ArticleBMC medical education2025
Transcultural adaptation of the virtual patient integration rating scale: a factor analysis.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUsing Virtual Patients (VPs) in medical education has gained popularity, especially during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, which restricted traditional clinical training. VPs provide a learning platform for students to refine their clinical reasoning and decision-making skills in a risk-free environment. Although the educational benefits of VPs are well known, there is still a need for validated tools to assess student perceptions, which are key to optimizing learning outcomes. The Virtual Patient Integration Rating Scale (VPIRS) has made a valuable contribution in this regard, having been established in English-speaking contexts, but its applicability in Ibero-American countries remains poorly explored. This study aimed to fill this gap by transculturally validating VPIRS for Spanish-speaking medical education environments, ensuring it reflects cultural nuances.
methodsWe conducted a two-phase transcultural validation of the VPIRS on medical students at the Universidad del Rosario. First, we translated and culturally adapted the VPIRS, using the modified Delphi method for face validation. Second, we assessed the construct validity, internal consistency, reproducibility, and reliability of the scale through a test-retest approach with 153 participants, using descriptive statistics, factor analysis, and reliability testing in SPSS.
resultsThe VPIRS was successfully adapted and validated for transcultural use in Spanish (VPIRS-E). The exploratory and factor analyses maintained the original scale's four-dimensional structure, explaining 61.8% of the total variance, with an overall Cronbach's alpha of 0.826. Test-retest reliability demonstrated robust intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.8 to 0.9.
conclusionThe VPIRS-E is a reliable and valid instrument that has maintained the structural integrity of the original scale and has demonstrated strong internal consistency across all of its domains. These results demonstrate the suitability of the VPIRS-E to assess medical students' perceptions of the use of VPs in Spanish-speaking learning contexts. The successful validation of this instrument also opens avenues for expanded international comparative studies, allowing fora deeper understanding of the effective integration of VPs in different medical education curricula.
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.