Construct Validity and Internal Consistency of the Physical Therapist Student Evaluation of Clinical Experience and Clinical Instruction

Sean P. Gallivan
{"title":"Construct Validity and Internal Consistency of the Physical Therapist Student Evaluation of Clinical Experience and Clinical Instruction","authors":"Sean P. Gallivan","doi":"10.1097/JTE.0000000000000259","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. The purpose of this research was to assess the construct validity and internal consistency of the Physical Therapist Student Evaluation of Clinical Experience and Clinical Instruction Section II: Physical Therapist Student Evaluation of Clinical Instruction (PTSE). Review of the Literature. Physical therapy lacks a psychometrically sound student assessment of the performance of clinical instructor (CI), providing a basis for assessing the PTSE's internal consistency and construct validity. Subjects. A nonprobability convenience sample of 5,077 students from 29 physical therapist education programs (PTEPs) completed 6,851 PTSEs using a third-party clinical education management platform. Methods. To assess the construct validity of the PTSE, the researcher conducted exploratory factor analysis with principal axis factor extraction and promax oblique rotation on 3 PTSE data subsets. The researcher conducted internal consistency analyses on the 21-item PTSE and on each factor identified in the factor analyses. Results. For each PTSE subset, factor analysis identified one factor of 17 items, CI Effectiveness, which accounted for 48.5%, 54.1%, and 53.8% of the variance of the 3 data subsets, respectively. Factor analysis did not identify a factor solution that included all 21 Likert scale–rated items of Section 2 of the PTSE. Resultant Cronbach's alpha values met minimum levels of acceptable internal consistency while exceeding the 0.90 level that raises the concern of item redundancy. Discussion and Conclusion. Factor analysis results find plausible explanations for their degree of alignment with assessment tool item writing construction and scaling standards, although a one-factor PTSE is inconsistent with historical and prevailing multiple constructs of CI effectiveness. Individual factor and all-item internal consistency results raise concerns regarding the number and the redundancy of the questions. Factor analysis and internal consistency analyses of PTSEs completed by students from a nonprobability convenience sample of PTEPs suggest that PTEPs need a more psychometrically sound tool to assess CI performance.","PeriodicalId":91351,"journal":{"name":"Journal, physical therapy education","volume":"36 1","pages":"283 - 292"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal, physical therapy education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JTE.0000000000000259","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction. The purpose of this research was to assess the construct validity and internal consistency of the Physical Therapist Student Evaluation of Clinical Experience and Clinical Instruction Section II: Physical Therapist Student Evaluation of Clinical Instruction (PTSE). Review of the Literature. Physical therapy lacks a psychometrically sound student assessment of the performance of clinical instructor (CI), providing a basis for assessing the PTSE's internal consistency and construct validity. Subjects. A nonprobability convenience sample of 5,077 students from 29 physical therapist education programs (PTEPs) completed 6,851 PTSEs using a third-party clinical education management platform. Methods. To assess the construct validity of the PTSE, the researcher conducted exploratory factor analysis with principal axis factor extraction and promax oblique rotation on 3 PTSE data subsets. The researcher conducted internal consistency analyses on the 21-item PTSE and on each factor identified in the factor analyses. Results. For each PTSE subset, factor analysis identified one factor of 17 items, CI Effectiveness, which accounted for 48.5%, 54.1%, and 53.8% of the variance of the 3 data subsets, respectively. Factor analysis did not identify a factor solution that included all 21 Likert scale–rated items of Section 2 of the PTSE. Resultant Cronbach's alpha values met minimum levels of acceptable internal consistency while exceeding the 0.90 level that raises the concern of item redundancy. Discussion and Conclusion. Factor analysis results find plausible explanations for their degree of alignment with assessment tool item writing construction and scaling standards, although a one-factor PTSE is inconsistent with historical and prevailing multiple constructs of CI effectiveness. Individual factor and all-item internal consistency results raise concerns regarding the number and the redundancy of the questions. Factor analysis and internal consistency analyses of PTSEs completed by students from a nonprobability convenience sample of PTEPs suggest that PTEPs need a more psychometrically sound tool to assess CI performance.
构建物理治疗师学生临床经验评价与临床指导评价的效度与内在一致性
介绍。本研究的目的是评估《物理治疗师学生临床经验与临床教学评价》第二部分:物理治疗师学生临床教学评价(PTSE)的结构效度和内部一致性。文献综述。物理治疗缺乏对临床指导员(CI)表现的心理测量学上良好的学生评价,为评估PTSE的内部一致性和结构效度提供了基础。科目。来自29个物理治疗师教育项目(PTEPs)的5,077名学生使用第三方临床教育管理平台完成了6,851个ptse。方法。为了评估PTSE的构建效度,研究者对3个PTSE数据子集进行了探索性因子分析,采用主轴因子提取和最大斜向旋转。研究者对21项ptsd以及因子分析中确定的每个因子进行了内部一致性分析。结果。对于每个PTSE子集,因子分析确定了17个项目中的一个因素CI有效性,分别占3个数据子集方差的48.5%,54.1%和53.8%。因子分析没有确定一个因子解决方案,包括所有21个李克特量表评定项目的部分2 PTSE。结果Cronbach的alpha值达到了可接受的内部一致性的最低水平,但超过了引起项目冗余关注的0.90水平。讨论与结论。因子分析结果为其与评估工具项目写作结构和尺度标准的一致性程度找到了合理的解释,尽管单因素PTSE与历史和流行的CI有效性的多重结构不一致。个别因素和所有项目的内部一致性结果引起了对问题数量和冗余的关注。对学生完成的非概率便利ptep样本的ptep进行的因素分析和内部一致性分析表明,ptep需要一个更加心理计量学上健全的工具来评估CI表现。
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
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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