Nurse Education Today 39 (2016) 122–127

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Nurse Education Today

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/nedt

The Capabilities of Nurse Educators (CONE) questionnaire: Development

and evaluation
Margaret McAllister 1, Trudi Flynn
School of Nursing and Midwifery, CQ University, Queensland, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Background: To inspire excellent clinicians to become educators, the role of the nurse educator needs to be more
Accepted 24 January 2016 fully defined. Capabilities rather than competencies may better describe advanced professional practice.
Available online xxxx Objectives: To develop an effective measure of the multifaceted complexity of the nurse educator role, which will
enable nurse educators to (1) self-assess their capability set, (2) identify areas for professional development, and
Keywords: (3) evaluate professional development interventions.
Capabilities
Method: A questionnaire (with 6 subsets) interrogating nurse educator capabilities was developed through wide
Nurse educator
Questionnaire
professional consultation and an expert working group, and evaluated. Statistical analyses investigated internal
Instrument development consistency, internal correlation of items, relationship to professional practice data (also collected via question-
Reliability naire), and test–retest reliability of the questionnaire and subsets.
Competencies Participants: Nurse educators (266) working within universities and health services in Australia and New
Academic context Zealand.
Health care context Results: Analyses resulted in a 93-item Capabilities of Nurse Educators (CONE) questionnaire, with six subsets
measuring Teaching Knowledge and Practice, Drawing from Nursing Knowledge, Teaching Relationships, Lead-
ership, Research Orientation and Research Action. The questionnaire and subsets demonstrated internal validity
(Cronbach's α ≥ .9). Reliability in this population was supported via significant differences between ranked ques-
tionnaire scores in ordinal categories of data collected about professional practice. The 8-week test–retest anal-
ysis supported the reliability of the CONE over time and suggested the questionnaire could be useful to evaluate
the success of professional development activities.
Conclusions: The CONE questionnaire proved useful for measuring the complex capabilities of nurse educators in
the academic and health service contexts studied and may assist educators to self-assess their capability sets and
identify areas for professional development. It also shows promise as an evaluation tool for professional develop-
ment. The utility of CONE as a self-diagnostic tool in career advancement, particularly in novice educators and ed-
ucators outside Australia, requires further confirmation.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction
Excellence in nursing education not only involves competent teach-
ing but also requires vision, curiosity, and commitment to research for
continual improvement. This paper reports the development and test-
ing of a questionnaire, the Capabilities of the Nurse Educator (CONE),
to assist and inspire Australian nurse educators to move beyond compe-
tence toward excellence.
Background
Nursing scholars around the world recognize that there is a glob-
al shortage of nurse educators (Benner et al., 2009; Orsolini-Hain
E-mail address: m.mcallister@cqu.edu.au (M. McAllister).
1
Contact Details:Margaret McAllister, School of Nursing and Midwifery, CQUniversity,
Australia. Tel.: +61 7 407,280,939.
and Malone, 2007). There are many reasons for this shortage,
which include an ageing faculty, heavy workloads, low wages, lack
of a robust nurse education pipeline, and dissatisfaction with a
teaching career because of mismatch between educational ap-
proaches and the needs of practitioners (Aiken and Cheung, 2008;
Joynt and Kimball, 2008). Highly productive, committed, and crea-
tive nurse educators are needed to fill shortages. In addition, educators
need to be equipped with the capabilities to engage in education system
reforms in order to resolve some of these problems (Kalb and O'Conner-
Von, 2012).
In Australia, nurse educators are a heterogeneous group, comprising
those who work in health services and in the higher education and vo-
cational education sectors (McAllister et al., 2011). While they teach dif-
ferent cohorts of students, they share a common domain of knowledge
and similar goals: to educate nurses and nursing students. To do this
well requires a composite skill set. Nurse educators, regardless of differ-
ent contexts and cohorts, play a key role in preparing students for

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.01.022
0260-6917/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M. McAllister, T. Flynn / Nurse Education Today 39 (2016) 122–127
practice and in maintaining safe and contemporary practice as enrolled
or registered nurses.
One step toward excellence in nursing education, we argue, is to
more fully define the role of the nurse educator and to create the evi-
dence base from which the profession in Australia may begin to flourish.
In contrast to the United States, nurse educators in Australia undergo no
credentialing process; they need only to have a higher degree than the
students they are allocated to teach (Australian Nursing and Midwifery
Accreditation Council, 2012). Lack of clear definition means that quality
and excellence are difficult to recognize and easy to ignore.
The Australian Nurse Teachers Society does have a set of standards,
previously called competencies, which include three domains:
teaching and learning, communication, and professional practice
(Guy et al., 2011). However, educators are currently not expected
to join this society. The USA's National League for Nurses has nurse
educator competencies, which expand upon these domains to also
include engagement in continual quality improvement, scholarship,
functioning in the educational environment, and creating an evi-
dence base for practice (Halstead, 2007). We could find no available
means for evaluating Australian nurse educator skills, competence or
capabilities, or for testing the development of skills and evaluating
interventions designed to improve educators' capabilities.
Developing a Set of Capabilities
In developing the questionnaire, the lead author drew upon a long
career in nursing education within the Australian university system,
wherein she has won numerous awards for excellence in teaching, pub-
lished widely on creative teaching approaches, and mentored novice
educators to success. With colleagues, she developed and piloted an on-
line Community of Practice for nurse educators over 3 years (McAllister
et al., 2014). Evaluating the impact of this Community of Practice pro-
vided the impetus to develop the questionnaire.
From a literature review (McAllister, 2012; McAllister et al., 2011),
four important points emerged:
1. We distilled the skills base required of a nurse educator: the ability to
plan, deliver, and evaluate teaching relevant to nursing; the ability to
lead and inspire others; and the ability to research and innovate.
2. We identified a paradox for educators: while their work is highly
social, many are isolated in their practice and therefore rarely
have opportunity to reflect on the potential and actual scope of
their role, nor on how their practice compares with like and unlike
others (McAllister et al., 2011; Thorne, 2006).
3. Authors are divided on whether competencies sufficiently describe
advanced professional practice (Cowan et al., 2005; Gardner et al.,
2008; McAllister, 1998). Some feel competencies are reductive
(Chapman, 1999; Cowan et al., 2005), tending to describe skills but
overlooking complex professional capabilities that are not necessarily
technical or procedural. For example, the ability to see problems and
issues as potential research topics; to innovate, inspire, and lead; and
to facilitate others' leadership (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe,
2008; Garet, 2001). Rather than conceptualizing competencies or min-
imum benchmarks, capabilities provide a strengths-based vision to
aim for (Nussbaum, 2004).
4. There is a paradigm shift emerging within education from a very
teacher-centered paradigm to one that is more student centered.
An educator-centered perception of the role tends to appreciate
such skills as teaching, leadership, and assessment of student compe-
tence, whereas a student-centered perception of the role appreciates
inclusivity, relationship, respect, and guidance (Kuh, 2009). Kuh
(2009) and Lerrett and Frenn (2011) argue that the student voice
has not yet been systematically considered or integrated within
nursing education.
These findings were discussed on numerous occasions: at a formal
symposium for about 50 nurse educators working in diverse contexts,
and at informal monthly meetings held between the author and
123
hospital-based nurse educators over 2 years. These discussions led to
the development of a broad set of capabilities for nurse educators:
(1) teaching knowledge and teaching skills, (2) application of nursing
knowledge within education, (3) development and maintenance of pos-
itive educational relationships with students, (4) nurse educator leader-
ship, and (5) research orientation and action. Thus, the primary aim of
this study was to develop an effective questionnaire to assess these
capabilities in nurse educators to (a) assist individuals to accurately
self-assess their strengths and areas in need of improvement, (b) form
the basis for focused professional development, and (c) evaluate the
success of specific interventions for professional development and im-
proved capabilities.
Method
We obtained ethical clearance for the study (H14/01–016 on 10
February, 2014). The study involved ‘negligible risk of psychological or
social harm’ because the surveys were anonymous, confidential and
voluntary. However, participants could identify themselves for an op-
tional interview by written informed consent.
Questionnaire Development
An expert working group of five nurse educators initially developed
110 items (questions/statements) within the five capability sets identi-
fied above, which were then reviewed by a panel of peers to produce 98
positively framed capability statements. The fifth set, research orienta-
tion and action, was split into two subsets: Research Orientation and Re-
search Action. The final subsets were named (1) Teaching Knowledge
and Practice, (2) Drawing from Nursing Knowledge, (3) Teaching Rela-
tionships, (4) Leadership, (5) Orientation to Research, and (6) Research
Action.
The 98 items (see Table 1 for examples) were uncategorized and
shuffled to minimize potential proximity effects in responses (Polit
and Beck, 2012). Some recasting of the items occurred to fit the items
to relevant sentence stems, for example, ‘I am able to. . .,’ ‘I can demon-
strate. . .’ Each item was presented with a 5-point Likert response scale
anchored with the statements not at all descriptive (1) and very descrip-
tive (5). Included as a separate section of the questionnaire were anoth-
er 12 items, 2 pertaining to demographic characteristics, and 10 to
scholarly and professional experience and achievements (e.g. years of
experience as an educator, current position, frequency of publication
and conference presentations, and receipt of teaching awards). These
items allowed exploration of the reliability of the questionnaire and
were predominantly presented as multiple choice questions, with two
short-answer provisions. In addition, respondents were asked four
questions to develop an anonymous respondent identification number.
The draft questionnaire was delivered online via SurveyMonkey®
(available free at https://www.surveymonkey.com/). It was piloted
with a group of five accessible nurse educators who worked in either
the university or the health service context. These educators examined
the items for relevance and readability and tested the completion
time. Only a few minor changes were suggested and completion time
averaged 15 min.
Participant Recruitment
Over 5 months, participants were recruited by convenience sam-
pling. Invitations to participate in the evaluation of the CONE were
emailed to each Australian member of the Council of Deans of Nursing
and Midwifery, and then onwards from the members to each dean's ref-
erent head of school. Each head of school was in turn requested to for-
ward the invitation to their teaching staff.
A test–retest design with an 8-week intervening period was used to
investigate the reliability of the CONE questionnaire over time. Respon-
dents who expressed interest in participating in the follow-up phase of
124 M. McAllister, T. Flynn / Nurse Education Today 39 (2016) 122–127

Table 1 Results
Sample questionnaire items from the six capability subsets.

Teaching knowledge and practice Participant Characteristics

I am able to use a variety of tools to enliven learning (e.g. simulation, case studies,
discussions, e-learning). Nurse educators (266) working within universities and health ser-
I am able to guide learners to develop self-reflective practice. vices in Australia and New Zealand completed the CONE questionnaire.
I am confident in my ability to teach. This set of responses produced 220 questionnaires that were sufficiently
I seek opportunities to stay current in nursing knowledge.
complete (N95%) for analysis. None of the respondents elected to be
I actively seek opportunities to improve my educational practice.
interviewed after completing the survey.
Drawing from nursing knowledge The majority of respondents were female, over 40 years of age, had
I can demonstrate advanced clinical skills and judgment.
more than 20 years of nursing experience, and possessed a postgraduate
I am able to answer questions from learners knowledgeably, reflecting in depth
understanding of the field. qualification. Similar numbers worked in universities and health set-
I am able to prepare learners for practice in the contemporary healthcare tings and about one-third had received a teaching award (Table 2).
environment.
I support evidence-based best practice. Questionnaire Evaluation
I facilitate best practice that is person-, family-, and community-centered.

Teaching relationships Internal Consistency

I provide timely and constructive feedback to learners.
I am viewed as approachable.
I respect and value learners' different learning styles.
I am interested in the progress and welfare of learners.
I frequently provide support and encouragement to students.
Leadership
I am able to inspire excellence by articulating vision, integrity and courage.
I am a mentor and a coach who supports and guides colleagues.
I motivate peers to achieve excellence.
I actively participate in strategies that facilitate positive change in nursing.
I create and maintain networks and collaborations.
Most inter-item correlations fell between r = .3 and r = .8. Five
items consistently outside the accepted range (Tabachnik and Fidell,
2007) were removed from further questionnaire analyses (leaving 93
items). The internal consistency of the questionnaire and the subsets
was high: overall α = .97; Teaching Knowledge and Practice (30
items) α = .96; Teaching Relationships (14 items) α = .94; Drawing
from Nursing Knowledge (12 items) α = .91; Leadership (19 items)
α = .94; (5) Orientation to Research (8 items) α = .88; Research Action
(10 items) α = .94.

Orientation to research Reliability

I contribute to the specialty of nursing education through the generation and
The 10 items querying aspects of professional practice and achieve-
discussion of new knowledge.
I recognize that research is an important aspect of nursing scholarship.
ment allowed evaluation of whether the overall questionnaire and its
Publishing research papers and presenting at conferences are important aspects of subsets consistently and appropriately assessed professional capabili-
nurse educator work ties and were sufficiently sensitive to discriminate between ordinal cat-
I believe that research is essential for the creation of new nursing knowledge egories of response within each subset. The clear linear increases in
I frequently read discipline relevant research articles and reports

Research action Table 2

I am able to actively disseminate research outcomes to learners. Demographic characteristics of participants.
I am able to discern between high and low quality research when reading research
reports. Characteristic Respondents (%) [n = 220]
I am able to creatively develop research questions that will advance nursing Sex
knowledge. Female 196 (89)
I am able to conduct research independently or collaboratively within groups. Male 24 (11)
I am able to identify areas where change is needed to build evidence for nursing
education practice. Age (years)
≥40 154 (70)
b40 66 (30)
the study were emailed a hyperlink to a repeat questionnaire 8 weeks
Nursing experience (years)
after the completion of the initial questionnaire. The second question- ≥20 159 (72)
naire consisted of the 98 original CONE items plus a short-answer ques- b20 61 (28)
tion querying participation in professional development training during
Nurse educator (years)
the interim period. ≥10 86 (39)
b10 134 (61)
Data Analysis
Current practice
University 95 (43)
All data analysis was conducted using the Statistical Package for Health service 84 (38)
the Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 22 (IBM Corp, released Both settings 36 (16)
2013). The internal consistency of both the total questionnaire and Other 5 (3)
the six subsets was assessed by calculating Cronbach's α coefficients Postgraduate qualifications
(DeVellis, 2003). Correlations between items were assessed with Overall 203 (92)
Pearson correlation coefficients (Tabachnik and Fidell, 2007). The PhD 40 (18)
Master 106 (48)
Kruskal–Wallis H test was selected to investigate the reliability of
Grad diploma 33 (15)
the questionnaire and subsets in relation to the professional data re- Grad certificate 24 (11)
ported by the respondents. Inter-class correlations (ICC), Spearman's None 17 (8)
correlations, and a Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used to evaluate
Teaching award
the test–retest reliability of the questionnaire. Indicators of accept- Overall 66 (30)
able reliability were an ICC coefficient greater than .75 and with a University 28 (29)
95% confidence interval spanning .3 or less, a Spearman's correlation Health service 27 (32)
coefficient N .61, and a nonsignificant outcome of a Wilcoxon signed- Both settings 11 (30)
None 154 (70)
rank test (DeVellis, 2003).
 M. McAllister, T. Flynn / Nurse Education Today 39 (2016) 122–127 125

mean Likert scale scores of ascending ordinal categories within the pro-
fessional items indicated that the CONE questionnaire was sensitive to
variation both overall and within subsets in this population (see
Table 3 for examples).
The majority of the nurse educators who participated in the survey
were highly experienced nurse educators, with postgraduate qualifica-
tions in nursing and long histories in the clinical setting. Unsurprisingly
therefore, participant responses tended to cluster at the higher end of
the Likert response scales, resulting in a positively skewed dataset. In re-
sponse to this skew, the nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis H test was used
to assess the significance of observed differences in ranked scores be-
tween ordinal categories of the professional characteristics surveyed.
Before starting this analysis, the original ordinal categories of the char-
acteristics were meaningfully collapsed to ensure adequate compara-
tive sample size.
In general, the significance of observed differences between groups
of participants demonstrated the ability of the overall questionnaire
and the subsets to assess the professional capabilities of this population
(Table 4).
Experience
Most scores of respondents with more years of experience, both in
nursing and as a nurse educator, were higher than the scores of those
with fewer years of experience.
Context of Practice
An interesting finding was the impact of context of practice on
scores. Respondents who worked jointly across the university and
clinical settings scored higher in five of the six subsets than did
those who worked in a single setting, while there were no significant
differences between the scores of educators within health services
and within academia, except that academics scored higher in the re-
search subsets.
respondents in receipt of a teaching award were higher than those of
respondents with no awards.
Research Activity and Project Leadership
The total scores and many of the subset scores of respondents who
had recently published academic papers and books and presented pa-
pers at conferences were higher than those of respondents with less ac-
tivity. The observed difference in the Teaching Relationships score of
those who had/had not recently presented at conferences was unex-
pected. Unsurprisingly, the total score and scores in the subsets associ-
ated with leadership and research were higher for respondents who
self-reported leadership of at least one recent professional project
than for those who did not.
Test–Retest Reliability
Of the initial participants, 104 submitted a completed CONE ques-
tionnaire at the end of the follow-up period. Seven of these question-
naires could not be used because they were substantially incomplete.
An additional 11 questionnaires could not be matched to initial cases
due to absent, inaccurate, or dummy identification codes at the second
time point. Test–retest analyses progressed with the 86 matched
cases. The CONE demonstrated a high test–retest reliability (ICC = .84,
95% CI .72–.90; F(51, 51) = 6.05; r(84) = .72; z = −.433, p = .67).
When those respondents who reported participation in pertinent
professional development during the follow-up period were re-
moved from the analysis (n = 48), the reliability indices of the ques-
tionnaire further improved (e.g. Spearman's r(46) = .81). An
investigation of the subset scores indicated that the largest changes
occurred in relation to the test–retest correlation between scores
on the Research Action (r = .53 to r = .72) and the Drawing from
Nursing Knowledge (r = .69 to r = .78) subsets.
Discussion

Qualifications and Awards The development and testing of the Capabilities of the Nurse
The total scores and scores in three subsets for respondents with ei- Educator (CONE) questionnaire was prompted by a recognized
ther masters or doctoral degrees were higher than those of respondents need for a measure sensitive to the complexity of the nurse educator
with a bachelor degree. In addition, associate professors and professors role. The concept of capabilities, which are more aspirational than com-
of nursing had higher leadership scores and tended to have higher total petencies, is a more fitting measure for this advanced practice role
scores than the scores of respondents of lower rank. The scores in the (Gardner et al., 2008; Nussbaum, 2004). A reliable tool will help nurse
Teaching Knowledge and Practice and Research Action subsets of educators identify and articulate their capability set and identify
areas for further professional development. CONE is a first step to-
Table 3
ward an evidence-based tool for this important subspecialty of nurs-
Examples of linear distribution of mean Likert scale scores within measured professional ing (Halstead, 2007).
characteristics. The questionnaire revealed apparent high internal consistency.
However, the high value of Cronbach's α may reflect the large number
Professional characteristic Mean score
of items in the questionnaire (Streiner and Kottner, 2014). To increase
Teaching knowledge Research action Overall
the meaningfulness and facilitate interpretation of the CONE score, six
and (/150) (/50) (/465)
subsets of capabilities were developed which reflect the five capability
Number of papers in past 2 years themes that emerged from preliminary research: Teaching Knowledge
0 126
1–5 130
and Practice, Drawing from Nursing Knowledge, Teaching Relation-
6–10 131 ships, Leadership, Orientation to Research, and Research Action. Each
11–15 135 of these subsets also demonstrated high internal consistency. Thus, it
15+ 136 will be best for future users of the CONE to work with the subsets of
Years as a nurse educator the questionnaire, which will assist them in identifying their particular
b1 31 areas of strength from their scores in these subsets, along with areas
1–3 36 for further professional development.
4–6 37
Professional practice items included in the research survey provided
7–9 38
10–12 41 a basis for investigating the reliability of the CONE questionnaire in this
12+ 41 population. It was expected that CONE scores would be positively relat-
ed to indicators of professional activities and achievement, as well as to
Level of education
Bachelor of nursing 377 experience in nurse and educator roles. The analysis largely supported
Grad cert nursing 395 these expectations: more years of experience (nurse and educator),
Grad dip nursing 390 postgraduate qualifications, project leadership behavior, and the recent
Master's degree 400 publication of research papers and books correlated with significantly
Doctorate 405
higher CONE scores.
126 M. McAllister, T. Flynn / Nurse Education Today 39 (2016) 122–127

Table 4
Significance of differences in CONE scores between ordinal categories of professional characteristics.

Professional character categories Teaching knowledge Draw from nursing Teaching Leadership Research Research Total
and practice knowledge rel'ships orientat'n action score

Years as Nurse Educator (b 10 vs 10+) b.05 ns b.05 ns b.001 b.05 b.01

Context of practice
Joint vs single b .05 b.01 ns b.05 b.01 b.001 ns
Academic vs health service ns ns ns ns b .05 b .05 ns
Highest level of education (PhD/Mas vs BN) b.001 ns ns ns b.001 b.001 b.01
Member of nursing professoriate (yes vs no) ns ns ns b.01 ns ns Clear trend⁎
Led projects in past 2 y (yes vs no) b.01 ns ns b.001 b.001 b.01 b.001
Published papers in past 2 y (1+ vs none) b.001 ns ns b.05 b.001 b.001 b.001
Published books in past 2 y (1+ vs none) b.001 b.01 ns b.01 b.001 b.001 b.001
Recently presented at conferences (yes vs no) ns ns b.05 b.05 ns ns b.01
Teaching award (yes vs no) b.001 ns ns ns ns b.001 ns

Note. Values are p values for Kruskal–Wallis H test; ns = not significant.

⁎ Missing items resulted in an n for this group that was too small for reliable statistical analysis.

In addition, most of the scores within subsets demonstrated associ-
ations in the expected directions with pertinent indicators of profes-
sional practice. Respondents who had previously received a teaching
award scored higher in the Teaching Knowledge and Practice subset
than did those who had not. Years of experience as a nurse and nurse
educator was positively associated with the Teaching Relationships
score, and scores for the two research subsets were strongly associated
with dissemination behavior and having a higher research degree. Final-
ly, Leadership scores were positively associated with a number of repre-
sentative characteristics, including being an associate professor or
professor, having recently published, and a recent history of project
leadership behavior.
An interesting finding to emerge from the analysis was the ap-
parent advantage of working within both the clinical and academic
settings, an issue regularly discussed in the literature (Elliott and
Wall, 2008; Meskell et al., 2009). Compared with respondents work-
ing in only one of these settings, those who worked in both settings
demonstrated higher scores in all subsets except Teaching Relation-
ships. This finding suggests that offering nursing educators opportu-
nities to rotate through clinical and academic settings to refresh and
develop their capabilities may be beneficial. Similarly, more joint
appointments within nursing schools and health services may be
of value.
On a related theme, no significant differences were observed be-
tween the scores of academic respondents and those of health ser-
vice educators in four subsets (Teaching Knowledge and Practice,
Drawing from Nursing Knowledge, Teaching Relationships, Leader-
ship), or for the total score. However, not unexpectedly, the scores
of health service educators were lower on the two research subsets.
These results suggest that the CONE is useful for educators working
in both settings.
The test–retest analysis demonstrated the reliability of the CONE
over time in this population. Score patterns observed among re-
spondents who had participated in professional development dur-
ing the follow-up period suggest that the CONE may also be useful
as an assessment or evaluation tool in relation to professional devel-
opment initiatives for nurse educators. The finding that the overall
CONE and subset scores were responsive to small within-subset
gains in relation to educator capabilities (as evidenced by the pro-
gressive increase in the mean scores of the ordinal categories within
the indicators of professional practice examined) also supports this
view.
We felt that the Teaching Relationships subset was important to in-
clude in the CONE because of the shift in education to a student-
centered paradigm (Kuh, 2009). In the analysis, only three indicators
of professional practice were significantly associated with this subset
(more years of nursing and educator experience and conference presen-
tation), which may support the propositions of Kuh (2009) and Lerrett
and Frenn (2011) that this paradigm has not yet been fully integrated
into nursing education.
Limitations
Because the study employed convenience sampling, those who
responded probably saw the study's aims as valuable, which may have
introduced systematic bias and limit generalizability. However, partici-
pants were drawn from throughout Australian schools of nursing. It is
also acknowledged that the sample size is smaller than desirable,
given the length of the questionnaire, and further statistical analyses
(e.g. confirmatory factor analysis) are desirable.
Additionally, the majority of respondents were experienced
nurses and nurse educators who held a master's degree or a doc-
torate. Thus, the usefulness of the CONE has been demonstrated
only in this population of educators. Its usefulness for other popu-
lations, especially novice or aspiring educators lacking qualifica-
tions, requires confirmation. Also, the questionnaire's length and
time for completion (15 min) may reduce the CONE's usefulness.
However, the CONE was designed to be both educative and evaluative,
emerging from a detailed examination and representation of the com-
plex nurse educator role. Thus the CONE has the potential to inform,
promote reflection, and provide a comprehensive basis for self-
assessment; users may find that the CONE's benefits compensate for
the time invested in completing the questionnaire. Some may also
choose to focus only on one or more subsets of the questionnaire at
any particular time.
Conclusion
The Capabilities of Nurse Educators (CONE) is a questionnaire de-
veloped from comprehensive research into the complex require-
ments of the nurse educator role. While further confirmation is
required of the usefulness of the questionnaire in measuring the
components of the educator role, the CONE shows promising utility
for both academic and health service educators. In particular, the
questionnaire subsets may enable nurse educators to identify and ar-
ticulate their capability set, and to identify areas for future profes-
sional development. Test–retest indicators suggested that, in the
population examined, the CONE questionnaire was sensitive to
changes in perceived capability following participation in profes-
sional development activities, and thus may also be a useful evalua-
tion tool for other groups of educators.
Further research and statistical validation is recommended to
demonstrate that the questionnaire is a reliable and useful self-
diagnostic tool in career advancement, particularly in novice edu-
cators and educators outside Australia. For example, interviews
with educators after they have completed the CONE would determine
 M. McAllister, T. Flynn / Nurse Education Today 39 (2016) 122–127
if their questionnaire responses agree with their opinions and
perceptions.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge Professor Peter Dunn for his advice on the statisti-
cal analysis. We also thank Dr. Leigh Findlay (TrueNature Writing &
Editing) for editorial assistance.
References
Aiken, L., Cheung, H., 2008. Nurse workforce challenges in the United States. OECD Health
Working Papers, No. 35. OECD, Paris.
Alimo-Metcalfe, B., Alban-Metcalfe, J., 2008. Engaging Leadership: Creating Organisations
that Maximise the Potential of Their People. CIPD, London.
Australian Nursing and Midwifery Accreditation Council, 2012. Registered Nurse Accred-
itation Standards 2012. ANMAC, Canberra.
McAllister, Margaret, 2012. Challenges facing nursing education in Australia: two solu-
tions. J. Nurse Educ. Pract. 2 (1), 20–27.
McAllister, Margaret, 1998. Competency standards: Clarifying the issues. Contemp. Nurse
7 (3), 131–137.
McAllister, Margaret, Oprescu, F., Jones, C., 2014. N2E. Envisioning a process to support
transition from nurse to educator. Contemp. Nurse 46 (2), 246–252.
McAllister, Margaret, Mosel Williams, L., Gamble, T., Malko-Nyhan, K., Jones, C., 2011.
Steps towards empowerment: an examination of the needs of Australian nurse edu-
cators working in training colleges, health services and universities. Contemp. Nurse
38 (1–2), 6–17.
Benner, P., Sutphen, M., Leonard, V., Day, L., 2009. Educating Nurses: A Call for Radical
Transformation. Wiley, New Jersey, USA.
Chapman, H., 1999. Some important limitations of competency-based education with re-
spect to nurse education: an Australian perspective. Nurse Educ. Today 19 (2), 129–135.
Cowan, D., Norman, I., Coopamah, V., 2005. Competence in nursing practice: a controver-
sial concept—a focused review of the literature. Nurse Educ. Today 25 (5), 355–362.
DeVellis, R.F., 2003. Scale Development: Theory and Applications. second ed Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
127
Elliott, M., Wall, N., 2008. Should nurse academics engage in clinical practice? Nurse Educ.
Today 28, 580–587.
Gardner, A., Hase, S., Gardner, G., Dunn, S.V., Carryer, J., 2008. From competence to capa-
bility: a study of nurse practitioners in clinical practice. J. Clin. Nurs. 17 (2), 250–258.
Garet, M., 2001. What makes professional development effective? Results from a national
sample of teachers. Am. Educ. Res. J. 38 (4), 915–945.
Guy, J., Taylor, C., Roden, J., Blundell, J., Tolhurst, G., 2011. Reframing the Australian nurse
teacher competencies: do they reflect the ‘REAL’ world of nurse teacher practice?
Nurse Educ. Today 31 (3), 231–237.
Halstead, J., 2007. Nurse Educator Competencies. National League for Nursing, Washington
DC.
Joynt, K., Kimball, B., 2008. Blowing open the bottleneck: Designing new approaches
to increase nurse education capacity. Retrieved 27 August 2015 from http://
campaignforaction.org/sites/default/files/Nursing%20Education%20Capacity%
20White%20Paper%20%20PDF%20verision%206-18-08.pdf.
Kalb, K., O'Conner-Von, S., 2012. Strategies in education: Breaking down silos, building up
teams. Health Prog. 93 (3), 38–45.
Kuh, G., 2009. What student affairs professionals need to know about student engage-
ment. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 50 (6), 683–706.
Lerrett, S., Frenn, M., 2011. Challenge with care: reflections on teaching excellence. J. Prof.
Nurs. 27 (6), 378–384.
Meskell, P., Murphy, K., Shaw, D., 2009. The clinical role of lecturers in nursing in Ireland:
perceptions from key stakeholder groups in nurse education on the role. Nurse Educ.
Today 29 (7), 784–790.
Nussbaum, M., 2004. Hiding from Humanity. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Orsolini-Hain, L., Malone, R.E., 2007. Examining the impending gap in clinical nursing ex-
pertise. Policy Polit. Nurs. Pract. 8 (3), 158–169.
Polit, D.F., Beck, C.T., 2012. Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for
Nursing Practice. nineth ed Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA: Wolter, Kluwer,
Lippincott.
Streiner, D., Kottner, J., 2014. Recommendations for reporting the results of studies of in-
strument and scale development and testing. J. Adv. Nurs. 70 (9), 1970–1979.
Tabachnik, B.G., Fidell, L.S., 2007. Using multivariate statistics. fifth ed Allyn & Bacon,
Boston, MA.
Thorne, S.E., 2006. Nursing education: key issues for the 21st century. Nurse Educ. Pract. 6
(6), 306–313.