Effectiveness of Motivational Package on Academic Motivation and Performance Among Nursing Students: A Randamized Controlled Trial

ERCT Criteria Breakdown

• Level 1 Criteria

  • C

    Class-level RCT

    • The study is an explicitly quasi-experimental design using total enumerative sampling, with no randomisation described at any level.
    • "A quasi-experimental design with control and intervention groups was employed to evaluate the effectiveness of a Motivational package..."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "A quasi-experimental study was conducted with 80 nursing students, equally divided into control and intervention groups." (Abstract, p. 69) 2) "A quasi-experimental design with control and intervention groups was employed to evaluate the effectiveness of a Motivational package on academic motivation and performance among first-year B.Sc. Nursing students." (Methodology, p. 70-71) 3) "A total of 80 students were recruited using total enumerative sampling, including those present during data collection and excluding those unwilling to participate." (Methodology, p. 71) 4) "Data were collected via self-administration, with control group data gathered first to prevent contamination, followed by intervention delivery and post-tests in the experimental group." (Methodology, p. 71) Detailed Analysis: Criterion C requires the study to be a Randomised Controlled Trial with randomisation clearly described and properly implemented, at least at the class level (or student level for personal tutoring exceptions). Although the title calls the study a "Randamized Controlled Trial," the methods section explicitly and repeatedly describes the design as "quasi-experimental" and reports that participants were recruited by "total enumerative sampling," i.e., all available students were taken rather than randomly allocated. There is no description anywhere in the paper of any randomisation procedure (no random number generator, no random allocation, no unit of randomisation). The two groups appear to have been pre-existing groups whose data were collected sequentially. With no randomisation described or implemented at any level (student, class, or school), the study is not an RCT and the C criterion cannot be satisfied. Criterion C is not met because the study is explicitly a quasi-experimental design using total enumerative sampling with no randomisation described at any level.
  • E

    Exam-based Assessment

    • Outcomes were measured using a self-report motivation scale and researcher-developed proformas, not a standardised exam-based achievement assessment.
    • "Data collection instruments included a background variables proforma, academic performance proforma, the standardized Academic Motivation Scale (AMS-C 28), and a researcher-developed acceptability scale."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Academic motivation was measured using the AMS-C 28 scale, alongside amotivation and academic performance indicators." (Abstract, p. 69) 2) "Data collection instruments included a background variables proforma, academic performance proforma, the standardized Academic Motivation Scale (AMS-C 28), and a researcher-developed acceptability scale. Validity was established through expert review, and reliability coefficients were 0.77 for self-confidence and 0.79 for academic motivation." (Methodology, p. 71) 3) "The independent variable was the motivational package, while the dependent variables were academic motivation and academic performance." (Methodology, p. 71) Detailed Analysis: Criterion E requires a standardised, widely recognised exam-based assessment of educational outcomes, not a measure specially designed for the study. The primary outcome instruments here are the AMS-C 28 (Academic Motivation Scale), which is a standardized psychological self-report questionnaire measuring motivation, not an exam-based academic achievement test, and a "researcher-developed acceptability scale" and "academic performance proforma," which are custom-made by the researcher. The AMS-C 28 measures a psychological construct (motivation/amotivation) rather than subject-matter academic achievement via a standardised exam. The "academic performance" was assessed via a researcher-developed proforma, not a recognised standardised national or state achievement exam. Therefore no standardised exam-based assessment of academic achievement was used. Criterion E is not met because outcomes were measured with a self-report motivation scale and researcher-developed proformas rather than a standardised exam-based achievement assessment.
  • T

    Term Duration

    • A two-week intervention with only an immediate post-test reported (no three-month data presented) does not demonstrate term-long tracking, so T is not met.
    • "Both groups were assessed through a pretest, followed by post-tests at one week and three months."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The package was delivered for two hours per day, three days a week, over two weeks." (Methodology, p. 71) 2) "Both groups were assessed through a pretest, followed by post-tests at one week and three months." (Methodology, p. 71) 3) "The intervention group received a two-week MEP comprising lectures, presentations, time and stress management strategies..." (Abstract, p. 69) Detailed Analysis: Criterion T requires that outcomes be measured at least one full academic term (approximately 3-4 months) after the intervention begins. The intervention itself ran only two weeks. The standard allows naturally short interventions provided there is term-long follow-up tracking from the start of the intervention. The Methodology states post-tests were administered "at one week and three months," which, measured from the intervention start, would reach roughly three months and thus approximately one term. However, the reported results tables present only a single "Post Test 1" and report no three-month outcome data; the tables and discussion describe immediate post-intervention comparisons. The only documented post-test results correspond to the short post-intervention measurement, and the three-month measurement is mentioned but not reported, leaving the interval from start to the actual reported primary outcome at roughly one to two weeks, shorter than a full term. Given the absence of any reported three-month outcome data and that the only analysed primary outcome corresponds to the immediate post-test, the term-duration requirement is not demonstrably met. Criterion T is not met because the only reported primary outcome corresponds to a short post-intervention measurement and no actual three-month (one-term) follow-up data are presented.
  • D

    Documented Control Group

    • The control group's demographics, size, baseline academic characteristics, and scores are documented in detail across multiple tables.
    • "Table 1depicts that the control and intervention groups were homogeneous and comparable across baseline demographic variables (age, native state, domicile, and family income)."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "A quasi-experimental study was conducted with 80 nursing students, equally divided into control and intervention groups." (Abstract, p. 69) 2) "Table 1depicts that the control and intervention groups were homogeneous and comparable across baseline demographic variables (age, native state, domicile, and family income)." (p. 71-72) 3) "Table 1 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Baseline Variables among Nursing Students (N=80)" [provides control group n=40 frequencies and percentages for age, native state, domicile, monthly family income] (p. 71) 4) Tables 2-7 provide control-group baseline academic variables and pre-test motivation/performance levels (control n=40), e.g., "Pretest Good 21 52.5" for the control group's motivation. (pp. 72-75) 5) "Data were collected via self-administration, with control group data gathered first to prevent contamination..." (Methodology, p. 71) Detailed Analysis: Criterion D requires the control group to be well-documented, including demographic information, baseline performance, and treatments received. The paper provides extensive baseline documentation for the control group (n=40): Table 1 details age, native state, domicile, and monthly family income; Table 2 details academic background variables (type of school, medium of instruction, prior SSLC/Higher Secondary performance, study habits, self-confidence); and Tables 3-7 report the control group's baseline and post-test motivation and performance scores. The paper also makes clear the control group received no motivational package (business as usual). The control group's composition, size, and baseline characteristics are therefore clearly documented. Criterion D is met because the control group's demographics, size, baseline academic characteristics, and pre/post scores are documented in detail across Tables 1-7.

• Level 2 Criteria

  • S

    School-level RCT

    • The study used no randomisation at any level and therefore no school-level random assignment.
    • "A total of 80 students were recruited using total enumerative sampling..."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "A quasi-experimental design with control and intervention groups was employed..." (Methodology, p. 70-71) 2) "A total of 80 students were recruited using total enumerative sampling..." (Methodology, p. 71) 3) "The study was conducted after obtaining ethical clearance from the Institutional Ethics Committee and permission from the concerned authorities of the selected nursing colleges." (Methodology, p. 70) Detailed Analysis: Criterion S requires randomisation at the school level (the educational institution or unit implementing the intervention). This study is quasi-experimental with no randomisation at any level, let alone the school level. There is no statement that whole nursing colleges or schools were randomly assigned; the allocation was to control/intervention groups of individual students recruited by total enumerative sampling within selected nursing colleges. With no school-level (or any-level) randomisation, this criterion is not met. Criterion S is not met because the study used no randomisation at any level, and certainly not school-level random assignment.
  • I

    Independent Conduct

    • The same researcher designed, delivered, and evaluated the intervention, with no independent third-party evaluator.
    • "The intervention group received the Motivational package, designed by the researcher..."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The intervention group received the Motivational package, designed by the researcher, which consisted of lectures, presentations, time and stress management strategies, positive behaviour therapy, videos of inspiring personalities, group activities, and humour/laughter therapy." (Methodology, p. 71) 2) "Data were collected via self-administration, with control group data gathered first to prevent contamination, followed by intervention delivery and post-tests in the experimental group." (Methodology, p. 71) 3) "Data collection instruments included ... a researcher-developed acceptability scale." (Methodology, p. 71) Detailed Analysis: Criterion I requires the study to be conducted independently from the authors who designed the intervention, using third-party evaluators to reduce bias. Here the paper explicitly states the Motivational package was "designed by the researcher," and the same researcher/team delivered the intervention, developed the proformas, and collected the data. There is no mention of any external or independent evaluation team, no blinded assessors, and no third-party oversight. The same team designed, delivered, and evaluated the intervention. Criterion I is not met because the package was designed by the researcher and the same team delivered and evaluated it, with no independent or third-party evaluator involved.
  • Y

    Year Duration

    • The longest follow-up was three months, far short of the 75%-of-an-academic-year requirement.
    • "Both groups were assessed through a pretest, followed by post-tests at one week and three months."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The package was delivered for two hours per day, three days a week, over two weeks." (Methodology, p. 71) 2) "Both groups were assessed through a pretest, followed by post-tests at one week and three months." (Methodology, p. 71) Detailed Analysis: Criterion Y requires outcomes to be measured at least 75% of one full academic year (approximately 7-8 months) after the intervention begins. The intervention lasted two weeks, and the longest follow-up reported was at three months from the intervention start. Three months is far short of 75% of an academic year. Therefore the year-duration requirement is not satisfied. (Note: per the standard, Y also requires T to be met; T is met here, but the duration still falls well short of a year.) Criterion Y is not met because the longest follow-up (three months) is far shorter than 75% of an academic year.
  • B

    Balanced Control Group

    • The additional time and resources constitute the motivational package itself, which is the explicit treatment variable tested against a business-as-usual control.
    • "The independent variable was the motivational package, while the dependent variables were academic motivation and academic performance."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The intervention group received the Motivational package, designed by the researcher, which consisted of lectures, presentations, time and stress management strategies, positive behaviour therapy, videos of inspiring personalities, group activities, and humour/laughter therapy. The package was delivered for two hours per day, three days a week, over two weeks." (Methodology, p. 71) 2) "The independent variable was the motivational package, while the dependent variables were academic motivation and academic performance." (Methodology, p. 71) 3) "the present study evaluated the effectiveness of a Motivational package in improving academic motivation and performance among nursing students." (Abstract, p. 69) Detailed Analysis: Criterion B requires comparing the nature, quantity, and quality of resources (time, budget, materials) given to intervention versus control groups, unless additional resources are themselves the explicit treatment variable. The intervention group received substantial additional educational time and resources: a structured motivational package delivered two hours per day, three days a week, over two weeks (roughly 12 hours of additional facilitated sessions), plus lectures, videos, group activities, and therapy components. The control group received nothing additional ("business as usual"); the paper describes no equivalent time, activity, or resource provided to the control group. Applying the decision tree: extra resources are present (added facilitated hours and materials) and the difference is not negligible (about 12 hours of extra structured sessions). The key question is whether these additional resources are the explicit treatment variable being tested. The paper explicitly names "the motivational package" as the independent variable and states the study's aim is to "evaluate the effectiveness of a Motivational package" - i.e., the motivational package as a whole, including its added time and activities, IS the intervention being tested against a business-as-usual baseline. The added time and resources are integral to and inseparable from the package being evaluated, not a separable confounding add-on layered on top of a different core intervention. Under the standard's logic (a study explicitly testing the impact of a resource package as the primary treatment variable may leave the control at business-as-usual), this allows Criterion B to be met, while clearly noting that the intervention group received considerable additional facilitated time and materials that the control group did not. Criterion B is met because the additional time and resources (the structured motivational package) are the explicit treatment variable being tested against a business-as-usual control, rather than a separable, confounding add-on.

• Level 3 Criteria

  • R

    Reproduced

    • No independent replication of this specific motivational-package study exists; cited works are different interventions, not replications.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Despite these advances, there remains a gap in the literature regarding comprehensive motivational packages tailored specifically for nursing students in India." (Introduction, p. 70) 2) "Addressing this gap, the present study investigates the effectiveness of a Motivational package comprising lectures, presentations, stress management, positive behaviour therapy, videos, group activities, and humour/laughter therapy in improving academic motivation and performance among undergraduate nursing students." (Introduction, p. 70) Detailed Analysis: Criterion R requires the specific study to have been independently replicated by a different research team in a different context, published in a peer-reviewed journal. This is a newly conducted study explicitly framed as filling a gap with no prior comparable study in this Indian nursing context, and no replication of this specific researcher-designed motivational package is reported. The paper cites broadly related motivational-intervention studies (e.g., Kaur & Singh, 2024; Rahman et al., 2023; Uslusoy et al., 2024; Kavak & Kazanc, 2026), but these are different interventions (ARCS model, metaverse learning, stress workshops) by different teams, not independent replications of this specific motivational package and design. An internet search of available sources (journal databases, Google Scholar, trial registries) identified no independent replication of this specific study; no external replication could be located. Criterion R is not met because no independent replication of this specific motivational-package study exists; cited studies are different interventions rather than replications.
  • A

    All-subject Exams

    • Criterion E is not met and the study did not assess all core subjects via standardised exams, so this criterion fails.
    • "The independent variable was the motivational package, while the dependent variables were academic motivation and academic performance."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The independent variable was the motivational package, while the dependent variables were academic motivation and academic performance." (Methodology, p. 71) 2) "Academic motivation was measured using the AMS-C 28 scale, alongside amotivation and academic performance indicators." (Abstract, p. 69) 3) "Data collection instruments included a background variables proforma, academic performance proforma, the standardized Academic Motivation Scale (AMS-C 28), and a researcher-developed acceptability scale." (Methodology, p. 71) Detailed Analysis: Criterion A requires measuring impact on all main subjects using standardised exam-based assessments, and it explicitly depends on Criterion E being met. Here Criterion E is not met (the study used a self-report motivation scale and researcher-developed proformas rather than standardised exam-based achievement assessments). Therefore Criterion A automatically fails. Furthermore, the outcomes measured are academic motivation (a psychological construct) and a researcher-rated academic performance proforma; no standardised exams across all core subjects were administered. Criterion A is not met because Criterion E is not met and the study did not assess all core subjects via standardised exams.
  • G

    Graduation Tracking

    • Criterion Y is not met and tracking ended at three months with no follow-up to graduation.
    • "Both groups were assessed through a pretest, followed by post-tests at one week and three months."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Both groups were assessed through a pretest, followed by post-tests at one week and three months." (Methodology, p. 71) 2) "A quasi-experimental design with control and intervention groups was employed to evaluate the effectiveness of a Motivational package on academic motivation and performance among first-year B.Sc. Nursing students." (Methodology, p. 70-71) Detailed Analysis: Criterion G requires tracking participants until their graduation, and it explicitly depends on Criterion Y being met. Criterion Y is not met here (longest follow-up only three months). The study followed first-year B.Sc. Nursing students for at most three months and reports no tracking through to graduation from the nursing program. An internet search of available sources found no subsequent follow-up publications by the same authors tracking this cohort to graduation. Therefore graduation tracking is absent. Criterion G is not met because Criterion Y is not met and the study tracked students for only three months with no follow-up to graduation (no follow-up publications found).
  • P

    Pre-Registered

    • The paper reports only ethics-committee clearance and provides no evidence of pre-registration on any trial registry.
    • "The study was conducted after obtaining ethical clearance from the Institutional Ethics Committee..."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The study was conducted after obtaining ethical clearance from the Institutional Ethics Committee and permission from the concerned authorities of the selected nursing colleges." (Methodology, p. 70) 2) (No statement of pre-registration on any trial registry is present anywhere in the paper.) Detailed Analysis: Criterion P requires that the full study protocol be pre-registered on a recognised registry (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov, CTRI, ISRCTN) before data collection began, with hypotheses, methods, and planned analyses specified. The paper mentions only ethical clearance from an Institutional Ethics Committee, which is not the same as pre-registration. There is no registry name, no registration ID, and no registration date provided anywhere in the paper. An internet search of trial registries (including the Clinical Trials Registry - India and ClinicalTrials.gov) did not locate any pre-registration for this study. Criterion P is not met because the paper provides no evidence of any pre-registration on a trial registry before data collection, and none could be located online.