ArticleBMC medical education2025
Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the clinical learning evaluation questionnaire with Chinese clinical interns.
Article in BMC medical education, 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.
- A validated Arabic version of the clinical learning evaluation questionnaire for medical students and interns.Medical education online · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of an adapted English questionnaire in Chinese medical schools, assessing its cross-cultural applicability in China.
methodsA survey was conducted among clinical medical interns from four medical schools in China, collecting 216 valid responses. The questionnaire, based on the latest version of CLEQ, consisted of four dimensions and 18 items. It was translated into Chinese through a six-step forward and backward translation process. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 26 and IBM SPSS AMOS 28 Graphics.
resultsThe findings demonstrate that the translated questionnaire is suitable for Chinese clinical medical interns. Except for the "Learning Motivation" dimension with a reliability coefficient of 0.760, all other dimensions scored between 0.8 and 1, indicating strong internal consistency and reliability. Correlation coefficients exceeded 0.5, confirming good test-retest reliability. Model fit indices indicated good compatibility (CMIN/DF = 1.749, RMSEA = 0.057, and IFI, TLI, CFI > 0.9). Validity testing showed that all dimensions, except "Learning Motivation," had AVE values above 0.5 and CR values above 0.7,indicating good convergent validity and composite reliability. The discriminant validity of all dimensions was confirmed, as standardized correlation coefficients between each pair remained below the square root of their respective average variance extracted (AVE) values.
conclusionThe four-factor CLEQ questionnaire shows good validity and reliability among Chinese clinical interns. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.