ArticleBMC research notes2024
Assessment of validity and reliability of the feedback quality instrument.
Article in BMC research notes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated Evaluation of Reflection and Feedback Quality in Workplace-Based Assessments by Using Natural Language Processing: Cross-Sectional Competency-Based Medical Education Study.JMIR medical education · 2025Article
- The Effects of Augmented Reality Treadmill Walking on Cognitive Function, Body Composition, Physiological Responses, and Acceptability in Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Translation and psychometric evaluation of composite feedback-seeking behavior questionnaire among Iranian medical residents.BMC medical education · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose was to investigate the psychometric features of the Feedback Quality Instrument (FQI) in medical students, emphasizing the instrument's utility for evaluating the quality of feedback provided in clinical contexts and the importance of performing so for medical trainees. METHODS AND MATERIAL: The Persian version of the FQI was evaluated for content validity through a focus group of medical education experts. The questionnaire's face, content, and construct validity were assessed using Confirmatory Factor Analysis, internal consistency, and inter-rater reliability. The questionnaire was revised and pilot-tested, with medical students' feedback in different clinical situations. The data was analyzed using AMOS26.
resultsThe content validity index equaled 0.88(> 0.79). The content validity ratio representing the proportion of participants who agreed on a selected item was 0.69(> 0.42). According to experts, item 25 is the only modified item, while items 23 and 24 are presented as one item. For reliability, Cronbach alpha was equaled to 0.98.
conclusionsThe Persian version of the Feedback Quality Instrument (FQI) was valid, reliable, and fair in assessing feedback quality in medical students, providing valuable insights for other institutions. Establishing a basis for systematically analyzing how certain educator behaviors affect student outcomes is practical.
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.