ArticleJournal of education and health promotion2023
Psychometric evaluation of Maastricht clinical teaching questionnaire based on the cognitive apprenticeship model.
Article in Journal of education and health promotion, 2023. 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.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Maastricht Clinical Teaching Questionnaire is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring the quality of clinical teaching. This study was aimed at translation and psychometric evaluation of the Persian version of this questionnaire to evaluate clinical teaching based on the cognitive apprenticeship model. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe translation of the questionnaire was performed according to Guillemins framework. Reliability was examined by calculating Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Confirmatory factor analysis was studied among 120 medical students. Content validity was assessed by calculating the content validity index and content validity ratio. Face validity was evaluated by conducting interviews with students using concurrent verbal probing and thinking aloud.
resultsCronbach's alpha coefficient for the whole scale was 0.95. The content validity index was 0.92, and the content validity ratio was 0.82. Confirmatory factor analysis resulted in a seven-factor model and demonstrated an adequate fit with the data.
conclusionThe Persian version of the Maastricht Clinical Teaching Questionnaire with seven factors including modeling, coaching, scaffolding, articulation, reflection, exploration, and learning environment appears to be a valid and reliable instrument for the evaluation of clinical teaching in Iranian universities of medical sciences.
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.