ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2021
Psychometric Properties of Visual Indicators of Teaching and Learning Success "VITALS" Instrument for Evaluation of Clinical Teachers.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe have previously developed an instrument for students' evaluation of clinical teachers that we called Visual Indicators of Clinical Teaching and Learning Success (VITALS). This study measures the reliability of VITALS as an instrument for student evaluation of clinical tutors. Additionally, the study explores the minimum number of student raters necessary for an acceptable reliability, and provides evidence of construct validity of the evaluation scores. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included 1825 evaluation forms completed by medical students evaluating clinical tutors using the VITALS instrument. Reliability was measured by applying generalizability theory (G-theory) analysis using a two-facet design (raters and items). A D-study was used to determine the minimum number of raters required to achieve a reliability ≥0.80. Face validity was tested by measuring tutors' degree of agreement with the items of the study instrument.
resultsThe overall G-coefficient was 0.89. The subject of measurement (clinical tutors' scores) represented 15.8% of the variance across all tutors and items. The variance due to the interaction between raters (students) and tutors contributed to 43.5%, while the variance due to items was negligible. The remaining 40% of the variance was due to unexplained sources of error. The D-study demonstrated that a minimum of 12 raters (students) are required to achieve a reliability of 0.80. Finally, most of the clinical tutors agreed that all items in the instrument were appropriate.
conclusionWe demonstrate that VITALS exhibits good psychometric properties. There should be at least 12 students rating each clinical tutor to have an acceptable level of reliability for the study instrument. Face validity of the study instrument was evidenced by its high level of approval among clinical tutors.
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.