NurseSavvy™
Log inSign Up

Data as of

What our student data shows

We measure whether NurseSavvy is working using our own students’ anonymous, aggregated study data. This page shows the results that meet our standard for publishing, how we got them, and what we are still measuring.

80.1%

Learning-flow cards answered correctly

20,919 answers from 183 students. 77.3% on a student’s first try at a card. Inside the 75–85% range we design for.

79.8%

Correct on spaced review a day or more later

2,202 review answers from 43 students: facts held at first-try accuracy after a delay.

What the two numbers mean

Learning flows sit in a productive difficulty range. Learning flows are short sets of interactive question cards that teach one topic. Cards that are almost always answered correctly teach little, and cards that are usually missed discourage students. We aim for roughly 75–85% correct, where effort is high and success is still likely. Across 20,919 answers, students got 80.1% right. That target is a design choice informed by learning research on desirable difficulty, not a proven nursing-school threshold. The research behind the design.

What students learn is still there later. When a card came back for spaced review more than a day after the last attempt, students answered 79.8% correctly, slightly above the 77.3% first-try rate. When a student missed a card and saw it again, they got it right 91.2% of the time: the explanation after a miss teaches the fact.

The full write-up is in our learning-flow data report.

How we measure

  • Real students only. Test accounts, staff and educator accounts are excluded.
  • Answers that can be missed. Some learning-flow cards only ask the student to read and tap continue. They are always “correct”, so they are left out. Including them would raise the headline to 82.9%.
  • Aggregates, never individuals. We publish totals only, and never a breakdown smaller than 20 students.
  • Statistical significance and size of effect, together. A comparison (for example, students who used a feature against students who did not) is published only when the difference is statistically significant (p < 0.05), at least 30 students are in each group, and it holds when we re-run it a month later. We report how large the difference is, not just that one exists.
  • The same metrics every time. We re-run this page on a fixed schedule (next: November 2026) and keep each metric on it whether the number goes up or down.

What we are still measuring

These are being tracked but do not have enough data yet. No numbers are shown until they meet the standard above.

  • Question-bank accuracy after a learning flow. Does studying a topic in a learning flow raise the same student’s score on NCLEX-style questions about that topic? Published when: Enough students have answered questions both on topics they studied in a flow and on topics they did not, for the difference to be statistically significant.
  • Readiness-exam change between attempts. Does a student’s ability estimate on the adaptive readiness exam rise between their first and latest attempt, and does it rise more for students who studied more in between? Published when: At least 30 students have retaken the exam and the change is larger than the exam’s own measurement error.
  • NCLEX pass rate. Of NurseSavvy students who tell us their result, how many passed the NCLEX on the first attempt? Published when: At least 30 students have reported a result.

What these numbers are not

  • This is internal product data, not a peer-reviewed study or a randomized trial.
  • Students choose to use NurseSavvy, and they choose how much. Our students may differ from nursing students in general.
  • Learning-flow accuracy measures recall on our own cards. It is not an NCLEX score or a prediction of passing. We make no claim about NCLEX results until we have reported outcomes to measure.

Questions about our methods, or interested in a cohort report for your nursing program? Email david@nursesavvy.com or see NurseSavvy for educators. How we review clinical content is in our editorial policy.