澳大利亚医学生体验问卷对学生满意度影响最大的因素:一项效度研究。

IF 9.3 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Pin-Hsiang Huang, Gary Velan, Greg Smith, Melanie Fentoullis, Sean Edward Kennedy, Karen Jane Gibson, Kerry Uebel, Boaz Shulruf
{"title":"澳大利亚医学生体验问卷对学生满意度影响最大的因素:一项效度研究。","authors":"Pin-Hsiang Huang,&nbsp;Gary Velan,&nbsp;Greg Smith,&nbsp;Melanie Fentoullis,&nbsp;Sean Edward Kennedy,&nbsp;Karen Jane Gibson,&nbsp;Kerry Uebel,&nbsp;Boaz Shulruf","doi":"10.3352/jeehp.2023.20.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study evaluated the validity of student feedback derived from Medicine Student Experience Questionnaire (MedSEQ), as well as the predictors of students' satisfaction in the Medicine program.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from MedSEQ applying to the University of New South Wales Medicine program in 2017, 2019, and 2021 were analyzed. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Cronbach's α were used to assess the construct validity and reliability of MedSEQ respectively. Hierarchical multiple linear regressions were used to identify the factors that most impact students' overall satisfaction with the program.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1,719 students (34.50%) responded to MedSEQ. CFA showed good fit indices (root mean square error of approximation=0.051; comparative fit index=0.939; chi-square/degrees of freedom=6.429). All factors yielded good (α>0.7) or very good (α>0.8) levels of reliability, except the \"online resources\" factor, which had acceptable reliability (α=0.687). A multiple linear regression model with only demographic characteristics explained 3.8% of the variance in students' overall satisfaction, whereas the model adding 8 domains from MedSEQ explained 40%, indicating that 36.2% of the variance was attributable to students' experience across the 8 domains. Three domains had the strongest impact on overall satisfaction: \"being cared for,\" \"satisfaction with teaching,\" and \"satisfaction with assessment\" (β=0.327, 0.148, 0.148, respectively; all with P<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MedSEQ has good construct validity and high reliability, reflecting students' satisfaction with the Medicine program. Key factors impacting students' satisfaction are the perception of being cared for, quality teaching irrespective of the mode of delivery and fair assessment tasks which enhance learning.</p>","PeriodicalId":46098,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","volume":"20 ","pages":"2"},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9986309/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What impacts students' satisfaction the most from Medicine Student Experience Questionnaire in Australia: a validity study.\",\"authors\":\"Pin-Hsiang Huang,&nbsp;Gary Velan,&nbsp;Greg Smith,&nbsp;Melanie Fentoullis,&nbsp;Sean Edward Kennedy,&nbsp;Karen Jane Gibson,&nbsp;Kerry Uebel,&nbsp;Boaz Shulruf\",\"doi\":\"10.3352/jeehp.2023.20.2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study evaluated the validity of student feedback derived from Medicine Student Experience Questionnaire (MedSEQ), as well as the predictors of students' satisfaction in the Medicine program.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from MedSEQ applying to the University of New South Wales Medicine program in 2017, 2019, and 2021 were analyzed. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Cronbach's α were used to assess the construct validity and reliability of MedSEQ respectively. Hierarchical multiple linear regressions were used to identify the factors that most impact students' overall satisfaction with the program.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1,719 students (34.50%) responded to MedSEQ. CFA showed good fit indices (root mean square error of approximation=0.051; comparative fit index=0.939; chi-square/degrees of freedom=6.429). All factors yielded good (α>0.7) or very good (α>0.8) levels of reliability, except the \\\"online resources\\\" factor, which had acceptable reliability (α=0.687). A multiple linear regression model with only demographic characteristics explained 3.8% of the variance in students' overall satisfaction, whereas the model adding 8 domains from MedSEQ explained 40%, indicating that 36.2% of the variance was attributable to students' experience across the 8 domains. Three domains had the strongest impact on overall satisfaction: \\\"being cared for,\\\" \\\"satisfaction with teaching,\\\" and \\\"satisfaction with assessment\\\" (β=0.327, 0.148, 0.148, respectively; all with P<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MedSEQ has good construct validity and high reliability, reflecting students' satisfaction with the Medicine program. Key factors impacting students' satisfaction are the perception of being cared for, quality teaching irrespective of the mode of delivery and fair assessment tasks which enhance learning.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46098,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions\",\"volume\":\"20 \",\"pages\":\"2\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9986309/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2023.20.2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2023.20.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:本研究评估医学生体验问卷(MedSEQ)学生反馈的效度,以及医学生满意度的预测因子。方法:对2017年、2019年和2021年申请新南威尔士大学医学项目的MedSEQ数据进行分析。采用验证性因子分析(CFA)和Cronbach’s α分别评估MedSEQ的结构效度和信度。层次多元线性回归用于确定最影响学生对该计划的整体满意度的因素。结果:共有1719名学生(34.50%)对MedSEQ有反应。CFA显示了良好的拟合指数(近似均方根误差=0.051;比较拟合指数=0.939;卡方/自由度=6.429)。除“在线资源”因子具有可接受的信度(α=0.687)外,所有因子的信度均为良好(α>0.7)或非常好(α>0.8)。仅包含人口统计学特征的多元线性回归模型解释了3.8%的学生总体满意度方差,而加入MedSEQ的8个领域的模型解释了40%,表明36.2%的方差可归因于学生在8个领域的经历。三个领域对整体满意度的影响最大:“被关心”,“教学满意度”和“评估满意度”(β分别=0.327,0.148,0.148;结论:MedSEQ量表具有较好的结构效度和较高的信度,反映了学生对医学专业的满意度。影响学生满意度的主要因素包括:被关心的感觉、不论教学方式如何的优质教学,以及促进学习的公平评估任务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

What impacts students' satisfaction the most from Medicine Student Experience Questionnaire in Australia: a validity study.

What impacts students' satisfaction the most from Medicine Student Experience Questionnaire in Australia: a validity study.

Purpose: This study evaluated the validity of student feedback derived from Medicine Student Experience Questionnaire (MedSEQ), as well as the predictors of students' satisfaction in the Medicine program.

Methods: Data from MedSEQ applying to the University of New South Wales Medicine program in 2017, 2019, and 2021 were analyzed. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Cronbach's α were used to assess the construct validity and reliability of MedSEQ respectively. Hierarchical multiple linear regressions were used to identify the factors that most impact students' overall satisfaction with the program.

Results: A total of 1,719 students (34.50%) responded to MedSEQ. CFA showed good fit indices (root mean square error of approximation=0.051; comparative fit index=0.939; chi-square/degrees of freedom=6.429). All factors yielded good (α>0.7) or very good (α>0.8) levels of reliability, except the "online resources" factor, which had acceptable reliability (α=0.687). A multiple linear regression model with only demographic characteristics explained 3.8% of the variance in students' overall satisfaction, whereas the model adding 8 domains from MedSEQ explained 40%, indicating that 36.2% of the variance was attributable to students' experience across the 8 domains. Three domains had the strongest impact on overall satisfaction: "being cared for," "satisfaction with teaching," and "satisfaction with assessment" (β=0.327, 0.148, 0.148, respectively; all with P<0.001).

Conclusion: MedSEQ has good construct validity and high reliability, reflecting students' satisfaction with the Medicine program. Key factors impacting students' satisfaction are the perception of being cared for, quality teaching irrespective of the mode of delivery and fair assessment tasks which enhance learning.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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