Initial Validity Evidence for the Student Health Equity Survey: Assessing Knowledge, Attitudes, and Capacity across Health Professions Programs.

MedEdPublish (2016) Pub Date : 2025-11-07 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.12688/mep.21128.1
Maranda C Ward, Trudy Mallinson, Charles Cobbs Iv, Rohini Ganjoo
{"title":"Initial Validity Evidence for the Student Health Equity Survey: Assessing Knowledge, Attitudes, and Capacity across Health Professions Programs.","authors":"Maranda C Ward, Trudy Mallinson, Charles Cobbs Iv, Rohini Ganjoo","doi":"10.12688/mep.21128.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Construct: </strong>Health equity can be understood as an opportunity to achieve one's fullest health potential and health professionals play a central role in advancing this aim. Thus, equipping health professional students with key competencies is paramount to achieving health equity.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>There is no universally accepted definition of health equity. As such, standardized training of health professions students to address the unfair burden of poor outcomes among socially disadvantaged populations does not exist. These ongoing threats to health equity can be mitigated with competency-based training. We assess the health professions training programs at an academic medical center that has documented health equity values and no standardized or measurable health equity curriculum.</p><p><strong>Approach: </strong>We collected validity evidence for an instrument, the Student Health Equity Survey, to assess what students across nine health professions programs know and perceive about health equity concepts. Our 36-item instrument reflects the tenets of the Health Equity Framework. Content validity was assessed using an expert panel of faculty, staff and potential employers while content validity was further assessed alongside response process validity through cognitive testing-based focus groups. We used a Rasch analysis to assess for preliminary internal structural validity and construct validity. We strengthened our assessment of construct validity with an assessment of relationships between subscales through a series of cross plots and corresponding correlation coefficients for student measures on each subscale.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Content and response process validity were established. Construct validity for the capacity, perspective taking, and reflection subscales included Cronbach's alphas of 0.97, 0.71, and 0.82, respectively. The Cronbach alpha for the knowledge scale was low. Threats to construct validity are thought to be due in large part to sample selection bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We developed a competency-based instrument to measure health equity knowledge, attitudes, and capacity of entering health professions students. Further research is necessary to test this instrument among health professions graduates entering the workforce.</p>","PeriodicalId":74136,"journal":{"name":"MedEdPublish (2016)","volume":"15 ","pages":"246"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13054251/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MedEdPublish (2016)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/mep.21128.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Construct: Health equity can be understood as an opportunity to achieve one's fullest health potential and health professionals play a central role in advancing this aim. Thus, equipping health professional students with key competencies is paramount to achieving health equity.

Background: There is no universally accepted definition of health equity. As such, standardized training of health professions students to address the unfair burden of poor outcomes among socially disadvantaged populations does not exist. These ongoing threats to health equity can be mitigated with competency-based training. We assess the health professions training programs at an academic medical center that has documented health equity values and no standardized or measurable health equity curriculum.

Approach: We collected validity evidence for an instrument, the Student Health Equity Survey, to assess what students across nine health professions programs know and perceive about health equity concepts. Our 36-item instrument reflects the tenets of the Health Equity Framework. Content validity was assessed using an expert panel of faculty, staff and potential employers while content validity was further assessed alongside response process validity through cognitive testing-based focus groups. We used a Rasch analysis to assess for preliminary internal structural validity and construct validity. We strengthened our assessment of construct validity with an assessment of relationships between subscales through a series of cross plots and corresponding correlation coefficients for student measures on each subscale.

Findings: Content and response process validity were established. Construct validity for the capacity, perspective taking, and reflection subscales included Cronbach's alphas of 0.97, 0.71, and 0.82, respectively. The Cronbach alpha for the knowledge scale was low. Threats to construct validity are thought to be due in large part to sample selection bias.

Conclusion: We developed a competency-based instrument to measure health equity knowledge, attitudes, and capacity of entering health professions students. Further research is necessary to test this instrument among health professions graduates entering the workforce.

学生健康公平调查的初始效度证据:评估卫生专业项目的知识、态度和能力。
构建:健康公平可以理解为充分发挥个人健康潜力的机会,卫生专业人员在推进这一目标方面发挥着核心作用。因此,使卫生专业学生具备关键能力对实现卫生公平至关重要。背景:卫生公平没有被普遍接受的定义。因此,没有对卫生专业学生进行标准化培训,以解决社会弱势群体中不良结果的不公平负担。这些对卫生公平的持续威胁可以通过基于能力的培训加以缓解。我们评估了一个学术性医疗中心的卫生专业培训项目,该中心记录了健康公平价值,但没有标准化或可衡量的健康公平课程。方法:我们收集了学生健康公平调查这一工具的效度证据,以评估九个卫生专业项目的学生对健康公平概念的了解和感知。我们的36项文书反映了卫生公平框架的原则。内容效度由教师、员工和潜在雇主组成的专家小组评估,而内容效度通过基于认知测试的焦点小组进一步评估,同时评估反应过程效度。我们使用Rasch分析来评估初步的内部结构效度和结构效度。我们通过一系列交叉图和每个子量表上学生测量的相应相关系数来评估子量表之间的关系,从而加强了我们对构念效度的评估。结果:建立了内容效度和反应过程效度。能力量表、透视量表和反思量表的结构效度分别为0.97、0.71和0.82。知识量表的Cronbach alpha值较低。对结构效度的威胁被认为在很大程度上是由于样本选择偏差。结论:我们开发了一个基于能力的工具来衡量健康公平知识、态度和进入卫生专业的学生的能力。有必要进一步研究,在进入劳动力市场的卫生专业毕业生中检验这一工具。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
2 weeks
×
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
小红书