Reliability and construct validation of the Blended Learning Usability Evaluation-Questionnaire with interprofessional clinicians in Canada: a methodological study.

IF 9.3 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Anish Kumar Arora, Jeff Myers, Tavis Apramian, Kulamakan Kulasegaram, Daryl Bainbridge, Hsien Seow
{"title":"Reliability and construct validation of the Blended Learning Usability Evaluation-Questionnaire with interprofessional clinicians in Canada: a methodological study.","authors":"Anish Kumar Arora, Jeff Myers, Tavis Apramian, Kulamakan Kulasegaram, Daryl Bainbridge, Hsien Seow","doi":"10.3352/jeehp.2025.22.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To generate Cronbach's alpha and further mixed methods construct validity evidence for the Blended Learning Usability Evaluation-Questionnaire (BLUE-Q).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Forty interprofessional clinicians completed the BLUE-Q after finishing a 3-month long blended learning professional development program in Ontario, Canada. Reliability was assessed with Cronbach's α for each of the 3 sections of the BLUE-Q and for all quantitative items together. Construct validity was evaluated through the Grand-Guillaume-Perrenoud et al. framework, which consists of 3 elements: congruence, convergence, and credibility. To compare quantitative and qualitative results, descriptive statistics, including means and standard deviations for each Likert scale item of the BLUE-Q were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Cronbach's α was 0.95 for the pedagogical usability section, 0.85 for the synchronous modality section, 0.93 for the asynchronous modality section, and 0.96 for all quantitative items together. Mean ratings (with standard deviations) were 4.77 (0.506) for pedagogy, 4.64 (0.654) for synchronous learning, and 4.75 (0.536) for asynchronous learning. Of the 239 qualitative comments received, 178 were identified as substantive, of which 88% were considered congruent and 79% were considered convergent with the high means. Among all congruent responses, 69% were considered confirming statements and 31% were considered clarifying statements, suggesting appropriate credibility. Analysis of the clarifying statements assisted in identifying 5 categories of suggestions for program improvement.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The BLUE-Q demonstrates high reliability and appropriate construct validity in the context of a blended learning program with interprofessional clinicians, making it a valuable tool for comprehensive program evaluation, quality improvement, and evaluative research in health professions education.</p>","PeriodicalId":46098,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","volume":"22 ","pages":"5"},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11955914/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.2025.22.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To generate Cronbach's alpha and further mixed methods construct validity evidence for the Blended Learning Usability Evaluation-Questionnaire (BLUE-Q).

Methods: Forty interprofessional clinicians completed the BLUE-Q after finishing a 3-month long blended learning professional development program in Ontario, Canada. Reliability was assessed with Cronbach's α for each of the 3 sections of the BLUE-Q and for all quantitative items together. Construct validity was evaluated through the Grand-Guillaume-Perrenoud et al. framework, which consists of 3 elements: congruence, convergence, and credibility. To compare quantitative and qualitative results, descriptive statistics, including means and standard deviations for each Likert scale item of the BLUE-Q were calculated.

Results: Cronbach's α was 0.95 for the pedagogical usability section, 0.85 for the synchronous modality section, 0.93 for the asynchronous modality section, and 0.96 for all quantitative items together. Mean ratings (with standard deviations) were 4.77 (0.506) for pedagogy, 4.64 (0.654) for synchronous learning, and 4.75 (0.536) for asynchronous learning. Of the 239 qualitative comments received, 178 were identified as substantive, of which 88% were considered congruent and 79% were considered convergent with the high means. Among all congruent responses, 69% were considered confirming statements and 31% were considered clarifying statements, suggesting appropriate credibility. Analysis of the clarifying statements assisted in identifying 5 categories of suggestions for program improvement.

Conclusion: The BLUE-Q demonstrates high reliability and appropriate construct validity in the context of a blended learning program with interprofessional clinicians, making it a valuable tool for comprehensive program evaluation, quality improvement, and evaluative research in health professions education.

加拿大跨专业临床医生混合式学习可用性评估问卷的信度与结构验证:一项方法学研究。
目的:为混合式学习可用性评估问卷(BLUE-Q)生成Cronbach’s alpha,并进一步采用混合方法构建效度证据。方法:在加拿大安大略省完成为期3个月的混合学习专业发展项目后,40名跨专业临床医生完成了BLUE-Q。采用Cronbach's α对BLUE-Q的3个部分和所有定量项目进行信度评估。通过Grand-Guillaume-Perrenoud等人的框架评估结构效度,该框架由3个要素组成:一致性、收敛性和可信度。为了比较定量和定性结果,对BLUE-Q的每个李克特量表项目进行描述性统计,包括平均值和标准差。结果:教学可用性部分的Cronbach's α为0.95,同步模态部分为0.85,异步模态部分为0.93,所有定量项目加起来为0.96。教学法的平均评分(含标准差)为4.77(0.506),同步学习的平均评分为4.64(0.654),异步学习的平均评分为4.75(0.536)。在收到的239条定性评论中,178条被确定为实质性评论,其中88%被认为是一致的,79%被认为是与高均值收敛的。在所有一致的回答中,69%被认为是确认陈述,31%被认为是澄清陈述,表明适当的可信度。对澄清陈述的分析有助于确定5类方案改进建议。结论:BLUE-Q量表在跨专业临床医生混合学习项目中具有较高的信度和适当的结构效度,可作为卫生专业教育综合项目评估、质量改进和评价研究的重要工具。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信