ArticleJournal of educational evaluation for health professions2025
Reliability and construct validation of the Blended Learning Usability Evaluation-Questionnaire with interprofessional clinicians in Canada: a methodological study.
Article in Journal of educational evaluation for health professions, 2025. 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
purposeTo generate Cronbach's alpha and further mixed methods construct validity evidence for the Blended Learning Usability Evaluation-Questionnaire (BLUE-Q).
methodsForty interprofessional clinicians completed the BLUE-Q after finishing a 3-month long blended learning professional development program in Ontario, Canada. Reliability was assessed with Cronbach's α for each of the 3 sections of the BLUE-Q and for all quantitative items together. Construct validity was evaluated through the Grand-Guillaume-Perrenoud et al. framework, which consists of 3 elements: congruence, convergence, and credibility. To compare quantitative and qualitative results, descriptive statistics, including means and standard deviations for each Likert scale item of the BLUE-Q were calculated.
resultsCronbach's α was 0.95 for the pedagogical usability section, 0.85 for the synchronous modality section, 0.93 for the asynchronous modality section, and 0.96 for all quantitative items together. Mean ratings (with standard deviations) were 4.77 (0.506) for pedagogy, 4.64 (0.654) for synchronous learning, and 4.75 (0.536) for asynchronous learning. Of the 239 qualitative comments received, 178 were identified as substantive, of which 88% were considered congruent and 79% were considered convergent with the high means. Among all congruent responses, 69% were considered confirming statements and 31% were considered clarifying statements, suggesting appropriate credibility. Analysis of the clarifying statements assisted in identifying 5 categories of suggestions for program improvement.
conclusionThe BLUE-Q demonstrates high reliability and appropriate construct validity in the context of a blended learning program with interprofessional clinicians, making it a valuable tool for comprehensive program evaluation, quality improvement, and evaluative research in health professions education.
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.