ArticleBMC medical education2024
Development and psychometric testing of a questionnaire for assessment of medical science educators' adherence to ethical principles in virtual education: exploratory sequential mixed methods study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2024. 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.
- Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Persian version of the oral health values scale.BMC oral health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrinciples of ethics are among the pillars of the teaching-learning system. Evaluation of educators' adherence to principles of ethics in virtual education requires the use of reliable instruments. This study was carried out to develop and test the psychometric properties of a questionnaire for assessment of medical science educators' adherence to principles of ethics in virtual education.
methodsThis is an exploratory sequential mixed methods study conducted in two parts. In the first stage (the qualitative phase), we used conventional content analysis to establish the concept of ethical principles in virtual education. Thus, 21 semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with 21 medical science professors on a face-to-face basis from March 2022 to November 2022. Subsequently, we developed the items of the questionnaire based on a review of literature and semi-structured in-depth interviews. In the second stage (the quantitative phase), psychometric features of the questionnaire were evaluated using COSMIN criteria (face validity, content validity, construct validity and internal consistency).
resultsConstruct validity was surveyed with exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis via completing the questionnaire by 300 medical science professors, who were selected using convenience sampling. The results of exploratory factor analysis yielded a factor loading of the 20 items of the questionnaire to range between 0.79 and 0.98, all the values being significant. The three factors of adherence to the principles of copyright, adherence to educational principles, and justice in evaluation, which were addressed by the instrument, were verified by satisfactory values. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) fitted the data well (χ2/df = 13), RMSEA = 0.01, CFI = 0.96, NFI = 0.97, and TLI = 0.99. The total interclass correlation (ICC) of the questionnaire was estimated to be 0.90. Moreover, the reliability of the instrument measured in terms of internal consistency was estimated 0.98.
conclusionThe findings of the study indicated that the questionnaire we developed for evaluation of adherence to ethical principles of in virtual education was valid and reliable enough. Therefore, the managers in the education system can employ this instrument to assess medical science educators' adherence to principles of ethics in virtual education.
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.