生物伦理基本原则教学方法研究工具的内容效度

Taufik Suryadi, Fadilah Alfiya, Muhammad Yusuf, R. Indah, Taufik Hidayat, K. Kulsum
{"title":"生物伦理基本原则教学方法研究工具的内容效度","authors":"Taufik Suryadi, Fadilah Alfiya, Muhammad Yusuf, R. Indah, Taufik Hidayat, K. Kulsum","doi":"10.22146/jpki.77062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Bioethics teaching especially related to the basic principles of bioethics can be done by several methods. Currently in the Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala applying conventional lecture methods, so that other methods are needed to make teaching more interesting. To get the teaching method that students want, a research is carried out through filling out questionnaires. In order for the research questionnaire to be valid, it is necessary to validate the instrument through the content validity of the questionnaire.Methods: The content validity of the questionnaire is carried out by determining the score of each statement item and calculating the Item Content Validity Index (I-CVI), Scale Content Validity Index-Average (S-CVI/Ave), Scale Content Validity Index-Universal agreement (S-CVI/UA), Content Validity Ratio (CVR), Content Validity Index (CVI) and Cohen Kappa Index (CKI) was conducted by 10 assessors from 10 different institutions.Result: The results of the validation of the contents of the questionnaire from the 29 statement items tested obtained that 96% the CVR was ≥ 0.800, 96% I-CVI was ≥ 0.900, CVI was 0.903, S-CVI/UA was 0.551, S-CVI/Ave was 0.952 (recommendation 0.90), average proportion of items judges as relevances across the ten experts 0.949 and CKI was 95,17%.Conclusions: The content validity of this research instrument is very high seen from the CVR, I-CVI, the average value of agreement between assessors (S-CVI/Ave), and the average value of the proportion of statement item relevance (S-CVI/UA) so that it can be developed in various similar studies that discuss the teaching methods of basic principles of bioethics.","PeriodicalId":17805,"journal":{"name":"Jurnal Pendidikan Kedokteran Indonesia: The Indonesian Journal of Medical Education","volume":"104 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"CONTENT VALIDITY FOR THE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT REGARDING TEACHING METHODS OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF BIOETHICS\",\"authors\":\"Taufik Suryadi, Fadilah Alfiya, Muhammad Yusuf, R. Indah, Taufik Hidayat, K. Kulsum\",\"doi\":\"10.22146/jpki.77062\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Bioethics teaching especially related to the basic principles of bioethics can be done by several methods. Currently in the Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala applying conventional lecture methods, so that other methods are needed to make teaching more interesting. To get the teaching method that students want, a research is carried out through filling out questionnaires. In order for the research questionnaire to be valid, it is necessary to validate the instrument through the content validity of the questionnaire.Methods: The content validity of the questionnaire is carried out by determining the score of each statement item and calculating the Item Content Validity Index (I-CVI), Scale Content Validity Index-Average (S-CVI/Ave), Scale Content Validity Index-Universal agreement (S-CVI/UA), Content Validity Ratio (CVR), Content Validity Index (CVI) and Cohen Kappa Index (CKI) was conducted by 10 assessors from 10 different institutions.Result: The results of the validation of the contents of the questionnaire from the 29 statement items tested obtained that 96% the CVR was ≥ 0.800, 96% I-CVI was ≥ 0.900, CVI was 0.903, S-CVI/UA was 0.551, S-CVI/Ave was 0.952 (recommendation 0.90), average proportion of items judges as relevances across the ten experts 0.949 and CKI was 95,17%.Conclusions: The content validity of this research instrument is very high seen from the CVR, I-CVI, the average value of agreement between assessors (S-CVI/Ave), and the average value of the proportion of statement item relevance (S-CVI/UA) so that it can be developed in various similar studies that discuss the teaching methods of basic principles of bioethics.\",\"PeriodicalId\":17805,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Jurnal Pendidikan Kedokteran Indonesia: The Indonesian Journal of Medical Education\",\"volume\":\"104 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Jurnal Pendidikan Kedokteran Indonesia: The Indonesian Journal of Medical Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22146/jpki.77062\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurnal Pendidikan Kedokteran Indonesia: The Indonesian Journal of Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22146/jpki.77062","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:生命伦理学教学,尤其是与生命伦理学基本原则相关的教学,可以通过多种方法进行。目前,瓜拉锡雅大学(Universitas Syiah Kuala)医学系采用的是传统的讲授法,因此需要其他方法来提高教学的趣味性。为了获得学生想要的教学方法,我们通过填写调查问卷进行了一项研究。为了使研究问卷有效,有必要通过问卷的内容效度来验证工具的有效性:调查问卷的内容效度由来自 10 所不同院校的 10 名评估员通过确定每个陈述项目的得分并计算项目内容效度指数(I-CVI)、量表内容效度指数-平均值(S-CVI/Ave)、量表内容效度指数-普遍同意值(S-CVI/UA)、内容效度比(CVR)、内容效度指数(CVI)和科恩卡帕指数(CKI)来实现:对 29 个陈述项目的问卷内容进行验证的结果表明,96% 的 CVR ≥ 0.800,96% 的 I-CVI ≥ 0.900,CVI 为 0.903,S-CVI/UA 为 0.551,S-CVI/Ave 为 0.952(推荐值为 0.90),10 位专家评判为相关的项目的平均比例为 0.949,CKI 为 95.17%:从 CVR、I-CVI、评估者之间的协议平均值(S-CVI/Ave)和陈述项目相关性比例的平均值(S-CVI/UA)来看,该研究工具的内容效度非常高,因此可以在讨论生命伦理学基本原理教学方法的各种类似研究中加以发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
CONTENT VALIDITY FOR THE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT REGARDING TEACHING METHODS OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF BIOETHICS
Background: Bioethics teaching especially related to the basic principles of bioethics can be done by several methods. Currently in the Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala applying conventional lecture methods, so that other methods are needed to make teaching more interesting. To get the teaching method that students want, a research is carried out through filling out questionnaires. In order for the research questionnaire to be valid, it is necessary to validate the instrument through the content validity of the questionnaire.Methods: The content validity of the questionnaire is carried out by determining the score of each statement item and calculating the Item Content Validity Index (I-CVI), Scale Content Validity Index-Average (S-CVI/Ave), Scale Content Validity Index-Universal agreement (S-CVI/UA), Content Validity Ratio (CVR), Content Validity Index (CVI) and Cohen Kappa Index (CKI) was conducted by 10 assessors from 10 different institutions.Result: The results of the validation of the contents of the questionnaire from the 29 statement items tested obtained that 96% the CVR was ≥ 0.800, 96% I-CVI was ≥ 0.900, CVI was 0.903, S-CVI/UA was 0.551, S-CVI/Ave was 0.952 (recommendation 0.90), average proportion of items judges as relevances across the ten experts 0.949 and CKI was 95,17%.Conclusions: The content validity of this research instrument is very high seen from the CVR, I-CVI, the average value of agreement between assessors (S-CVI/Ave), and the average value of the proportion of statement item relevance (S-CVI/UA) so that it can be developed in various similar studies that discuss the teaching methods of basic principles of bioethics.
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
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