ArticleHealth science reports2024
Enhancing educational technology practical course: Designing and validating tools for evaluating knowledge, performance, and satisfaction of public health students.
Article in Health science reports, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The present study was conducted with the aim of designing and validating questionnaires for evaluating the public health students' knowledge, performance, and satisfaction (KPS) in the course of educational technology. Methods: The present study was conducted with qualitative-quantitative approach. Qualitative stage was done based on experts' opinion and related articles and questionnaires for developing, designing, and validating the tools. For validating the tools, face validity and content validity was done based on the opinion of the 10 expert panel. In quantitative stage, all initial validated tools were implemented on 50 students of public health for determining the reliability. The reliability of the tools was calculated using the internal consistency method of the items with Cronbach's Results: In the field of qualitative research, an assessment tool consisting of 20 four-option questions was designed. The content validity of this tool was confirmed based on the opinions of 10 educational experts, with CVI Total = 0.862 and CVR = 0.885. Additionally, the reliability of the tool was validated through testing on 50 public health students, resulting in a reliability coefficient of Conclusions: It seems that this tool can be used to measure the KPS of students from the educational technology course of the health field and similar fields.
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.