SynthesisBMC medical education2022
Development of a career questionnaire for medical undergraduates using Mokken scale analysis.
Synthesis 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 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.
- Article
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
backgroundIndividual-centred career questionnaires are important for understanding the motivations of medical students. This study aimed to collect validity evidence of a questionnaire to measure the career choice of medical undergraduates.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was sent to third-year undergraduate students at a Chinese university-affiliated hospital. The questionnaire was formed using items that were selected after a systematic literature review. Item reduction was conducted using Mokken scale analysis, followed by reliability and validity testing, which described the validity evidence of the content, response process and internal structure.
resultsThe preliminary 20-item questionnaire was returned by 213 undergraduate students (response rate: 86.59%). To construct a monotone homogeneity model, 6 items were removed after testing for unidimensionality, local independence, and latent monotonicity according to the sequence. The final questionnaire included 14 items in two subscales: a 10-item 'career advantage' subscale and a 4-item 'career disadvantage' subscale. The questionnaire was judged to be acceptably reliable (Molenaar-Sijtsma method: 0.87 and 0.75, Cronbach's alpha: 0.87 and 0.74) and to have good construct validity (χ2/df: 1.748, normed fit index: > 0.9, comparative fit index: > 0.9, root mean square error of approximation: 0.05-0.08). Male and female undergraduates had different responses regarding their salary, subspecialty, career prospects, and ability to serve their relatives. Male undergraduates might be more willing to accept on-call positions and have subspecialties with greater likelihoods of patient-physician conflict.
conclusionWe used Mokken scale analysis to develop and collect evidence of the validity of a 14-item questionnaire regarding career preferences among Chinese medical undergraduate students. This short and simple questionnaire may provide a suitable tool for exploring insights regarding the motivations of Chinese medical students.
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.