Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25382090›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of medical education2014

Development and validation of a professionalism assessment scale for medical students.

Zalika Klemenc-Ketis, Helena Vrecko

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of medical education, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Linguistic analysis of empathy in medical school admission essays.International journal of medical education · 2020
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. What does a professionalism assessment scale measure?International journal of medical education · 2015
    Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Zalika Klemenc-KetisDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Taborska 8, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia.
Helena VreckoDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Taborska 8, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo develop and validate a scale for the assessment of professionalism in medical students based on students' perceptions of and attitudes towards professionalism in medicine.

methodsThis was a mixed methods study with undergraduate medical students. Two focus groups were carried out with 12 students, followed by a transcript analysis (grounded theory method with open coding). Then, a 3-round Delphi with 20 family medicine experts was carried out. A psychometric assessment of the scale was performed with a group of 449 students. The items of the Professionalism Assessment Scale could be answered on a five-point Likert scale.

resultsAfter the focus groups, the first version of the PAS consisted of 56 items and after the Delphi study, 30 items remained. The final sample for quantitative study consisted of 122 students (27.2% response rate). There were 95 (77.9%) female students in the sample. The mean age of the sample was 22.1 ± 2.1 years. After the principal component analysis, we removed 8 items and produced the final version of the PAS (22 items). The Cronbach's alpha of the scale was 0.88. Factor analysis revealed three factors: empathy and humanism, professional relationships and development and responsibility.

conclusionsThe new Professionalism Assessment Scale proved to be valid and reliable. It can be used for the assessment of professionalism in undergraduate medical students.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelProfessional CompetenceAttitude to DeathCross-Sectional StudiesDelphi TechniqueEmpathyFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleFocus GroupsGrounded TheoryHumanismHumansMalePsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsStudents, MedicalEthicsprofessionalstudentsvalidation studies

Identifiers

PMID25382090
PMCPMC4249760

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.