ArticleJournal of education and health promotion2024
Design and validation of a self-assessment questionnaire of basic thinking skills.
Article in Journal of education and health promotion, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundSince assessment of basic thinking skills is crucial in identifying an individual's cognitive capacities and comprehending their strengths and weaknesses, developing a suitable evaluating instrument holds significant importance in scheduling the training of basic thinking skills. This study aims to develop and subsequently validate a self-assessment questionnaire of basic thinking skills for medical sciences students. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe present study of designing and psychometrically testing the self-assessment questionnaire of basic thinking skills among medical sciences students was conducted between 2022 and 2023 at Isfahan University. For the validity review, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was employed. The adequacy of sample size was checked with the KMO index and Bartlett's test of sphericity. To perform EFA, principal factor analysis with Varimax rotation was performed. To obtain evidence of reliability, the internal consistency of the questionnaire was examined using Cronbach's alpha. The instrument stability was assessed through test-retest and intra-cluster correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis.
resultsThe KMO (Keyser-Meyer-Elkin) sampling index was 780, and Bartlett's sphericity test (BT) was also significant ( DISCUSSION: This study offers the first self-assessment questionnaire for basic thinking skills of medical sciences students which can be employed as a valid and reliable instrument for self-assessment of thinking skills and gaining insight into their training experiences. While the psychometrics of this questionnaire were based on the data from medical students, this questionnaire applies to students across various academic disciplines and is not limited to medical 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.