ArticleBMC medical education2024
Assessing professional behaviors: a self-administered scale for medical students during clerkships.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMedical professionalism is a core competency for medical students during clerkships for further professional development. Given that the behavior-based framework could provide clear insight and is easy to assess, the study aimed to create a self-administered scale to measure the professional behaviors of medical students during their clerkships.
methodsA comprehensive literature review on medical professional behaviors in English or Chinese and Delphi interviews were used to develop the initial version of the Self-Administered Scale for Professional Behavior of Medical Students During Clerkships. The reliability and validity analysis based on a survey of medical students from China, Cronbach's α calculations, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) specifically were conducted to finalize the scale. The associations of professional behaviors with gender, medical programs, and clerkship duration were examined using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.
resultsWe included 121 studies and extracted 57 medical professionalism assessment tools, initially forming a pool of 48 items. To refine these items, eighteen experts participated in two rounds of Delphi interviews, ultimately narrowing down the item pool to 24 items. A total of 492 participants effectively completed the questionnaire. One item was removed due to its correlated item-total correlation (CITC) value, resulting in a final scale containing 23 items with six domains: Respect, Altruism, Communication and Collaboration, Integrity, Duty, and Excellence. The overall Cronbach's alpha value was 0.98, ranging from 0.88 to 0.95 for each domain. The fit indices (χ
conclusionThe scale was demonstrated to be reliable and valid in assessing the professional behaviors of Chinese medical students during clerkships.
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.