Faculty Development Needs in Southeastern Conference Nursing Schools

Abstract

Background

This study examined nurse faculty members' teaching, scholarship, and professional development interests across Southeastern Conference (SEC) nursing schools, and evaluated differences in these needs associated with years in academia, tenure status, faculty rank, and Accountable Health Communities (AHC) versus non-AHC settings.

Method

Rosenthal and Stanberry's framework for faculty development provided the theoretical foundation for this cross-sectional study to explore topics of interests of faculty at 12 SEC nursing schools.

Results

A total of 470 faculty responded to the online survey (57% response rate). Top interests in the categories of teaching, scholarship and research, and professional development items are discussed. There were significant differences in interests in all three categories and in rank, years in academia, tenure status, and place of employment.

Conclusion

To ensure the delivery of excellent academic nursing education, academic nursing leaders must promote and invest in faculty development as a critical nursing professional development action. [J Nurs Educ. 2025;64(1):7–14.]

Nursing faculty have a critical role in the academic and social preparation of nursing health care professionals through the educational process. The quality of nursing education provided directly influences and affects the practice readiness and competence of new nursing graduates at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. The extent to which graduating nurses are practice ready and competent has a direct influence and effect on the quality of nursing care, patient care outcomes, and the quality and safety of health care systems. To ensure the delivery of excellent academic nursing education, it is imperative for academic nursing leaders to promote and invest in nursing faculty development as a critical nursing professional development action.

As an aspect of nursing professional development, nursing faculty development facilitates role development, promotes personal and professional growth, and enhances academic nursing practice. Some of the benefits of nursing faculty development include (1) enhancing pedagogical knowledge and skills; (2) remaining current on evidence-based nursing practice; (3) keeping pace with technological advances; (4) expediting promotion and career advancement; (5) adapting to generational student learner needs; (6) cultivating academic leadership and promoting succession planning; (7) facilitating a culture of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); and (8) advancing the development of academic nursing science through Boyer's model of scholarship (^{Phillips et al., 2019}; ^{Smith et al., 2023}).

The nursing faculty shortage is well established and is a continuous challenge for nursing programs (American Association Colleges of Nursing (AACN, 2022). Most nursing faculty are hired directly from clinical practice or after completion of a graduate degree with little to no formal teaching experience. Experienced faculty need continuous development to maintain engagement and satisfaction to meet the demands of the role and advance their career. The quality of professional development opportunities in a school of nursing is often a major component of successful recruitment and retention of faculty.

The Southeastern Conference (SEC) Nursing Deans' Collaborative established professional development of faculty as a collective priority in 2020 (Andrews et al., 2022). A task force of four deans was established to develop and distribute a survey for faculty in the 12 SEC nursing programs to explore and prioritize faculty development needs in the southeastern region. The group planned to use the findings to develop a regional and collaborative virtual faculty development program.

This study sought to identify nurse faculty members' teaching, scholarship, and professional development interests across SEC nursing schools, and to evaluate differences in these needs associated with years in academia, tenure status, faculty rank, and Accountable Health Communities (AHC) versus non-AHC settings. These findings helped to establish a collaborative faculty development program across the SEC Nursing programs. Specifically, the overall questions guiding this study were: (1) What are the priority faculty interests related to teaching topics across SEC nursing schools? (2) What are priority faculty interests related to research and scholarship topics across SEC nursing schools? (3) What are the priority faculty interests related to professional development needs across SEC nursing schools? (4) Are there differences in topics of interest related to teaching, scholarship, and professional development based on years in academia, tenure status, faculty rank, or AHC versus non-AHC employment?

Framework

Rosenthal and Stanberry's (²⁰¹¹) framework for faculty development guided the conceptual formulation of this study and the resulting faculty development program. A comprehensive faculty development program includes five key faculty activities to be assessed: (1) clinical care; (2) education and mentoring; (3) research and scholarship; (4) service; and (5) leadership. Mentoring programs, workshops and forums, policy briefings, feedback, and evaluations are used to enhance faculty development and are considered within the context of faculty's career state and previous education and training (^{Rosenthal & Stanberry, 2011}). Faculty development educational activities are expected to influence a variety of outcomes, such as professional competencies, career advancement, academic promotion, job satisfaction, and healthy work-life balance.

Faculty development activities are considered within the context of the faculty's career stage and previous education and training as a faculty member. Faculty development educational activities influence a variety of outcomes, such as skill acquisition, promotion of career advancement, election to professional organizations, academic promotion, job satisfaction, and satisfactory balance between professional and personal life. Challenges to faculty development should be considered when creating a faculty development program. Moreover, faculty and administrative “buy-in” are essential to ensure resource allocation and engagement with faculty development programs. Faculty development programs should use both process and outcome evaluation methods. The faculty development framework described in this article provides guidance on the range of faculty activities to be addressed (i.e., clinical care, education and mentoring, research and scholarship, service, and leadership), offers mechanisms to conduct faculty development, identifies faculty needs, and evaluates the outcomes of faculty development programs (^{Rosenthal & Stanberry, 2011}).

Method

A descriptive, cross-sectional design was used to explore and prioritize the teaching, scholarship and research, and professional topics of interests of faculty at the 12 SEC nursing schools. Institutional review board exempt approval was obtained prior to data collection.

The target population included all full-time faculty (n = 828) employed during the 2021 spring semester in the 12 SEC nursing programs. The deans distributed the electronic survey to their respective faculty members via email in early April 2021, with a request to respond in 3 weeks. Two reminders were sent to faculty during the data collection period. A total of 470 faculty completed the survey for a response rate of 57%.

Survey Instrument

The four-member task force designed a needs assessment survey after reviewing the literature (^{Bigbee et al., 2016}; ^{Bruner et al., 2016}; ^{Foley et al., 2003}; ^{Phillips et al., 2019}; ^{Smith et al., 2023}). Based on the literature review and the framework by Rosenthal and Stanberry (²⁰¹¹), a survey was developed with the following three major thematic areas: (1) teaching; (2) research and scholarship; and (3) professional development. The survey was reviewed by all 12 deans and revised based on collective recommendations. The 90-item survey consisted of 14 demographic items, 73 faculty development items (26 teaching, 23 research and scholarship, and 24 professional development items), and three open-ended questions. For each thematic area, respondents used a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = not at all interested to 5 = extremely interested. Demographic variables included faculty rank, university employer, age, years in academia, ethnic and racial identity, and gender.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS^® version 28 and R version 4.3.2. Frequencies and percentages were calculated for all nominal and ordinal-level data, and mean, range, and standard deviation were calculated for ratio-level data. To address the fourth research question, years in academia were recoded into three categories: (1) 0 to 4 years; (2) 5 to 9 years; and (3) 10+ years. Additionally, SEC schools were reclassified into academic health centers (AHC) (n = 6) and non-AHC centers (n = 6) to determine differences among faculty interests in teaching, scholarship, and professional development. Tenure status was reclassified into two variables—tenured/tenure track (T/TT) or nontenure track (NTT)—that included both clinical and research faculty members. The rank variable included four levels: (1) instructor; (2) assistant professor; (3) associate professor; and (3) professor.

To identify whether years in academia, tenure status, faculty rank, or AHC versus non-AHC employment had an effect on the responses, multivariate analyses were performed using the ordered logistic regression. The function “polr” incorporated in the MASS package (Ripley & ^{Venables, 2002}) in R, where each of the responses in the teaching, scholarship and professional development, was used as the dependent variable. Years in academia, tenure status, faculty rank, and AHC or non-AHC employment were considered as independent variables. For each of the categorical variables included in the regression, one group was considered as the reference based on which all the calculations were made. For the tenure status, the NTT group was considered as reference when comparing to T/TT group of faculties. Similarly, for the variable pertaining to the rank of faculties, the instructor's group was considered as the reference for comparison to assistant professors, associate professors and professors. The AHC group was the reference for AHC categories, and faculty with 0 to 4 years of experience served as the reference for the years of experience category. The level of significance was p < .05.

Results

Participant Demographics

A total of 470 faculty responded to the online survey. However, a few participants did not answer all of the demographic questions; therefore, the percentages were calculated after excluding the missing demographic data. Mean age of the respondents was 48.8 years, (range, 26 to 79). Eighty percent (n = 357) of the participants were female, 8% (n = 36) were males, and 12% (n = 53) preferred not to answer. Out of 470, 447 responded to the question about ethnicity: 73.5% (n = 329) of the participants were White, 8.5% (n = 37) were Black, 2% (n = 10) were Hispanic and Latino/a/e, 0.5% (n = 2) were Asian or Pacific Islander, 0.5% (n = 2) were Native American, 0.5% (n = 2) were multiethnic, and 14.5% (n = 65) preferred not to answer.

The average length of time that participants were in academia was 12 (SD = 9.3) years, with a range of 0 to 45 years. The respondents were assistant professors (n = 154 [34%]), instructors (n = 108 [24%]), associate professors (n = 92 [20%]), and professors (n = 57 [13%]); the remaining participants (n = 39 [9%]) either preferred not to answer or were in the other category. Sixty-five percent (n = 291) were on nontenure tracks, 28% (n = 126) were either tenured or tenure track, and 7% (n = 32) preferred not to answer. The number of respondents from the 12 SEC nursing schools included in the survey are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1
Southeastern Conference Nursing Schools

Variable	n	Total Respondents	Respondents in Respective College
		%
Auburn University	7	1.5	20
Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center	50	10.6	86
Texas A & M	32	6.8	76
University of Alabama	31	6.6	66
University of Arkansas	26	5.5	62
University of Florida	29	6.2	51
University of Kentucky	50	10.6	62
University of Mississippi Medical Center	40	8.5	56
University of Missouri	22	4.7	39
University of South Carolina	65	13.8	84
University of Tennessee	25	5.3	27
Vanderbilt University	42	8.9	28
Preferred not to answer	30	6.4	-
Missing data	21	4.6	-

Teaching-Related Interests for Faculty Development

The top five teaching-related interests for faculty development, defined as the topics with the highest mean scores, were inspiring and teaching critical thinking (M = 3.99 [SD = 1.019]), incorporating social determinants of health into curricula (M = 3.82 [SD = 1.16]), incorporating technology in class (M = 3.80 [SD = 1.114]), competency assessment and evaluation (M = 3.77 [SD = 1.129]), and teaching innovations in the classroom (e.g., flipping classroom and backward design of curricula) (M = 3.76 [SD =1.158]).

In terms of scholarship, participants' priority interests included tips for successful scholarly writing (M = 3.49 [SD = 1.278]), maximizing the effects of scholarship (M = 3.45 [SD = 1.262]), evidenced-based practice projects (M = 3.41 [SD = 1.246]), integrating practice and scholarship (M = 3.35 [SD = 1.291]), and implementation science (M = 3.33 [SD = 1.286]). The priority professional development interests were mentoring others (M = 3.59 [SD = 1.129]), DEI in nursing education (M = 3.57 [SD = 1.176]), difficult conversations (M = 3.55 [SD = 1.189]), crucial conversations (M = 3.53 [SD = 1.233]), and work-life balance (M = 3.51 [SD = 1.315]).

Interests Related to Teaching, Scholarship, and Professional Development

The following sections address differences in topics of interest related to teaching, scholarship, and professional development needs based on years in academia, tenure status, faculty rank, and AHC or non-AHC employment.

Tenure status. Several significant associations were observed for tenure status. The T/TT faculty members were less interested in curriculum development assessment and evaluation, testing strategies, test construction and analysis, clinical teaching strategies and competency-based education, assessment, and evaluation. The NTT faculty members were less interested in learning about mentoring theses, dissertations, or Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) students. In terms of research and scholarship interests, the T/TT faculty members were significantly more interested in Health Resource and Services Administration, foundation, National Institutes of Health, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and mentored grants-manship than the NTT faculty members. Additionally, the T/TT faculty members were more interested in research and scholarship topics including building teams, statistical analysis, study design, and database development. One professional development interest was different based on tenure status; faculty members who were NTT were less interested in academic career planning for national and international effects. Topics of interest that were of higher interest to T/TT faculty members compared with NTT faculty members are listed in Table 2.

Table 2
Topics Significantly Associated With Tenure Status^a

Category	Tenure Status (Reference: NTT)	Value	SE	ta	p
Teaching
Curriculum development assessment and evaluation	T/TT	−0.998	0.275	−3.62	.00
Assessment and testing strategies	T/TT	−1.11	0.286	−3.86	.00
Test construction and analysis	T/TT	−0.841	0.293	−2.87	.004
Teaching strategies in clinical settings	T/TT	−0.693	0.302	−2.3	.022
Mentoring thesis dissertation and DNP	T/TT	0.625	0.271	2.3	.021
Competency based education and examples	T/TT	−0.597	0.267	−2.23	.025
Competency assessment and evaluation	T/TT	−0.672	0.27	−2.49	.013
Research and scholarship
HRSA Grantsmanship	T/TT	0.715	0.291	2.45	.014
Foundation Grantsmanship	T/TT	0.593	0.282	2.11	.035
Mentored Grantsmanship pre doc K awards	T/TT	0.764	0.313	2.44	.015
NIH Grantsmanship	T/TT	1.384	0.299	4.63	.00
PCORI Grantsmanship	T/TT	1.97	0.319	6.19	.00
AHRQ Grantsmanship	T/TT	1.429	0.315	4.54	.00
Database development	T/TT	0.782	0.285	2.74	.006
Mixed-methods design	T/TT	0.617	0.279	2.21	.027
Implementation science	T/TT	0.794	0.274	2.89	.004
Data science	T/TT	1.132	0.293	3.85	.00
Developing and fostering research teams	T/TT	1.24	0.291	4.26	.00
Developing a program of research	T/TT	0.936	0.299	3.13	.002
Series on statistical analysis	T/TT	1.27	0.291	4.358	.00
Technology and research	T/TT	1.198	0.287	4.18	.00
Developing and fostering writing groups	T/TT	0.678	0.288	2.36	.018
Maximizing the effect of scholarship	T/TT	0.619	0.274	2.255	.024
Use of social media to promote scholarship professional development	T/TT	1.185	0.283	4.18	.00
Academic career planning for national and international effect path (e.g., FAAN, FAANP, and NLN)	T/TT	0.584	0.287	2.04	.042

Faculty rank. Associate professors were significantly more interested in mentoring theses, dissertations, and DNP students compared with instructors. Assistant and associate professors were less interested in teaching strategies in the clinical setting compared with the instructor faculty members. Professors were less interested in teaching innovations with simulation, learner styles, and inspiring and teaching critical thinking compared with instructors. Table 3 lists significant differences in research and scholarship and professional development interest based on rank.

Table 3
Topics Significantly Associated With Rank of Faculty Members

Category	Faculty Rank (Reference: Instructor)	Value	SE	ta	p
Teaching
Teaching strategies in clinical settings	Assistant Professor	−1.24	0.371	−3.34	.001
	Associate Professor	−1.29	0.452	−2.86	.004
Teaching innovations with simulation	Professor	−1.086	0.511	−2.12	.034
Learner styles assessment and engagement	Professor	−1.09	0.499	−2.18	.029
Inspiring and teaching critical thinking	Assistant Professor	−1.02	0.35	−2.93	.003
	Professor	−1.403	0.507	−2.77	.006
Mentoring thesis dissertation and Doctor of Nursing Practice	Associate Professor	1.324	0.493	2.68	.007
Research and scholarship
Qualitative study design	Associate Professor	−0.953	0.459	−2.07	.038
	Professor	−1.138	0.543	−2.09	.036
Human subjects protection	Assistant Professor	−0.989	0.387	−2.55	.011
Building resilience with scholarship	Professor	−1.318	0.529	−2.49	.013
Artificial intelligence	Assistant Professor	−0.98	0.382	−2.58	.01
Professional development
Work-life balance	Associate Professor	−1.08	0.422	−2.57	.01
Change management	Assistant Professor	−0.861	0.357	−2.41	.016
Academic career planning for advancement including promotion packet development	Associate Professor	−0.867	0.428	−2.02	.043
	Professor	−1.671	0.544	−3.07	.002
Mentoring others	Assistant Professor	−0.77	0.34	−2.26	.024
Risk taking and creativity	Assistant Professor	−0.72	0.339	−2.12	.034
Crucial conversations	Assistant Professor	−1.088	0.344	−3.15	.002
Difficult conversations	Assistant Professor	−0.928	0.337	−2.75	.006
Professional boundaries	Assistant Professor	−0.928	0.35	−2.64	.008
Committee leadership	Professor	−1.405	0.536	−2.62	.009
	Associate Professor	−0.99	0.436	−2.27	.023
	Assistant Professor	−0.944	0.369	−2.56	.011
Leadership skills assessment	Assistant Professor	−0.896	0.356	−2.52	.012

AHC status. Faculty members from non-AHC institutions were significantly more interested in interprofessional education and clinical teaching strategies than faculty from AHC institutions (Table 4).

Table 4
Topics Significantly Associated With Employment at AHC

Major Category	Subcategory	AHC/Non-AHC	Value	SE	ta	p
Teaching	Teaching strategies in clinical settings	Non-AHC	0.752	0.260	2.88	.004
	Interprofessional education	Non-AHC	0.632	0.237	2.66	.008

Years in academia. Senior faculty members (>10 years in academia) were more interested in email management whereas midlevel faculty members (5 to 9 years) were more interested in higher education fiscal management (Table 5).

Table 5
Topics Significantly Associated With Years In Academia^a

Category and Subcategory	Years in Academia	Value	SE	t	p
Teaching
Art of lecturing	≥10	−1.021	0.343	−2.98	.003
	5 to 9	−0.969	0.352	−2.75	.006
Mentoring thesis dissertation and DNP	10+	−0.798	0.379	−2.10	.035
Professional development
Email management	10+	0.720	0.337	2.13	.033
Higher education fiscal management	5 to 9	0.839	0.398	2.11	.035

Discussion

Continuing education and professional development are important in all professions. Nurses and other health care professionals have an even greater obligation to stay abreast of the latest developments and innovations in their fields, due to the significant potential to help or harm patients, families, and communities. Nursing faculty should model this commitment to lifelong learning and professional development for their students. However, within the constantly changing fields of nursing and higher education, the professional development needs of nursing faculty are continuously evolving. In addition to rapid expansion of new knowledge, the array of faculty classifications, ranks, and levels of experience create a demand for targeted approaches to meet the development needs of a variety of types of nursing faculty.

This study sought to identify the teaching, scholarship, and professional development interests of nurse faculty members in SEC nursing schools and evaluate differences in these needs associated with years in academia, tenure status, faculty rank, and AHC versus non-AHC settings. This study followed recommendations from prior research advocating for the use of formal needs assessments as a basis for faculty development programs (^{Bigbee et al., 2016}). Although the number of published studies on this topic is limited, findings from the current study are consistent with prior reports, including a recently published integrative review (^{Smith et al., 2023}), confirming a heterogeneity of developmental needs among nurse faculty, varying widely with role, rank, and setting.

The teaching interest that scored the highest in the current study was inspiring and teaching critical thinking. This finding is congruent with the national shift of the NCLEX-RN^® moving to the clinical judgment model, which requires an emphasis on critical thinking and decision making (^{Betts et al., 2019}). Incorporating social determinants of health (SDOH) into curricula was of high interest to the survey respondents. Recent focus on the effect of SDOH on reducing health disparities and creating a more equitable health system in the United States along with national organizations calling for nurses to incorporate SDOH into nursing curricula could be one reason this topic rose to the top (^{Colburn, 2022}; ^{Davis et al., 2021}).

Another teaching topic of high interest was competency-based education and assessment. This survey was administered just after the updated version of The Essentials: Core Competencies for Professional Nursing Education was released (^{AACN, 2021}). Faculty were not yet highly engaged in curricular redesign in most SEC nursing colleges and schools. However, as nursing curricula and programs complete transitioning to competency-based education using The Essentials, faculty will require substantial support in its successful implementation. Continued assessment of support needs will be critical to enhance the quality of nursing education and prepare future generations of competent nurses. A commonality between the current study and prior reports is the interest in incorporating technology and teaching innovations in the classroom (^{Smith et al., 2023}).

The top priority in the scholarship category among faculty in this study was an interest in tips and guidelines for scholarly writing. Participants also were interested in more content and training on mentoring evidenced-based practice projects and integrating practice and scholarship. These themes have become more prominent during the past decade with the proliferation of practice-focused doctoral programs and the culture of scholarship for research-intensive schools of nursing (^{McPherson et al., 2021}).

The multivariate analysis identified several interests that differ among faculty members of different tenure status, rank, years in academic, and place of employment. NTT faculty had higher interest in several topics related to teaching compared with T/TT faculty. In general, NTT faculty tend to have heavier teaching assignments compared with T/TT faculty, who have a higher workload for research; NTT faculty also tend to teach more in the inpatient clinical setting compared with T/TT faculty. These factors may have contributed to the greater interest in teaching topics for NTT faculty.

Not surprisingly, T/TT faculty had a higher interest in grantsmanship and research methods topics compared with NTT faculty. In most research-focused higher education institutions, T/TT faculty have expectations to conduct research. Faculty who worked in non-AHC were more interested in the topics of teaching strategies in clinical settings and interprofessional education. It is possible this finding is a result of not having opportunities to develop a close academic-practice partnership with—or easy access to—health care institutions.

In the current study, the highest priority topic in the category of professional development was mentoring others. This finding is consistent with prior research that identified the development of mentoring skills as a major interest and need for nurse educators (^{Ephraim, 2021}; ^{Jackson, 2015}). As a result of political tension between some higher education institutions and state legislators regarding DEI, nursing faculty may have identified this topic in nursing education as a high interest area in the survey.

Results from a scoping review of faculty development in academic medicine (^{Misky et al., 2023}) revealed the need for program structure and support, the value of prioritizing areas of development aligned with faculty needs, and the importance of longitudinal mentoring and coaching. The authors concluded that effective faculty development programs move beyond the limited scope of narrowly targeted and individual components to a multifaceted approach that supports faculty over time. Others have recommended expanding the approaches to faculty development to include peer coaching, workplace learning and communities of practice, and the use of a competency-based framework to guide faculty development (^{Steinert, 2020}).

Faculty development programs require resources, administrative efforts, support, and commitment. The SEC deans prioritized faculty development as the initial area to address collectively as a group (^{Andrews et al., 2023}). The findings from this study served as a foundation for the collaborative virtual faculty development programs offered by the SEC Nursing Deans Collaborative. For the past several years, the collective region has collaborated to provide four to five virtual faculty development seminars each year, led by a faculty development task group with membership from each SEC school. Further, the deans received results for professional development needs for their college. Several deans have acknowledged gaps in faculty professional development and have implemented new mentoring programs, new faculty academies, and other supportive structures to enhance faculty development in their schools. Several SEC schools also have reorganized department structures with a department chair to facilitate faculty development and career enhancement or have appointed an administrative leader (i.e., associate dean) to lead faculty development as a result of this needs assessment.

All SEC member schools and their faculty members have benefited from sharing expertise and problem solving. Moreover, all participants recognize the dynamic nature of nursing education and the ongoing need for continuous evaluation and improvement of the education system to meet the professional development needs of faculty. This continuous evolution is needed to keep pace with the rapid innovations occurring in health care, to provide the best educational experiences for nursing students, and to provide the highest quality of care to patients and families.

Conclusion

This study serves as a baseline assessment of faculty development needs of nursing faculty in SEC schools. Recommendations for further research include longitudinal studies to track the evolution of nursing faculty development needs over time and to explore best practices for delivery and content of professional development programs for nursing faculty. This approach would provide insight into how the changing landscape of health care, technology advancement, and challenges in nursing and higher education influence the ongoing development needs of nursing faculty. Additional study on the differences in faculty interests in education, research and scholarship, and professional topics between the various faculty profiles would further validate the findings. Furthermore, assessment of faculty development needs using qualitative methodology, such as focus groups or interviews, would provide a more nuanced insight into faculty experiences and challenges that influence professional development.

References

American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2021). The essentials: Core competencies for professional nursing education. https://www.aacnnursing.org/Portals/0/PDFs/Publications/Essentials-2021.pdf

American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2024). Nursing faculty shortage. https://www.aacnnursing.org/news-data/fact-sheets/nursing-faculty-shortage

Andrews, J. O., Niederhauser, V., Sanford, J., Prevost, S., Porche, D., Heath, J., Jeffries, P., & Fahrenwald, N. (2023). From crisis management to multi-level interinstitutional partnerships: Development of the Southeastern Conference deans nursing coalition. Journal of Professional Nursing, 48, 66–70. 10.1016/j.profnurs.2023.06.002 PMID: 37775243

Betts, J., Muntean, W., Kim, D., Jorion, N., & Dickison, W. (2019). Buildingamethod for writing clinical judgement items for entry-level nursing exams. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 20(S2), 21–36. https://www.ncsbn.org/public-files/Building_a_Method_for_Writing_Clinical_Judgment_It.pdf

Bigbee, J. L., Rainwater, J., & Butani, L. (2016). Use ofaneeds assessment in the development of an interprofessional faculty development program. Nurse Educator, 41(6), 324–327. 10.1097/NNE.0000000000000270 PMID: 27145148

Bruner, D. W., Dunbar, S., Higgins, M., & Martyn, K. (2016). Benchmarking and gap analysis of faculty mentorship priorities and how well they are met. Nursing Outlook, 64(4), 321–331. 10.1016/j.outlook.2016.02.008 PMID: 27105829

Colburn, D. A. (2022). Nursing education and social determinants of health:Acontent analysis. Journal of Nursing Education, 61(9), 516–523. 10.3928/01484834-20220705-06 PMID: 36098540

Davis, V. H., Murillo, C., Chappell, K. K., Jenerette, C., Ribar, A. K., Worthy, K., & Andrews, J. O. (2021). Tipping point: Integrating social determinants of health concepts inacollege of nursing. Journal of Nursing Education, 60(12), 703–706. 10.3928/01484834-20211004-05 PMID: 34870502

Ephraim, N. (2021). Mentoring in nursing education: An essential element in the retention of new nurse faculty. Journal of Professional Nursing, 37(2), 306–319. 10.1016/j.profnurs.2020.12.001 PMID: 33867085

Foley, B. J., Redman, R. W., Horn, E. V., Davis, G. T., Neal, E. M., & Van Riper, M. L. (2003). Determining nursing faculty development needs. Nursing Outlook, 51(5), 227–232. 10.1016/S0029-6554(03)00159-3 PMID: 14569229

Jackson, D., Peters, K., Andrew, S., Daly, J., Gray, J., & Halcomb, E. (2015). Walking alongside:Aqualitative study of the experiences and perceptions of academic nurse mentors supporting early career nurse academics. Contemporary Nurse, 51(1), 69–82. 10.1080/10376178.2015.1081256 PMID: 26366942

McPherson, S., Reese, C., Van Schyndel, J., & Wendler, M. C. (2021). Scholarly requirements and support for nursing faculty development and career advancement:Anationwide Delphi study. Nursing Education Perspectives, 42(2), 69–73. 10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000000784 PMID: 33600126

Misky, G. J., Sharpe, B., Weaver, A. C., Niranjan-Azadi, A., Gupta, A., Rennke, S., Ludwin, S., Piper, C., Mlis., Sun V. K., Brotman D. J., & Frank, M. (2023). Faculty development in academic hospital medicine:Ascoping review. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 38(8), 1955–1961. 10.1007/s11606-023-08089-4 PMID: 36877213

Phillips, C., Bassell, K., & Fillmore, L. (2019). Transforming nursing education through clinical faculty development. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 14(1), 47–53. 10.1016/j.teln.2018.09.007

Rosenthal, S. L., & Stanberry, L. R. (2011).Aframework for faculty development. The Journal of Pediatrics, 158(5), 693–694.e2. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2011.01.009 PMID: 21482243

Smith, J., Kean, S., Vauhkonen, A., Elonen, I., Silva, S. C., Pajari, J., Cassar, M., Martín-Delgado, L., Zrubcova, D., & Salminen, L. (2023). An integrative review of the continuing professional development needs for nurse educators. Nurse Education Today, 121, 105695. 10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105695 PMID: 36565582

Steinert, Y. (2020). Faculty development: From rubies to oak. Medical Teacher, 42(4), 429–435. 10.1080/0142159X.2019.1688769 PMID: 31769320

Venables, W. N. & Ripley, B. D. (2002). Modern Applied Statistics with S. (4th ed.). Springer, New York.