ArticlePloS one2025
Validation of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire among clinical clerkship students in Malaysia.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Factorial Reduction of the Main Scales of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) in Mexican Health Sciences University Students.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2025Article
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
The 81-item Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) is a validated tool for measuring self-regulated learning (SRL) and comprises two scales, Motivation and Learning strategies. Although its use in health professions education has been well established, validation in clinical clerkship years is scant. This study aims to investigate the structural validity and internal consistency of MSLQ in the context of Malaysian clinical clerkship students. The data from 349 clinical clerkship students, who completed the adapted MSLQ was used to test the internal consistency and hypothesised factor structure using confirmatory factor analysis for both the Motivation and Learning strategies scales. For the Motivation scale, the Cronbach's alpha values ranged from 0.63 to 0.90 and for the Learning strategies scale from 0.61 to 0.86, indicating acceptable to high internal consistency. Cronbach's alpha for whole MSLQ was 0.91, suggesting an excellent reliability of MSLQ in our sample. The model fit indices for the Motivation scale were comparable to the original MSLQ indicating a reasonable fit whereas the model fit indices for the Learning strategies scale did not fit well with our sample and required re-specification to attain a marginal fit. After re-specification for a better model fit, the six-factor Motivational scale and nine-factor Learning strategies scale retained their original constructs in our population sample of clinical clerkship students. Comparing our findings with the original MSLQ and previous studies, we can claim a marginal fit of our data and the theoretical model and suggest the need for further testing with a larger sample size and across different institutions. We recommend that the 75-item re-specified MSLQ-CL could be valuable for future SRL investigations among clinical clerkship students in general as well as in context of Asian medical education context.
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.