Objective 　To identify the clinical evaluation methods used for undergraduate nursing students.
Methods 　A self-made questionnaire about the clinical evaluation methods for undergraduate nursing students was used to collect information from 158 tutors of undergraduate nursing students in 4 teaching hospitals in Sichuan province.
Results 　In terms of consulting evaluation opinion from other nurses, there was no significant difference between the ratios of tutors who really adopted and those who perceived as necessary to do so (P gt;0.05). As for consulting the self-evaluation of nursing students and patients’ evaluation opinion, the ratio of tutors who really adopted was lower than those who perceived as necessary to do so (P lt;0.01). The majority of tutors used real, ward patients for evaluation, while a minority of tutors used demonstration room and model patients. The most effective methods viewed by the tutors were observation, holistic nursing care examination and test, and the most often used evaluation methods were clinical skill test, observation and theoretical exam. Most tutors adopted a continuous evaluation method for the clinical evaluation of undergraduate nursing students.
Conclusion 　The methods for the clinical evaluation of undergraduate nursing students varies. This may influence the accuracy, objectivity and fairness of the evaluations. Formulating evaluation sheet of patients and self-evaluation sheet of nursing students, establishing standardized clinical skill examination station, training standardized patients and evaluation skills of clinical tutors, standardizing examination content and relevant evaluation standard and methods, and adopting comprehensive evaluation with various methods may help to improve the accuracy, objectivity and fairness of the clinical evaluation of undergraduate nursing students.

Citation： WANG Shiping,FU Hongqiong. Investigation and Analysis on Clinical Evaluation Methods of Undergraduate Nursing Students in Sichuan Province. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2008, 08(7): 538-542. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.20080124 Copy