day\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"29.742765273311896%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 days\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"36.4951768488746%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRaters\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.762057877813504%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 NAP Faculty; 1 TLC Faculty\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"29.742765273311896%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 NAP Faculty\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"36.4951768488746%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudent audience\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.762057877813504%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"29.742765273311896%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"36.4951768488746%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcademic consequence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.762057877813504%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"29.742765273311896%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"36.4951768488746%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAudiovisual recording\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.762057877813504%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"29.742765273311896%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"36.4951768488746%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExaminee feedback from raters\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.762057877813504%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDelayed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"29.742765273311896%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImmediate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"36.4951768488746%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePost-test questionnaire completion\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"33.762057877813504%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 48 Hours\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"29.742765273311896%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImmediate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBecause of the increased size of the DNP cohort, their examinations were conducted over two consecutive days and involved six (rather than five) different scenarios. The same MOBE was repeated for consecutive DNP students to avoid the possibility of sharing information, whereas five examinations were repeated between same day morning and afternoon sessions for the MN cohort. Face masks were worn by all individuals for the DNP MOBEs during the COVID-19 pandemic. DNP MOBEs were rated by three nurse anesthesia faculty members, compared with the MN MOBEs that were rated by two nurse anesthesia faculty members and a faculty member from the Oregon Health \u0026amp; Science University Teaching and Learning Center (TLC).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, MN MOBE performances did not affect course grades, and they were not used for benchmark purposes. For the DNP cohort, student scores were part of course grades, and performance on the MOBE served a benchmark function. As such, unlike the MN MOBE, failure of the DNP MOBE was associated with significant academic consequences. The latter fact also made it necessary for the DNP examinations to be conducted without a student audience. In contrast with the MN MOBEs, the DNP cohort examinations were not recorded, and after the raters conferred, the scores were immediately shared with students.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResponses from the DNP MOBE were compared with the corresponding findings from the MN MOBE [17]. Specifically, the following mean scores were compared: (a) MOBE total scores; (b) MOBE domain scores (Clinical Analysis, Fund of Knowledge, and Communication); and (c) MOBE domain subset scores. These scores were evaluated by independent\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;t\u003c/em\u003e-tests with statistical significance assessed by \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-values as well as point estimation with 95% confidence intervals. Although scores were reconciled by the raters during each post-examination debrief for both MOBE exercises \u0026ndash; resulting in complete agreement of the final scores that were employed for benchmark purposes \u0026ndash; only pre-reconciled scores were used to compare MOBE performance of the two groups to avoid any group pressure associated with these ratings. The mean scores of the three raters served as best approximations to accurate scores, and these values were used for all comparisons of rubric ratings.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMOBE performance\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMN and DNP MOBE scores are presented in Table 2 and Table 3. DNP students performed substantially better than MN students in the domains of Clinical Analysis and Fund of Anesthesia Knowledge. Student performances in domain subsets IA (postponement of surgery based on sound judgment), IB (formulation of differential diagnoses), IC (troubleshooting intraoperative problems), IIA (defines the specifics of appropriate preoperative evaluations), and IIC (choice of appropriate anesthetic management based on an understanding of pathophysiology) were significantly higher in the DNP cohort relative to the MN cohort. Both cohorts performed equally well in the domain of Communication. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2 \u0026ndash; Comparison of Oral Examination Performances of Two Cohorts.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e* Indicates a significant \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-value. SD = Standard Deviation; DNP = Doctor of Nursing Practice; MN = Master of Nursing\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" width=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"28.181818181818183%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Performance \u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"9.090909090909092%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Cohort\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"8.181818181818182%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMean\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"8.181818181818182%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSD\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"10%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"10.909090909090908%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePoint Estimate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"25.454545454545453%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e95% Confidence Interval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Lower \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Upper\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"28.181818181818183%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eClinical Analysis Domain\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"9.090909090909092%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDNP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"8.181818181818182%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"8.181818181818182%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"10%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"10.909090909090908%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"25.454545454545453%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;2.00 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;3.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"28.181818181818183%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"9.090909090909092%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"8.181818181818182%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.63\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"8.181818181818182%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"10%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"10.909090909090908%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"25.454545454545453%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"28.181818181818183%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFund of Knowledge Domain\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"9.090909090909092%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDNP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"8.181818181818182%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"8.181818181818182%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"10%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"10.909090909090908%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"25.454545454545453%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;0.78 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;2.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"28.181818181818183%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"9.090909090909092%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"8.181818181818182%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"8.181818181818182%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.70\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"10%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"10.909090909090908%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"25.454545454545453%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"28.181818181818183%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCommunication Domain\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"9.090909090909092%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDNP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"8.181818181818182%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.72\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"8.181818181818182%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"10%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"10.909090909090908%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;0.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"25.454545454545453%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; -0.13 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;0.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"28.181818181818183%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"9.090909090909092%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"8.181818181818182%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"8.181818181818182%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"10%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"10.909090909090908%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"25.454545454545453%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"28.181818181818183%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal Score\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"9.090909090909092%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDNP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"8.181818181818182%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24.58\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"8.181818181818182%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"10%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"10.909090909090908%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"25.454545454545453%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;3.18 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;5.45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"28.181818181818183%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"9.090909090909092%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"8.181818181818182%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"8.181818181818182%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" width=\"10%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"10.909090909090908%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"25.454545454545453%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3 \u0026ndash; Comparison of Domain Subset Scores of Two Cohorts\u003c/strong\u003e. * Indicates a significant \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-value. SD = Standard Deviation; DNP = Doctor of Nursing Practice; MN = Master of Nursing\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" width=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\" valign=\"top\" width=\"63.62763915547025%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Domain \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Subset \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Cohort \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Mean \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;SD \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e-value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"10.940499040307103%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePoint Estimate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"25.43186180422265%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e95% Confidence Interval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Lower \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Upper\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"19.980787704130645%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.165225744476466%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.221902017291066%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDNP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.069164265129682%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.165225744476466%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.990393852065322%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"10.951008645533141%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; 0.75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"25.456292026897213%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; 0.36 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;1.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"19.980787704130645%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.165225744476466%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.221902017291066%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.069164265129682%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.165225744476466%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.990393852065322%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"10.951008645533141%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"25.456292026897213%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"19.980787704130645%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eClinical Analysis\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.165225744476466%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.221902017291066%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDNP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.069164265129682%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.69\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.165225744476466%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.990393852065322%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"10.951008645533141%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; 0.99\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"25.456292026897213%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; 0.73 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;1.26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"19.980787704130645%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.165225744476466%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.221902017291066%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.069164265129682%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.70\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.165225744476466%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.990393852065322%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"10.951008645533141%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"25.456292026897213%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"19.980787704130645%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.165225744476466%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.221902017291066%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDNP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.069164265129682%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.165225744476466%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.990393852065322%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"10.951008645533141%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; 0.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"25.456292026897213%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; 0.61 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;1.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"19.980787704130645%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.165225744476466%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.221902017291066%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.069164265129682%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.165225744476466%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.990393852065322%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"10.951008645533141%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"25.456292026897213%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"19.980787704130645%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.165225744476466%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIIA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.221902017291066%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDNP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.069164265129682%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.53\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.165225744476466%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.990393852065322%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.014*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"10.951008645533141%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; 0.46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"25.456292026897213%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; 0.11 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;0.81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"19.980787704130645%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFund of Knowledge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.165225744476466%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIIB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.221902017291066%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDNP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.069164265129682%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.165225744476466%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.990393852065322%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.282\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"10.951008645533141%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; 0.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"25.456292026897213%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;-0.17 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; 0.55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"19.980787704130645%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.165225744476466%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.221902017291066%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.069164265129682%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.165225744476466%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.990393852065322%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"10.951008645533141%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"25.456292026897213%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"19.980787704130645%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.165225744476466%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIIC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.221902017291066%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDNP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.069164265129682%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.165225744476466%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.990393852065322%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"10.951008645533141%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; 0.84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"25.456292026897213%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; 0.56 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;1.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"19.980787704130645%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.165225744476466%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.221902017291066%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.069164265129682%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.165225744476466%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.990393852065322%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"10.951008645533141%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"25.456292026897213%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"19.980787704130645%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.165225744476466%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIIIA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.221902017291066%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDNP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.069164265129682%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.165225744476466%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.990393852065322%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.650\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"10.951008645533141%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; -0.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"25.456292026897213%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;-0.22 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;0.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"19.980787704130645%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCommunication\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.165225744476466%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIIIB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.221902017291066%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDNP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.069164265129682%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.97\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.165225744476466%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.990393852065322%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.067\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"10.951008645533141%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;0.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"25.456292026897213%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;-0.05 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;0.27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"19.980787704130645%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.165225744476466%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.221902017291066%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.069164265129682%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.165225744476466%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.990393852065322%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"10.951008645533141%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"25.456292026897213%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"19.980787704130645%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.165225744476466%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIIIC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.221902017291066%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDNP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.069164265129682%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.165225744476466%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.990393852065322%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.307\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"10.951008645533141%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;0.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"25.456292026897213%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;-0.97 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;0.27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"19.980787704130645%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.165225744476466%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.221902017291066%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.069164265129682%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"8.165225744476466%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.990393852065322%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"10.951008645533141%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"25.456292026897213%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUnlike MN students, DNP students demonstrated no areas of consistent underperformance. There was only one instance in the DNP cohort of a domain subset score of \u0026ldquo;1\u0026rdquo; (congruently by two raters in the Fund of Anesthesia Knowledge section assessing preoperative evaluations and interventions) versus 23 such low domain subset scores among MN students. The near absence of pre-reconciled scores of \u0026ldquo;1\u0026rdquo; in the DNP MOBE is reflected in the higher mean domain and domain subset scores in that group and provides another parameter for cohort performance comparison. The \u0026ldquo;passing\u0026rdquo; rate (overall mean score \u003cu\u003e\u0026gt;\u003c/u\u003e 2.0) for both the DNP and MN cohorts using reconciled scores was 100%.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eEnsuring competence of graduate trainees remains a paramount goal of all US APRN programs including NAPs awarding Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP or DrNP), Doctor of Nurse Anesthesia Practice (DNAP), and Doctor of Management Practice in Nurse Anesthesia (DMPNA) degrees [1]. The need for such competence in an increasingly complex health care system resulting from the \u0026ldquo;burgeoning growth\u0026rdquo; [4] of science and technology provided the foundation for the original AACN Position Statement on the Practice Doctorate in Nursing, and it was the perception that additional training would enhance patient outcomes that first defined the potential benefits of such programs [4]. Because oral examination assesses domains that correlate with clinical performance [13, 18], this form of evaluation may be useful not only as a benchmark prior to student immersion in clinical rotations, but it also may serve to test whether the additional educational opportunities available in a practice doctorate education enhance student competence and patient safety. This concept is applicable to all APRN specialties, not just NAPs. As such, oral examination provides a means to test the hypothesis that such programs truly enhance patient-centric nursing practice. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDNP MOBE versus MN MOBE performance results\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe most noteworthy finding of this study was that DNP students, after completing targeted additions to their curriculum, performed significantly better than recent MN students on their MOBEs in nearly all areas testing clinical analysis and fund of anesthesia knowledge. This observation is important because, although both MN and DNP cohorts achieved passing ratings, cognitive competence represents a continuum (as does clinical competence in general) with improved performance beyond a \u0026ldquo;pass\u0026rdquo; threshold having tangible value. In contrast with these areas of testing, both cohorts performed equally well in the domain of Communication. This evaluative section was included because of the vital role of communication in ensuring perioperative patient safety by anesthesia providers [19]. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBecause the major distinction between these cohorts related to differing didactic curricula (cohorts had similar professional backgrounds; they were separated chronologically by one year in the same institution with identical instructors), outcome differences most likely related to differences in their curricular preparation. Furthermore, relative increases in the mean test scores of DNP students were most notable for the three areas of maximum under-performance by the MN cohort \u0026ndash; domain subsets IB, IC, and IIC (Table 3) \u0026ndash; and improvements in these cognitive domains represented the expressed focus of changes implemented in the DNP curriculum. These results were significant despite the small size of the study groups and suggest that cognitive competence issues following completion of a didactic and simulation MN course of study (as identified by oral examination) can be effectively addressed by curricular modifications instituted as part of a robust DNP program. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTargeted changes in curriculum were made possible by an expanded DNP program (27 months vs. 36 months) that allowed two new courses to be introduced for improving clinical analysis and fund of knowledge in specific areas. Time constraints in the MN program did not allow for these courses, and there were fewer opportunities for repetition of concepts throughout that course of study. The Selected Topics in Pathophysiology course was designed to enhance students\u0026rsquo; understanding of how disease processes relate to perioperative clinical considerations. During the Anesthesia and Co-Existing Disease course, students repeatedly applied abstract reasoning to common adverse perioperative events, and presented this information in an organized, oral format \u0026ndash; a skill that requires practice and is critical to professional development.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTeaching students in this manner to employ metacognitive approaches (directing students to think about what they are thinking including recognizing when they do not understand something) can be a powerful tool for learners and may play an important role in preventing errors in formulating differential diagnoses by monitoring and regulating reasoning [20, 21, 22]. A longer DNP program of study permitted effective curricular expansion, with the development of skills necessary for superior performance on the examination, including both critical thinking abilities and mental processing related to effective articulation of answers. Such cognitive competence represents an essential component of clinical competence [23], and similar expansion of the course of study in other APRN DNP programs has been suggested to improve safe patient care compared with MN-prepared graduates [2].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;In interpreting the implications of this comparison, it is important to consider that the scores for the DNP cohort were linked to course grades while student performances on the MN MOBE were used for feedback purposes only and were not associated with institutional consequences. Hence, it is possible that improved ratings in the latter group may relate to this additional academic incentive [24]. On the other hand, the most notable improvements in the DNP cohort occurred in those cognitive domains targeted by changes in their modified course of study. This finding suggests that a significant contribution to their superior oral examination performance relates to those curricular modifications.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMOBE as a benchmark evaluation in a NAP\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnother finding of this study concerns the ability of MOBE to function as a benchmark evaluation at a critical juncture in nurse anesthesia training, namely just before transition from classroom teaching into clinical practice. The MOBE in this study was designed to meet the specifications of a good benchmark evaluation. These included selection of performance indicators that were (a) essential to professional success, (b) both qualitative and quantitative in nature, and (c) reproducible, to enable comparison with new performance occurring after initiatives arising from benchmarking had been implemented [25]. The scoring rubric in MOBE evaluated cognitive domains critical to competent professional conduct: clinical analysis, fund of anesthesia knowledge, and communication skills. Many of the domain subsets related to generation of precompiled responses and abstract reasoning associated with perioperative adverse event management, critical elements in dynamic decision making that are essential to safe anesthesia [19]. The Scoring Rubric contained a mix of parameters that were amenable to quantitative scoring (e.g., choice of appropriate monitors) and qualitative scoring (e.g., communication skills). Furthermore, the performance indicators employed by MOBE could reproducibly be re-evaluated to enable comparison between different cohorts, as demonstrated by the present study\u0026rsquo;s comparison of DNP and MN student groups.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBenchmark examinations should be both summative and formative [25] \u0026ndash; they not only provide data on performance, but also, they are designed for quality enhancement. By highlighting areas needing improvement, benchmark examinations are useful to define educational targets and objectives and allow discovery of approaches to ensure future excellence [25]. The MOBE used in this study originally was designed for precisely these purposes and successfully identified three areas of underperformance involving critical thinking in MN NAP students [17]. As a result, modifications were implemented in the new DNP NAP curriculum designed to address these areas of performance, and the significantly improved performance of the current DNP cohort with MOBE likely represents a validation of its formative function.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLimitations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn important limitation of this investigation relates to the small sizes of the cohorts. On the other hand, significant differences in performance between these two groups were clear despite these small numbers \u0026ndash; and the differences occurred most notably in \u0026ldquo;targeted\u0026rdquo; cognitive domains. This latter finding suggests that our conclusions likely have validity despite this limitation. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConfounding variables in this study included (a) minor differences between the MOBE processes (Table 1), and (b) somewhat differing teaching experiences for the two study groups (in addition to modifications in the DNP curriculum that amounted to 6 months of additional preclinical education): the DNP cohort received its final one year of didactic instruction almost entirely online due to the COVID-19 pandemic and, compared with the MN group at the time of the oral examination, they had completed less high-fidelity simulation training and less clinical training (550 versus 880 hours) for the same reason. These factors, however, do not explain the performance improvements of the DNP cohort relative to the MN cohort, because COVID-19 restrictions on in-person teaching likely adversely affected quality of instruction (as faculty and students transitioned rapidly online without preparation) and thereby disadvantaged this group (similarly true of their reduced hours in simulation training and in patient-care roles). Likewise, it is doubtful that minor differences in study methodology biased outcomes significantly.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn this study, the results of oral examinations provided the first clear evidence of a difference in MN-prepared and DNP-prepared students\u0026rsquo; cognitive competence: the current investigation suggests that curricular modifications associated with a transition between these two programs of study within one institution can result in improved oral examination outcomes that assess student reasoning processes and correlate with enhanced clinical performance [13, 26, 27]. Because these data derive from a single program involving identical didactic and simulation instructors with back-to-back cohorts (conditions that also restricted cohort sizes, a significant limitation of this study), these improved outcomes likely are due to the associated curricular changes. The investigation\u0026rsquo;s findings suggest that DNP educational processes may provide more effectively for trainees who not only \u0026ldquo;know\u0026rdquo; data but also \u0026ldquo;know how\u0026rdquo; to apply those data in clinical practice, and therefore support the ultimate goals of APRN programs transitioning to doctoral practice models.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdditional questions that merit exploration relate to whether the observed improvements in cognitive performance during nurse anesthesia DNP MOBEs persist once students enter the full-time clinical phase of their training and thereafter (i.e., do MN and DNP-trained CRNAs differ in terms of clinical performance and patient outcomes?). \u0026nbsp;Furthermore, while there are survey findings and self-reported data to suggest that DNP-prepared APRNs have an improved ability to translate evidence-based guidelines into clinical practice [2, 7, 8], additional studies of whether such translational innovation is more common in DNP CRNAs versus MN CRNAs represents a useful related line of inquiry. Lastly, the utility of MOBEs as evaluative techniques in other APRN specialties deserves investigation, where oral examinations potentially can provide both formative and summative analyses in a manner similar to NAPs.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003eAACN: American Association of Colleges of Nursing; APRN: Advanced practice registered nurse; CRNA: Certified registered nurse anesthetist; COVID-19: Coronavirus disease of 2019; DMPNA: Doctor of management practice in nurse anesthesia; DNAP: Doctor of nurse anesthesia practice; DNP: Doctor of nursing practice; DrNP: Doctor of nursing practice; MN: Master of nursing; MSN: Master of science in nursing; MOBE: Mock oral board examination; NAP: Nurse anesthesia program; TLC: Teaching and Learning Center\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study was carried out with the approval of the Oregon Health \u0026amp; Science University Institutional Review Board. \u0026nbsp; All methods were performed in accordance with the ethics guidelines outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. \u0026nbsp; The participants received written information about the aim of the study, that participation was anonymous and voluntary, and that participants had the right to withdraw at any time. The participants provided written informed consent prior to enrollment in the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe raw data sets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to concerns related to participants’ confidentiality but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo external funding. Open access funding provided by the Hahn-Block Foundation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors’ Contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudy design: B.S., L.O. Data collection: All authors. Data analysis: B.S., L.O. Writing manuscript text: B.S., L.O. Review and approval of final manuscript: All authors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors would like to thank Gail Armstrong, PhD, DNP, ACNS-BC, CNE for her recommendations and guidance.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHawkins R, Nezat G. Doctoral education: which degree to pursue? AANA J. 2009;77(2): 92\u0026ndash;96. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.aana.com/docs/default-source/aana-journal-web-documents-1/educnews_0409_p92-96.pdf?sfvrsn=e24c5ab1_6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Accessed 1 Sep 2022.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcCauley LA, Broome ME, Frazier L, Hayes R, Kurth A, Musil CM, et al. Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) degree in the United States: reflecting, readjusting, and getting back on track. Nurs Outlook. 2020;68(4):494\u0026ndash;503. doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.outlook.2020.03.008\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRosa W, Fitzgerald M, Davis S, Farley JE, Khanyola J, Kwong J, et al. Leveraging nurse practitioner capacities to achieve global health for all: COVID-19 and beyond. Int Nurs Rev. 2020;67(4):554\u0026ndash;9. doi:10.111/inr.12632.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAmerican Association of Colleges of Nursing. AACN position statement on the practice doctorate in nursing. 2004. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.aacnnursing.org/DNP/Position-Statement\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Accessed 1 Sep 2022.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCouncil on Accreditation of Nurse Anesthesia Educational Programs. Position statements. Position statement on doctoral education for nurse anesthetists. 2021. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.coacrna.org/about-coa/position-statements/\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Accessed 3 Sep 2022.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStarnes-Ott K, Arnaud M, Rooney L, Lewis M. Using complex adaptive theory to guide the transition to DNP nurse anesthesia education. J Prof Nurs. 2020;36(3):123\u0026ndash;7. doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.profnurs.2019.10.004\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBeeber AS, Palmer C, Waldrop J, Lynn MR, Jones CB. The role of Doctor of Nursing Practice-prepared nurses in practice settings. Nurs Outlook. 2019;67(4):354\u0026ndash;64. doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.outlook.2019.02.006\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKesten KS, Moran K, Beebe SL, Conrad D, Burson R, Corrigan C, et al. Drivers for seeking the doctor of nursing practice degree and competencies acquired as reported by nurses in practice. J Am Assoc Nurs Pract. 2021;34(1):70\u0026ndash;8. doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1097/JXX.0000000000000593\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClifford T. Competency assessment. J Perianesth Nursing. 2020;35(2):222\u0026ndash;3. doi:10.106/j.jopan.2020.01.002.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKesten KS, Brown HF, Meeker MC. Assessment of APRN student competency using simulation: a pilot study. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2015;36(5):332\u0026ndash;4. doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.5480/15-1649\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNational Board of Certification and Recertification of Nurse Anesthetists. NBCRNA certification. 2020. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.nbcrna.com/initial-certification\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Accessed 1 Sep 2022.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMiller G. The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Acad Med. 1990;65(9 Suppl):63\u0026ndash;7. doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1097/00001888-199009000-00045\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSun H, Warner DO, Patterson AJ, Harman AE, Rathmell JP, Keegan MT, et al. The American Board of Anesthesiology\u0026rsquo;s Standardized Oral Examination for initial board certification. Anes Analg. 2019;129(5):1394\u0026ndash;400. doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1213/ANE.0000000000004263\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWaas V, Wakeford R, Neighbour R, Van der Vleuten C. Achieving acceptable reliability in oral examinations: An analysis of the Royal College of General Practitioners Membership Examination\u0026rsquo;s oral component. Med Educ. 2003;37(2):126\u0026ndash;31. doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01417.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMiller C, Serkan T, Schwengel D, Isaac G, Schiavi A. Development of a simulated objective structured clinical exam for the APPLIED Certification Exam in Anesthesiology: a two-year experience informed by feedback from exam candidates. J Educ Periop Med. 2019;21(4):E633. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.ncbi.nim.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7039675/pdf/i2333-0406-21-4-miller.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Accessed 1 Sep 2022.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWitheridge A, Ferns G, Scott-Smith W. Revisiting Miller\u0026rsquo;s pyramid in medical education: the gap between traditional assessment and diagnostic reasoning. Int J Med Educ. 2019;10:191\u0026ndash;192. doi:10-5116/ijme.5d9b.0c37.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSwerdlow B, Osborne-Smith L, Hatfield LJ, Korin TL, Jacobs SK. Mock oral board examination in nurse anesthesia education. J Nurs Educ. 2021;60(4):229\u0026ndash;34. doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3928/01484834-20210322-09\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang T, Sun H, Zhou Y, Chen D, Harman A, Isaak RS, et al. Construct validation of the American Board of Anesthesiology\u0026rsquo;s APPLIED Examination for initial certification. Anes Analg. 2021;133(1):226\u0026ndash;32. doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1213/ANE.0000000000005364\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGaba DM, Fish KJ, Howard SK, Burden AR. Principles of anesthesia crisis resource management. In: Gaba DM, Fish KJ, Howard SK, Burden AR, editors. Crisis management in anesthesiology. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2015. pp.\u0026nbsp;25\u0026ndash;53.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eScordo KA. Differential diagnosis: Correctly putting the pieces of the puzzle together. AACN Adv Crit Care. 2014;25(3):230\u0026ndash;6. doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1097/NCI.0000000000000035\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSwerdlow B, Osborne-Smith L. A cognitive template for management of perioperative adverse events. AANA J; in press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWeidman J, Baker K. The cognitive science of learning: Concepts and strategies for the educator and learner. Anes Analg. 2015;121(6):1586\u0026ndash;99. doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1213/ANE.0000000000000890\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eScott IA, Hubbard RE, Crock C, Campbell T, Perera M. Developing critical thinking skills for delivering optimal care. Int Med J. 2021;51(4):488\u0026ndash;93. doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1111/imj.15272\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBa-Ali S, Jemec GBE, Sander B, Toft PB, Homoe P, Lund-Andersen H. The effect of two grading systems on the performance of medical students during oral examinations. Dan Med J. 2017;\u003cem\u003e64\u003c/em\u003e(3):A5328. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.ugeskriftet.dk/dmj/effect-two-grading-systems-performance-medical-students-during-oral-examinations\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Accessed 3 Sep 2022.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMeade PH. A guide to benchmarking. 2007. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://planning.curtin.edu.au/local/docs/Guide_to_Benchmarking_Oct2007.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Accessed 1 Sep 2022.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaker K, Sun H, Harman A, Poon KT, Rathmell JP. Clinical performance scores are independently associated with the American Board of Anesthesiology Certification Examination scores. Anes Analg. 2016;122(6):1992\u0026ndash;9. doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1213/ANE.0000000000001288\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhou Y, Sun H, Culley DJ, Young A, Harman AE, Warner DO. Effectiveness of written and oral specialty certification examinations to predict actions against the medical licenses of anesthesiologists. Anesthesiology. 2017;126(6):1171\u0026ndash;9. doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1097/ALN.0000000000001623\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Advanced practice nursing education, DNP, Doctor of Nursing Practice, Graduate nursing education, Nurse anesthesia, Cognitive competence","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-2034431/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2034431/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBackground:\u003c/strong\u003e Advanced practice nursing in the United States is shifting toward doctoral certification, most commonly a Doctor of Nursing Practice degree. However, there is limited evidence that this transition improves clinical competence. The aim of this study was to determine whether modifications in a nurse anesthesia curriculum that transitioned from a Master of Nursing to a Doctor of Nursing Practice program were associated with improved cognitive performance using an oral examination.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods:\u003c/strong\u003e This study was a small-scale investigation that used a quantitative method to compare two consecutive cohorts of students from a single, university-based nurse anesthesia program.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults:\u003c/strong\u003e After completing an expanded curriculum, Doctor of Nursing Practicenurse anesthesia students performed significantly better than Master of Nursing students on oral examination, with improvement in cognitive domains previously identified as areas of underperformance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusion:\u003c/strong\u003eTargeted curricular additions in a Doctor of Nursing Practice program correlated with improvements in nurse anesthesia student cognitive competence as measured by an oral examination.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Cognitive competence and curriculum content in nurse anesthesia training: a small-scale comparative study","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2022-09-19 20:38:38","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-2034431/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"33f8e31c-8365-4043-991a-979f71c69f33","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 19th, 2022","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2023-01-09T07:29:26+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2022-09-19 20:38:38","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-2034431","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-2034431","identity":"rs-2034431","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"_2-kVJe1T_tPrBINL-cwx","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}