ArticleBMC medical education2024
Development and validation of a questionnaire to measure educational agility: a psychometric assessment using exploratory factor analysis.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating large language models into prostate cancer training: evidence from comparative benchmarking and a pilot randomized trial.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- Association of Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment with Knowledge- and Technique-Related Eye Drop Adherence Problems in Glaucoma Assessed Using the Shimane University Glaucoma Eye Drop Adherence Questionnaire.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Adaptation of the Japanese Version of the 12-Item Attitudes Towards Artificial Intelligence Scale for Medical Trainees: Multicenter Development and Validation Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Environmental Stressors, Anemia, and Depressive Symptoms in Pregnancy: Unpacking the Combined Risks.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Article
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
backgroundTo effectively navigate the growing complexities and rapid changes in today's environment, universities must cultivate agility among their members. Over the past decade, students have encountered a variety of experiences related to E-Learning and the provision of educational services through electronic platforms. This study aimed to develop and validate a Questionnaire of Educational Agility (QEdu-Agility) to assess the capacity of educational institutions to adapt to these evolving demands.
methodThis survey research aimed to validate QEdu-Agility. The statistical sample consisted of 372 students from Shiraz University of Medical Sciences in Iran, who had completed at least one academic year online during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2022. Participants were selected using the Cochran formula. The initial questionnaire was based on three standard instruments related to organizational agility and adapted for educational contexts. After establishing face and content validity, the preliminary version was validated by a focus group of five educational experts, comprising 30 items across five dimensions: responsiveness, adequacy, flexibility, speed, and integrity, measured on a 5-point Likert scale. To confirm the construct validity, the questionnaire was randomly distributed to students via email. Data analysis was conducted using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) with varimax rotation, employing SPSS 24 software.
resultsThe content validity was confirmed with Content Validity Ratio (CVR) = 0.847, Content Validity Index (CVI) = 0.877, and the reliability with internal consistency was confirmed with R = 0.944. The CVI sub-components for relevance, clarity, and simplicity were obtained as 0.867, 0.853, and 0.847, respectively. According to EFA, the sample adequacy was confirmed with Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index = 0.928 and significant Bartlett's test (P < 0.001). The total variance explained of the QEdu-Agility was about 60%. The first component of responsiveness accounted for 38.79% of the variance, followed by adequacy (7.99%), flexibility (5.17%), speed (3.91%), and integrity (3.57%) in subsequent components.
conclusionThe findings of the construct validity indicated a good fit of the QEdu-Agility. Given that the concept of agility is highly contingent on the context, this tool could be retested for measuring educational agility in educational organizations, such as universities.
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.