پیوندهای مفید
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 20 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 1,113 |
| تعداد مقالات | 10,208 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 40,774,850 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 8,802,186 |
Psychometric properties of the Persian version of bedside teaching (BST) Instrument | ||
| Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism | ||
| دوره 9، شماره 1، فروردین 2021، صفحه 44-49 اصل مقاله (1.07 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Original Article | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30476/jamp.2020.88501.1343 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| MOHAMMAD SAEED GHARAATI JAHROMI1؛ MITRA AMINI* 2؛ MAHSA MOOSAVI2؛ ALIREZA SALEHI3؛ SOMAYEH DELAVARI4؛ ALI ASGHAR HAYAT2؛ PARISA NABEIEI2 | ||
| 1MPH Department, Shiraz Medical School, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran | ||
| 2Clinical Education Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran | ||
| 3Research Center for Traditional Medicine and History of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran | ||
| 4Center for Educational Research in Medical Sciences (CERMS), Department of Medical Education, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Introduction: Bedside teaching plays a crucial role in acquiring essential clinical skills. Therefore, the main aim of this study is assessing the validity and reliability of the Persian version of German bedside teaching (BST) instrument. This instrument was specially developed for evaluation of bedside teaching. Methods: The present cross-sectional study was conducted on 150 last year medical students, using convenience sampling. The Persian version of the bedside teaching (BST) was used for data gathering. To calculate the reliability of the questions, Cronbach’s alpha was used and to determine the construct validity of the questionnaire, confirmatory factor analysis was used. All analyses were performed in LISREL 10 and SPSS 21 software. Results: Cronbach’s alpha indicated excellent reliability for each subscale (α=0.77–0.85). All of the value of the questions are more than a significant number of 1.96 and concluded to be significant. There was an acceptable fit between the hypothetical model and the data and all comparative fit indices (CFI, NFI, RFI, IFI) showed good model fitness. BST is a valid and reliable instrument for the assessment of clinical teaching at bedside. It has 18 items with 5 point Likert scales. Conclusion: The findings suggest that the Persian version of the BST questionnaire is a valid and reliable tool for the evaluation of teachers and providing feedback in a clinical setting. However, more studies should be conducted in other cities in Iran. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| Skills؛ Reliability؛ Medical students؛ Factor analysis؛ Questionnaire | ||
|
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
|
||
| مراجع | ||
|
1. Wojtczak A. Glossary of medical education terms: Part 1. Med Teach. 2002; 24(2): 216-9. 2. McGee S. A piece of my mind. Bedside teaching rounds reconsidered. JAMA. 2014;311(19):1971. 3. Carty M, O’Riordan N, Ivers M, Higgins MF. Patient perspectives of bedside teaching in an obstetrics, Gynaecology and neonatology hospital. BMC medical education. 2020;20(1):111. 4. Majdan JF, Berg KT, Schultz KL, Schaeffer A, Berg D. Patient perceptions of bedside teaching rounds. Med Educ. 2013;47(11):1124-5. 5. Ahmed MEB. What is happening to bedside clinical teaching? Med Educ. 2002;36(12):1185-8. 6. Lehmann LS, Brancati FL, Chen MC, Roter D, Dobs AS. The effect of bedside case presentations on patients’ perceptions of their medical care. New England Journal of Medicine. 1997;336(16):1150-6. 7. Spencer J. Learning and teaching in the clinical environment. BMJ. 2003;326(7389):591-4. 8. Litzelman DK, Stratos GA, Marriott DJ, Skeff KM. Factorial validation of a widely disseminated educational framework for evaluating clinical teachers. Acad Med. 1998;73(6):688-95. 9. Zuberi RW, Bordage G, Norman GR. Validation of the SETOC instrument—student evaluation of teaching in outpatient clinics. Advances in health sciences education. 2007;12(1):55-69. 10. Staufenbiel T. Fragebogen zur Evaluation von universitären Lehrveranstaltungen durch Studierende und Lehrende. Diagnostica. 2000;46(4):169-81. 11. Gollwitzer M, Schlotz W. Das “Trierer Inventar zur Lehrveranstaltungsevaluation”(TRIL): Entwicklung und erste testtheoretische Erprobungen. Psychologiedidaktik und Evaluation IV: Deutscher Psychologen Verlag; 2003. p. 114-28. 12. Beckman TJ, Lee MC, Rohren CH, Pankratz VS. Evaluating an instrument for the peer review of inpatient teaching. Med Teach. 2003;25(2):131-5. 13. Strand P, Sjöborg K, Stalmeijer R, Wichmann-Hansen G, Jakobsson U, Edgren G. Development and psychometric evaluation of the undergraduate clinical education environment measure (UCEEM). Med Teach. 2013;35(12):1014-26. 14. Boyle P, Grimm M, McNeil H, Scicluna H. The UNSW Medicine Student Experience Questionnaire (MedSEQ): a synopsis of its development, features and utility. Sydney: UNSW Faculty of Medicine; 2009. 15. Dreiling K, Montano D, Poinstingl H, Müller T, Schiekirka-Schwake S, Anders S, et al. Evaluation in undergraduate medical education: Conceptualizing and validating a novel questionnaire for assessing the quality of bedside teaching. Med Teach. 2017;39(8):820-7. 16. Müller T, Montano D, Poinstingl H, Dreiling K, Schiekirka-Schwake S, Anders S, et al. Evaluation of large-group lectures in medicine–development of the SETMED-L (Student Evaluation of Teaching in MEDical Lectures) questionnaire. BMC Medical Education. 2017;17(1):137. 17. Pearson R, Mundfrom D. Recommended Sample Size for Conducting Exploratory Factor Analysis on Dichotomous Data. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods. 2010;9:359-68. 18. Anthoine E, Moret L, Regnault A, Sébille V, Hardouin JB. Sample size used to validate a scale: a review of publications on newly-developed patient reported outcomes measures. Health and quality of life outcomes. 2014;12(1):1-10. 19. Ataollahi M, Amini M, Delavari S, Bazrafkan L. Reliability and validity of the Persian version of readiness for inter-professional learning scale. International Journal of Medical Education. 2019;10:203. 20. Afthanorhan W. A comparison of partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) and covariance based structural equation modeling (CBSEM) for confirmatory factor analysis. International Journal of Engineering Science and Innovative Technology. 2013;2(5):198-205. 21. Prideaux D, Alexander H, Bower A, Dacre J, Haist S, Jolly B, et al. Clinical teaching: maintaining an educational role for doctors in the new health care environment. Med Educ. 2000;34(10):820-6. 22. Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. UK: Informa Plc company; 2013. 23. Fan X, Thompson B, Wang L. Effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal. 2009; 6(1): 56-83. 24. Tabachnick B, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 5th ed. New York. NY: Allyn and Bacon [Google Scholar]; 2007. 25. Marsh HW. SEEQ: a reliable, valid, and useful instrument for collecting students’ evaluations of university teaching. Br J Psychol. 1982; 52:77–95. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,503 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,205 |
||
