Development and validation of the student ratings in clinical teaching scale in Australia: a methodological study

IF 9.3 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Pin-Hsiang Huang, Anthony John O'Sullivan, Boaz Shulruf
{"title":"Development and validation of the student ratings in clinical teaching scale in Australia: a methodological study","authors":"Pin-Hsiang Huang, Anthony John O'Sullivan, Boaz Shulruf","doi":"10.3352/jeehp.2023.20.26","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to devise a valid measurement for assessing clinical students' perceptions of teaching practices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A new tool was developed based on a meta-analysis encompassing effective clinical teaching-learning factors. Seventy-nine items were generated using a frequency (never to always) scale. The tool was applied to the University of New South Wales year 2, 3, and 6 medical students. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (exploratory factor analysis [EFA] and confirmatory factor analysis [CFA], respectively) were conducted to establish the tool’s construct validity and goodness of fit, and Cronbach’s α was used for reliability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 352 students (44.2%) completed the questionnaire. The EFA identified student-centered learning, problem-solving learning, self-directed learning, and visual technology (reliability, 0.77 to 0.89). CFA showed acceptable goodness of fit (chi-square P<0.01, comparative fit index=0.930 and Tucker-Lewis index=0.917, root mean square error of approximation=0.069, standardized root mean square residual=0.06).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The established tool—Student Ratings in Clinical Teaching (STRICT)—is a valid and reliable tool that demonstrates how students perceive clinical teaching efficacy. STRICT measures the frequency of teaching practices to mitigate the biases of acquiescence and social desirability. Clinical teachers may use the tool to adapt their teaching practices with more active learning activities and to utilize visual technology to facilitate clinical learning efficacy. Clinical educators may apply STRICT to assess how these teaching practices are implemented in current clinical settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":46098,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","volume":"20 ","pages":"26"},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10562831/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2023.20.26","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to devise a valid measurement for assessing clinical students' perceptions of teaching practices.

Methods: A new tool was developed based on a meta-analysis encompassing effective clinical teaching-learning factors. Seventy-nine items were generated using a frequency (never to always) scale. The tool was applied to the University of New South Wales year 2, 3, and 6 medical students. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (exploratory factor analysis [EFA] and confirmatory factor analysis [CFA], respectively) were conducted to establish the tool’s construct validity and goodness of fit, and Cronbach’s α was used for reliability.

Results: In total, 352 students (44.2%) completed the questionnaire. The EFA identified student-centered learning, problem-solving learning, self-directed learning, and visual technology (reliability, 0.77 to 0.89). CFA showed acceptable goodness of fit (chi-square P<0.01, comparative fit index=0.930 and Tucker-Lewis index=0.917, root mean square error of approximation=0.069, standardized root mean square residual=0.06).

Conclusion: The established tool—Student Ratings in Clinical Teaching (STRICT)—is a valid and reliable tool that demonstrates how students perceive clinical teaching efficacy. STRICT measures the frequency of teaching practices to mitigate the biases of acquiescence and social desirability. Clinical teachers may use the tool to adapt their teaching practices with more active learning activities and to utilize visual technology to facilitate clinical learning efficacy. Clinical educators may apply STRICT to assess how these teaching practices are implemented in current clinical settings.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

澳大利亚临床教学量表学生评分的制定和验证:一项方法学研究
目的:本研究旨在设计一种有效的测量方法来评估临床学生对教学实践的看法。方法:在荟萃分析的基础上开发了一种新的工具,包括有效的临床教学因素。使用频率(从不到总是)量表生成了79个项目。该工具应用于新南威尔士大学2、3和6年级的医学生。进行探索性和验证性因素分析(分别为探索性因素分析[EEF]和验证性因子分析[CAF]),以确定工具的结构有效性和拟合优度,并使用Cronbachα进行信度分析。结果:共有352名学生(44.2%)完成了问卷调查。全民教育确定了以学生为中心的学习、解决问题的学习、自主学习和视觉技术(可靠性,0.77至0.89)。CFA显示出可接受的拟合优度(卡方P结论:已建立的工具——临床教学中的学生评分(STRICT)——是一个有效可靠的工具,可以证明学生如何感知临床教学效果。STRICT测量教学实践的频率,以减轻默许和社会可取性的偏见。临床教师可以使用该工具使他们的教学实践与更积极的学习活动相适应,并利用视觉技术来促进临床学习效果。临床教育工作者可以应用STRICT来评估这些教学实践在当前临床环境中的实施情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
32
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions aims to provide readers the state-of-the art practical information on the educational evaluation for health professions so that to increase the quality of undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education. It is specialized in educational evaluation including adoption of measurement theory to medical health education, promotion of high stakes examination such as national licensing examinations, improvement of nationwide or international programs of education, computer-based testing, computerized adaptive testing, and medical health regulatory bodies. Its field comprises a variety of professions that address public medical health as following but not limited to: Care workers Dental hygienists Dental technicians Dentists Dietitians Emergency medical technicians Health educators Medical record technicians Medical technologists Midwives Nurses Nursing aides Occupational therapists Opticians Oriental medical doctors Oriental medicine dispensers Oriental pharmacists Pharmacists Physical therapists Physicians Prosthetists and Orthotists Radiological technologists Rehabilitation counselor Sanitary technicians Speech-language therapists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信