Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26511792›Full record

ArticleMedical education online2015

Development of an instrument to measure medical students' perceptions of the assessment environment: initial validation.

Joong Hiong Sim, Wen Ting Tong, Wei-Han Hong, Jamuna Vadivelu, Hamimah Hassan

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical education online, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Joong Hiong SimFaculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; simjhjp@um.edu.my.
Wen Ting TongFaculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Wei-Han HongFaculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Jamuna VadiveluFaculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Hamimah HassanFaculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
University of Malaya · MY

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAssessment environment, synonymous with climate or atmosphere, is multifaceted. Although there are valid and reliable instruments for measuring the educational environment, there is no validated instrument for measuring the assessment environment in medical programs. This study aimed to develop an instrument for measuring students' perceptions of the assessment environment in an undergraduate medical program and to examine the psychometric properties of the new instrument.

methodThe Assessment Environment Questionnaire (AEQ), a 40-item, four-point (1=Strongly Disagree to 4=Strongly Agree) Likert scale instrument designed by the authors, was administered to medical undergraduates from the authors' institution. The response rate was 626/794 (78.84%). To establish construct validity, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with principal component analysis and varimax rotation was conducted. To examine the internal consistency reliability of the instrument, Cronbach's α was computed. Mean scores for the entire AEQ and for each factor/subscale were calculated. Mean AEQ scores of students from different academic years and sex were examined.

resultsSix hundred and eleven completed questionnaires were analysed. EFA extracted four factors: feedback mechanism (seven items), learning and performance (five items), information on assessment (five items), and assessment system/procedure (three items), which together explained 56.72% of the variance. Based on the four extracted factors/subscales, the AEQ was reduced to 20 items. Cronbach's α for the 20-item AEQ was 0.89, whereas Cronbach's α for the four factors/subscales ranged from 0.71 to 0.87. Mean score for the AEQ was 2.68/4.00. The factor/subscale of 'feedback mechanism' recorded the lowest mean (2.39/4.00), whereas the factor/subscale of 'assessment system/procedure' scored the highest mean (2.92/4.00). Significant differences were found among the AEQ scores of students from different academic years.

conclusionsThe AEQ is a valid and reliable instrument. Initial validation supports its use to measure students' perceptions of the assessment environment in an undergraduate medical program.

Indexed as

PerceptionCross-Sectional StudiesEducational MeasurementFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleFormative FeedbackHumansLearningMalePrincipal Component AnalysisPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsStudents, MedicalSurveys and Questionnairesassessment environmentdevelopmentinstrumentpsychometric propertiesvalidation

Identifiers

PMID26511792
PMCPMC4624573
OpenAlexW1884372685

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.