Aim: The purpose of the cross-sectional descriptive study was to investigate how nursing students evaluate particular factors of clinical learning environment during their professional placement in hospitals. We explored which factors of clinical environment contribute significantly to students' evaluation of it. Design: A descriptive cross-sectional study. Methods: The sample included 503 nursing students in their second or third year of study at six Slovak universities. A valid and reliable questionnaire, the Clinical Learning Environment, Supervision and Nurse Teacher evaluation scale (CLES+T), was used to evaluate the student nurses' experiences and clinical placement. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics, Pearson's chi-square test, multifactorial ANOVA procedure and Pearsons' correlations, and p-value < 0.05 was taken to indicate statistical significance for all comparisons. Results: A significant proportion of students experienced a traditional model of group supervision. Supervision method, supervisory session frequency, and duration of clinical placement had a significant impact on their evaluation of clinical environments. Conclusion: Supervision methods are a significant factor influencing student evaluation of their clinical placement environment. Compared to other European studies, we found a less frequent application of individual supervision and that the Slovak university setting is dominated by a traditional group model of supervision. The study offers a valuable insight into the analysis of factors contributing to improvements in clinical learning environment and models of clinical or workplace training.

Aim: The aim of the study was to investigate the use and effectiveness of a valid and reliable rating scale for summative clinical evaluation of student performance. Design: A descriptive cross-sectional study. Methods: The study was carried out at two Slovak universities in the academic years of 2015 and 2016. The study sample included performance evaluations of 82 students made by different lecturers using the Nursing Student Clinical Performance Evaluation Scale (NSCPES), before the practical component of their final examinations. The students' performances were repeatedly evaluated by five lecturers. This evaluation was compared with the grade point for the students' clinical performance obtained in the practical component of their final examinations. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics, Pearson's chi-square test, Cohenʼs Kappa, factor analyses, and the p-value < 0.05 was taken to indicate statistical significance for all comparisons. Results: Significant positive correlations were noted between two evaluatio nsbefore the final examinations using the NSCPES rating scale, and standard clinical assessment during the final examinations (r = 0.334; p ≤ 0.01). The value of Cohen's Kappa was very low (0.04) and insignificant (p = 0.32), indicating low agreement between the two evaluations. The Slovak version was not conceptually consistent with the original version. In the Slovak version, two originally independent domains (professionalism and ethical principles) were merged into one variableresponsibility and professionalism. Conclusion: The multidimensional nature of clinical practice necessitates the use of a complex of assessment measures. A valid and reliable tool may allow an objective evaluation of nursing student performance in clinical settings. The Nursing Student Clinical Performance Evaluation Scale is useful for summative evaluation of student performance, allowing teachers and clinical mentors to rate performance over time, and to note patterns of performance.