ArticleJournal of graduate medical education2021
Preliminary Evidence Supporting a Novel 10-Item Clinical Learning Environment Quick Survey (CLEQS).
Article in Journal of graduate medical education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A scoping review of the questionnaires used for the assessment of the perception of undergraduate students of the learning environment in healthcare professions education programs.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe clinical learning environment (CLE) is a priority focus in medical education. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Clinical Learning Environment Review's (CLER) recent addition of teaming and health care systems obligates educators to monitor these areas. Tools to evaluate the CLE would ideally be: (1) appropriate for all health care team members on a specific unit/project; (2) informed by contemporary learning environment frameworks; and (3) feasible/quick to complete. No existing CLE evaluation tool meets these criteria.
objectiveThis report describes the creation and preliminary validity evidence for a Clinical Learning Environment Quick Survey (CLEQS).
methodsSurvey items were identified from the literature and other data sources, sorted into 1 of 4 learning environment domains (personal, social, organizational, material) and reviewed by multiple stakeholders and experts. Leaders from 6 interprofessional graduate medical education quality improvement/patient safety teams distributed this voluntary survey to their clinical team members (November 2019-mid-January 2021) using electronic or paper formats. Validity evidence for this instrument was based on the content, response process, internal structure, reliability, relations to other variables, and consequences.
resultsTwo hundred one CLEQS responses were obtained, taking 1.5 minutes on average to complete with good reliability (Cronbach's α ≥ 0.83). The Cronbach alpha for each CE domain with the overall item ranged from 0.50 for personal to 0.79 for social. There were strong associations with other measures and clarity about improvement targets.
conclusionsCLEQS meets the 3 criteria for evaluating CLEs. Reliability data supports its internal consistency, and initial validity evidence is promising.
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.