Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36859255›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2023

Validation of IFMSA social accountability assessment tool: exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis.

Özlem Coşkun, Utku Timurçin, Yavuz Selim Kıyak, Işıl İrem Budakoğlu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Özlem CoşkunMedical Education and Informatics, Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey. ocoskun@gazi.edu.tr.
Utku TimurçinGazi University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Yavuz Selim KıyakMedical Education and Informatics, Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Işıl İrem BudakoğluMedical Education and Informatics, Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIFMSA Social Accountability Assessment Tool has been developed for medical students by medical students to assess medical schools. However, its psychometric characteristics are unknown since it was developed without any analysis. We aimed to reveal its reliability and validity.

methods1122 undergraduate medical students from various years in Gazi University Faculty of Medicine have participated in the study. They have answered the Turkish version of IFMSA Social Accountability Assessment Tool created through a translation process by experts. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were carried out.

resultsExploratory factor analysis showed that factor loadings were between 0.46 and 0.73 for Factor 1, 0.68 and 0.87 for Factor 2. The two-factor model, which consists of "Community Centeredness" and "Socio-Demographic Characteristics", was evaluated through confirmatory factor analysis. The goodness-of-fit statistics of the model showed well-fit: CMIN/df 4.46, GFI 0.96, CFI 0.95, RMSEA 0.05, SRMR 0.03. Standardized regression weights were between 0.43 and 0.77.

conclusionThe tool has acceptable psychometric characteristics, with good reliability and validity. It could be considered as a point of departure for the change in the way of being socially accountable since it enables medical students to explore the weak areas of their medical schools in terms of social accountability.

Indexed as

Social ResponsibilityStudents, MedicalFactor Analysis, StatisticalFacultyHumansReproducibility of ResultsAssessment toolFactor analysisMedical educationSocial accountability

Identifiers

PMID36859255
PMCPMC9977477

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.