Limits...
Developing a clinical teaching quality questionnaire for use in a university osteopathic pre-registration teaching program.

Vaughan B - BMC Med Educ (2015)

Bottom Line: Internal consistency of the five-factor solution was greater than 0.70.The five factors were labelled Learning Environment (Factor 1), Reflective Practice (Factor 2), Feedback (Factor 3) and Patient Management (Factor 4) and Modelling (Factor 5).Further research is now required to continue investigating the construct validity and reliability of the questionnaire.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention & Management, College of Health & Biomedicine, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia. brett.vaughan@vu.edu.au.

ABSTRACT

Background: Clinical education is an important component of many health professional training programs. There is a range of questionnaires to assess the quality of the clinical educator however none are in student-led clinic environments. The present study developed a questionnaire to assess the quality of the clinical educators in the osteopathy program at Victoria University.

Methods: A systematic search of the literature was used to identify questionnaires that evaluated the quality of clinical teaching. Eighty-three items were extracted and reviewed for their appropriateness to include in a questionnaire by students, clinical educators and academics. A fifty-six item questionnaire was then trialled with osteopathy students. A variety of statistics were used to determine the number of factors to extract. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to investigate the factor structure.

Results: The number of factors to extract was calculated to be between 3 and 6. Review of the factor structures suggested the most appropriate fit was four and five factors. The EFA of the four-factor solution collapsed into three factors. The five-factor solution demonstrated the most stable structure. Internal consistency of the five-factor solution was greater than 0.70.

Conclusions: The five factors were labelled Learning Environment (Factor 1), Reflective Practice (Factor 2), Feedback (Factor 3) and Patient Management (Factor 4) and Modelling (Factor 5). Further research is now required to continue investigating the construct validity and reliability of the questionnaire.

No MeSH data available.


Number of factors to extract (part 1).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4404120&req=5

Fig3: Number of factors to extract (part 1).

Mentions: One hundred and seventy two ratings of all 27 clinical educators employed at the time of study were received. All clinical educators received more than one rating. Data were incomplete on one questionnaire and was subsequently removed from the analysis; 171 questionnaires were analysed. The results of the PA, MAP, VSS, eigenvalue, OC and AF are presented in Figures 3 and 4. The MAP suggested extracting two factors and the VSS suggested extracting four. OLS factor analyses were conducted extracting between 3–6 factors in order to identify an appropriate structure, consistent with recommendations from previous authors [59]. Eight analyses were conducted; four using the Geomin rotation and four using the Oblimin rotation. Extracting four and five factors using the Oblimin rotation provided the most appropriate solutions for (Table 1).Figure 3


Developing a clinical teaching quality questionnaire for use in a university osteopathic pre-registration teaching program.

Vaughan B - BMC Med Educ (2015)

Number of factors to extract (part 1).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4404120&req=5

Fig3: Number of factors to extract (part 1).
Mentions: One hundred and seventy two ratings of all 27 clinical educators employed at the time of study were received. All clinical educators received more than one rating. Data were incomplete on one questionnaire and was subsequently removed from the analysis; 171 questionnaires were analysed. The results of the PA, MAP, VSS, eigenvalue, OC and AF are presented in Figures 3 and 4. The MAP suggested extracting two factors and the VSS suggested extracting four. OLS factor analyses were conducted extracting between 3–6 factors in order to identify an appropriate structure, consistent with recommendations from previous authors [59]. Eight analyses were conducted; four using the Geomin rotation and four using the Oblimin rotation. Extracting four and five factors using the Oblimin rotation provided the most appropriate solutions for (Table 1).Figure 3

Bottom Line: Internal consistency of the five-factor solution was greater than 0.70.The five factors were labelled Learning Environment (Factor 1), Reflective Practice (Factor 2), Feedback (Factor 3) and Patient Management (Factor 4) and Modelling (Factor 5).Further research is now required to continue investigating the construct validity and reliability of the questionnaire.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention & Management, College of Health & Biomedicine, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia. brett.vaughan@vu.edu.au.

ABSTRACT

Background: Clinical education is an important component of many health professional training programs. There is a range of questionnaires to assess the quality of the clinical educator however none are in student-led clinic environments. The present study developed a questionnaire to assess the quality of the clinical educators in the osteopathy program at Victoria University.

Methods: A systematic search of the literature was used to identify questionnaires that evaluated the quality of clinical teaching. Eighty-three items were extracted and reviewed for their appropriateness to include in a questionnaire by students, clinical educators and academics. A fifty-six item questionnaire was then trialled with osteopathy students. A variety of statistics were used to determine the number of factors to extract. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to investigate the factor structure.

Results: The number of factors to extract was calculated to be between 3 and 6. Review of the factor structures suggested the most appropriate fit was four and five factors. The EFA of the four-factor solution collapsed into three factors. The five-factor solution demonstrated the most stable structure. Internal consistency of the five-factor solution was greater than 0.70.

Conclusions: The five factors were labelled Learning Environment (Factor 1), Reflective Practice (Factor 2), Feedback (Factor 3) and Patient Management (Factor 4) and Modelling (Factor 5). Further research is now required to continue investigating the construct validity and reliability of the questionnaire.

No MeSH data available.