ArticleJournal of education and health promotion2020
A modified tool for "reflective practice" in medical education: Adaptation of the REFLECT rubric in Persian.
Article in Journal of education and health promotion, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medical students' perspectives of reflection for their professional development.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Translation and psychometric evaluation of the reflective capacity scale in Iranian medical education.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Relationship between Nurses Reflection, Self-efficacy and Work Engagement: A Multicenter Study.Journal of caring sciences · 2023Article
- Evaluation of medical student program with the use of a reflective portfolio: A qualitative study.Journal of education and health promotion · 2021Article
- Impact of narrative medicine program on improving reflective capacity and empathy of medical students in Iran.Journal of educational evaluation for health professions · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextReflection is a learnable process that enhances long-life learning, clinical decision-making, and can foster empathy and professionalism. One of the methods for teaching reflection is "reflective writing" that is conducted in "reflective practice." Some tools have been developed to assess "reflective capacity," and The Reflection Evaluation for Learners' Enhanced Competencies Tool (REFLECT) is one of them.
aimsThis study aimed to adapt the REFLECT rubric in Persian. SETTINGS AND
designThis quantitative study was conducted in a medical school with the participation of medical interns through census sampling, and in three stages, including translation, pilot study, and main study. SUBJECTS AND
methodsPersian translation was obtained by the "forward/backward translation" method. We made some changes in the tool and used it in the pilot and main study to confirm validity and reliability. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Cronbach's alpha coefficient, Pearson correlation, and Cohen's kappa were applied for statistical analysis. Data analysis was performed using SPSS23.
resultsWe inserted a numerical value of 1-4 at the reflection levels, and also removed Axis 2 and an optional writing component. In the pilot study, face and content validity was confirmed involving 10 interns and five medical education specialists. Then, 67 interns participated in the main study, and we measured the reliability of the tool by internal consistency through Cronbach's alpha (0.83) and test-retest through correlation coefficient (0.89). The size of the agreement was measured to determine the inter-rater reliability by Cohen's kappa (0.84).
conclusionsThe modified REFLECT version is a valid and reliable tool that can help us to assess reflective capacity. The use of this tool is recommended for reflective practice in medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.