ArticleBMC medical education2022
The development and validation of a questionnaire to explore medical students' learning in a blended learning environment.
Article in BMC medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Design and psychometric evaluation of a short questionnaire for assessing student satisfaction with innovative teaching methods in basic medical sciences.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Mixed method evaluation of a novel seminar format for a PBL-based integrated curriculum.Medical science educator · 2026Article
- Perceived effectiveness and preferences of medical students toward blended learning in anatomy: a multi-institutional cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Exploring pre-clinical medical students' perception of and participation in active learning: A mixed-methods transnational study.Medical education · 2025Article
- Psychometric Properties of Self-report Questionnaires in Evaluating Blended Learning in Health Science University Students: A Systematic Review.Acta medica Philippina · 2025Article
- Design and evaluation of a blended basketball training program using the ADDIE model.PloS one · 2025Article
- Investigating students' perceptions of the medical education environment and learning autonomy in blended learning in pediatrics: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- 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
- Exploring lemology teaching with "internet plus" flipped classroom pedagogy.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Medical students' self-regulation of learning in a blended learning environment: a systematic scoping review.Medical education online · 2022Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA blended learning environment is multifaceted and widely used in medical education. However, there is no validated instrument for exploring students' learning in a blended learning environment in medical programs. This study aimed to develop and validate an instrument for exploring how medical students learn in an undergraduate medical program that employs a blended learning approach.
methodUsing Artino's seven step approach, we developed a questionnaire to investigate how medical students learn in a blended learning environment. For pilot testing, 120 students completed this 19-item questionnaire. These 19-items were evaluated for construct and convergent validity across an expert medical education panel. Further item testing was analysed with principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation for item reduction and factor estimation. Hence, validity was thoroughly addressed to ensure the questionnaire was representative of the key focus questions. Cronbach's Alpha was used for item reliability testing, and Spearman's Rho was used for the correlation between the questionnaire items and the extensively used MSLQ. Hence, validity and reliability were systematically addressed.
resultsExploratory Factor analysis identified four factors F1 and F3: Resources: Accessibility & Guidance (14-items), F2: Learning behaviours: Social and Contextual (5-items), and F4: Motivational factors: Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation (4-items). Internal consistency and reliability tests were satisfactory (Cronbach's Alpha ranged from 0.764 to 0.770).
conclusionsThe resulting Blended Learning Questionnaire (BLQ) was determined to be a reliable instrument to explore undergraduate medical students' learning in a blended learning environment.
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.