Limits...
Validation of the Postgraduate Hospital Educational Environment Measure (PHEEM) in a sample of 731 Greek residents.

Koutsogiannou P, Dimoliatis ID, Mavridis D, Bellos S, Karathanos V, Jelastopulu E - BMC Res Notes (2015)

Bottom Line: The original three-factor model didn't fit better compared to one factor model that is accounting for 32% of the variance.Mean question scores ranged from 19.0 (very poor) to 73.7 (very good), and mean participant scores from 5.5 (very unsatisfied) to 96.5 (very satisfied).The Greek version of PHEEM is a valid, reliable, and sensitive instrument measuring the educational environment among junior doctors in Greek hospitals and it can be used for evidence-based SWOT analysis and policy.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Patras, Patras, Greece. persakoutsogiann@gmail.com.

ABSTRACT

Background: The Greek version of the Postgraduate Hospital Educational Environment Measure (PHEEM) was evaluated to determine its psychometric properties, i.e., validity, internal consistency, sensitivity and responsiveness to be used for measuring the learning environment in Greek hospitals.

Methods: The PHEEM was administered to Greek hospital residents. Internal consistency was measured using Cronbach's alpha. Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was used to evaluate the fit of Structural Equation Models. Content validity was addressed by the original study. Construct validity was tested using confirmatory (to test the set of underlying dimensions suggested by the original study) and exploratory (to explore the dimensions needed to explain the variability of the given answers) factor analysis using Varimax rotation. Convergent validity was calculated by Pearson's correlation coefficient regarding the participant's PHEEM score and participant's overall satisfaction score of the added item "Overall, I am very satisfied with my specialization in this post". Sensitivity was checked by comparing good versus poor aspects of the educational environment and by satisfied versus unsatisfied participants.

Results: A total of 731 residents from 83 hospitals and 41 prefectures responded to the PHEEM. The original three-factor model didn't fit better compared to one factor model that is accounting for 32% of the variance. Cronbach's α was 0.933 when assuming one-factor model. Using a three-factor model (autonomy, teaching, social support), Cronbach's α were 0.815 (expected 0.830), 0.908 (0.839), 0.734 (0.793), respectively. The three-factor model gave an RMSEA value of 0.074 (90% confidence interval 0.071, 0.076), suggesting a fair fit. Pearson's correlation coefficient between total PHEEM and global satisfaction was 0.765. Mean question scores ranged from 19.0 (very poor) to 73.7 (very good), and mean participant scores from 5.5 (very unsatisfied) to 96.5 (very satisfied).

Conclusions: The Greek version of PHEEM is a valid, reliable, and sensitive instrument measuring the educational environment among junior doctors in Greek hospitals and it can be used for evidence-based SWOT analysis and policy.

No MeSH data available.


Scree plot of the factorial analysis and eigenvalues associated with principal components
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4666073&req=5

Fig1: Scree plot of the factorial analysis and eigenvalues associated with principal components

Mentions: Employing the one-factor analysis model in SPSS gave identical results, suggesting that the ordinal items have metric properties. More specifically the one-factor explained 32 % of the total variance, whereas at least 7 factors were needed to explain 50 % of the total variance. Using three factors explained 42 % of the total variance. However, it is very difficult to associate items to factors even after trying various rotation methods. The inflexion point in the scree plot is very subjective (Fig. 1). Using as criterion to keep all those factors with eigenvalue higher than 1.5 [21] yields three factors. Keeping all factors with an eigenvalue higher than 1.0, which is one of the default SPSS options, gives 8 factors. Using as criterion to keep only factors that increase the percentage of variance explained by at least 5 % [21], results in two factors. Excluding items 1, 7–9, 11, 13, 20, 25 and 26 that have loadings <0.4, the percentage of variance explained increased to 38 %.Fig. 1


Validation of the Postgraduate Hospital Educational Environment Measure (PHEEM) in a sample of 731 Greek residents.

Koutsogiannou P, Dimoliatis ID, Mavridis D, Bellos S, Karathanos V, Jelastopulu E - BMC Res Notes (2015)

Scree plot of the factorial analysis and eigenvalues associated with principal components
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4666073&req=5

Fig1: Scree plot of the factorial analysis and eigenvalues associated with principal components
Mentions: Employing the one-factor analysis model in SPSS gave identical results, suggesting that the ordinal items have metric properties. More specifically the one-factor explained 32 % of the total variance, whereas at least 7 factors were needed to explain 50 % of the total variance. Using three factors explained 42 % of the total variance. However, it is very difficult to associate items to factors even after trying various rotation methods. The inflexion point in the scree plot is very subjective (Fig. 1). Using as criterion to keep all those factors with eigenvalue higher than 1.5 [21] yields three factors. Keeping all factors with an eigenvalue higher than 1.0, which is one of the default SPSS options, gives 8 factors. Using as criterion to keep only factors that increase the percentage of variance explained by at least 5 % [21], results in two factors. Excluding items 1, 7–9, 11, 13, 20, 25 and 26 that have loadings <0.4, the percentage of variance explained increased to 38 %.Fig. 1

Bottom Line: The original three-factor model didn't fit better compared to one factor model that is accounting for 32% of the variance.Mean question scores ranged from 19.0 (very poor) to 73.7 (very good), and mean participant scores from 5.5 (very unsatisfied) to 96.5 (very satisfied).The Greek version of PHEEM is a valid, reliable, and sensitive instrument measuring the educational environment among junior doctors in Greek hospitals and it can be used for evidence-based SWOT analysis and policy.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Patras, Patras, Greece. persakoutsogiann@gmail.com.

ABSTRACT

Background: The Greek version of the Postgraduate Hospital Educational Environment Measure (PHEEM) was evaluated to determine its psychometric properties, i.e., validity, internal consistency, sensitivity and responsiveness to be used for measuring the learning environment in Greek hospitals.

Methods: The PHEEM was administered to Greek hospital residents. Internal consistency was measured using Cronbach's alpha. Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was used to evaluate the fit of Structural Equation Models. Content validity was addressed by the original study. Construct validity was tested using confirmatory (to test the set of underlying dimensions suggested by the original study) and exploratory (to explore the dimensions needed to explain the variability of the given answers) factor analysis using Varimax rotation. Convergent validity was calculated by Pearson's correlation coefficient regarding the participant's PHEEM score and participant's overall satisfaction score of the added item "Overall, I am very satisfied with my specialization in this post". Sensitivity was checked by comparing good versus poor aspects of the educational environment and by satisfied versus unsatisfied participants.

Results: A total of 731 residents from 83 hospitals and 41 prefectures responded to the PHEEM. The original three-factor model didn't fit better compared to one factor model that is accounting for 32% of the variance. Cronbach's α was 0.933 when assuming one-factor model. Using a three-factor model (autonomy, teaching, social support), Cronbach's α were 0.815 (expected 0.830), 0.908 (0.839), 0.734 (0.793), respectively. The three-factor model gave an RMSEA value of 0.074 (90% confidence interval 0.071, 0.076), suggesting a fair fit. Pearson's correlation coefficient between total PHEEM and global satisfaction was 0.765. Mean question scores ranged from 19.0 (very poor) to 73.7 (very good), and mean participant scores from 5.5 (very unsatisfied) to 96.5 (very satisfied).

Conclusions: The Greek version of PHEEM is a valid, reliable, and sensitive instrument measuring the educational environment among junior doctors in Greek hospitals and it can be used for evidence-based SWOT analysis and policy.

No MeSH data available.