探讨不确定度容忍量表在卫生专业学生中的反应过程效度。

IF 5.2 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Jennifer L Eastwood, Melanie K Farlie, Adam B Wilson, Michelle D Lazarus, Bradley Hunt, Georgina C Stephens
{"title":"探讨不确定度容忍量表在卫生专业学生中的反应过程效度。","authors":"Jennifer L Eastwood, Melanie K Farlie, Adam B Wilson, Michelle D Lazarus, Bradley Hunt, Georgina C Stephens","doi":"10.1002/ase.70083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Uncertainty tolerance (UT) describes how individuals perceive and respond to uncertainty. Quantitative UT scales developed with physicians have been widely used in the health professions literature; however, recent studies have raised questions about their validity when implemented among students. This study explored response process validity of two commonly implemented UT scales, the Physician's Reactions to Uncertainty (PRU1995) and Tolerance for Ambiguity (TFA) scales, addressing the research question: How do health professions students conceptualize uncertainty tolerance in scale items, and what features of the scales (e.g., clarity, context, or relatability of items) influence their conceptualizations? Cognitive interviewing captured the thought processes of Australian (11) and US (22) health professions students while responding to PRU1995 or TFA items. Interviews were analyzed using a team-based approach to framework analysis. The study found that students conceptualized items in ways that were specific to the student role and context and struggled to relate to clinically contextualized scale items. Factors that moderated students' responses were identified, including limited responsibility for patient outcomes, self-reflection, and goals related to academic success. Having identified student-specific conceptualizations of the UT construct as well as issues of item relatability, context, and clarity, we caution against using the PRU1995 or TFA scales among health professions students. This work has potential for informing UT measurement in research and education and advancing theoretical models of UT in health professions students.</p>","PeriodicalId":124,"journal":{"name":"Anatomical Sciences Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring response process validity of uncertainty tolerance scales implemented among health professions students.\",\"authors\":\"Jennifer L Eastwood, Melanie K Farlie, Adam B Wilson, Michelle D Lazarus, Bradley Hunt, Georgina C Stephens\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ase.70083\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Uncertainty tolerance (UT) describes how individuals perceive and respond to uncertainty. Quantitative UT scales developed with physicians have been widely used in the health professions literature; however, recent studies have raised questions about their validity when implemented among students. This study explored response process validity of two commonly implemented UT scales, the Physician's Reactions to Uncertainty (PRU1995) and Tolerance for Ambiguity (TFA) scales, addressing the research question: How do health professions students conceptualize uncertainty tolerance in scale items, and what features of the scales (e.g., clarity, context, or relatability of items) influence their conceptualizations? Cognitive interviewing captured the thought processes of Australian (11) and US (22) health professions students while responding to PRU1995 or TFA items. Interviews were analyzed using a team-based approach to framework analysis. The study found that students conceptualized items in ways that were specific to the student role and context and struggled to relate to clinically contextualized scale items. Factors that moderated students' responses were identified, including limited responsibility for patient outcomes, self-reflection, and goals related to academic success. Having identified student-specific conceptualizations of the UT construct as well as issues of item relatability, context, and clarity, we caution against using the PRU1995 or TFA scales among health professions students. This work has potential for informing UT measurement in research and education and advancing theoretical models of UT in health professions students.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":124,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anatomical Sciences Education\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anatomical Sciences Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.70083\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anatomical Sciences Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.70083","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

不确定性容忍度(UT)描述个体如何感知和应对不确定性。与医生一起开发的定量UT量表已广泛用于卫生专业文献;然而,最近的研究对其在学生中实施的有效性提出了质疑。本研究探讨了两种常用的UT量表——医师不确定性反应量表(PRU1995)和模糊容忍度量表(TFA)的反应过程效度,以解决研究问题:卫生专业学生如何概念化量表项目的不确定性容忍度,以及量表的哪些特征(如清晰度、背景或项目的相关性)影响他们的概念化?认知访谈捕捉了澳大利亚(11)和美国(22)卫生专业学生在回答PRU1995或TFA项目时的思维过程。使用基于团队的框架分析方法对访谈进行分析。研究发现,学生以特定于学生角色和情境的方式概念化项目,并努力将临床情境化量表项目联系起来。确定了影响学生反应的因素,包括对患者结果的有限责任、自我反思和与学业成功相关的目标。在确定了UT结构的学生特定概念以及项目相关性、上下文和清晰度问题后,我们警告不要在卫生专业学生中使用PRU1995或TFA量表。这项工作有可能为研究和教育中的UT测量提供信息,并推进卫生专业学生的UT理论模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exploring response process validity of uncertainty tolerance scales implemented among health professions students.

Uncertainty tolerance (UT) describes how individuals perceive and respond to uncertainty. Quantitative UT scales developed with physicians have been widely used in the health professions literature; however, recent studies have raised questions about their validity when implemented among students. This study explored response process validity of two commonly implemented UT scales, the Physician's Reactions to Uncertainty (PRU1995) and Tolerance for Ambiguity (TFA) scales, addressing the research question: How do health professions students conceptualize uncertainty tolerance in scale items, and what features of the scales (e.g., clarity, context, or relatability of items) influence their conceptualizations? Cognitive interviewing captured the thought processes of Australian (11) and US (22) health professions students while responding to PRU1995 or TFA items. Interviews were analyzed using a team-based approach to framework analysis. The study found that students conceptualized items in ways that were specific to the student role and context and struggled to relate to clinically contextualized scale items. Factors that moderated students' responses were identified, including limited responsibility for patient outcomes, self-reflection, and goals related to academic success. Having identified student-specific conceptualizations of the UT construct as well as issues of item relatability, context, and clarity, we caution against using the PRU1995 or TFA scales among health professions students. This work has potential for informing UT measurement in research and education and advancing theoretical models of UT in health professions students.

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
Anatomical Sciences Education
Anatomical Sciences Education Anatomy/education-
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
39.70%
发文量
91
期刊介绍: Anatomical Sciences Education, affiliated with the American Association for Anatomy, serves as an international platform for sharing ideas, innovations, and research related to education in anatomical sciences. Covering gross anatomy, embryology, histology, and neurosciences, the journal addresses education at various levels, including undergraduate, graduate, post-graduate, allied health, medical (both allopathic and osteopathic), and dental. It fosters collaboration and discussion in the field of anatomical sciences education.
×
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