ArticleBMC medical education2025
Validation of the art education in medical education questionnaire (AEMEQ): integrating medical sciences with the humanities.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArt education is essential for developing creative abilities and improving sensory perception, as it integrates non-biomedical elements in medicine. Survey methodology gathers much of the medical education data relevant to these non-observable behaviors. The main objective of this study is to validate a questionnaire for an artistic education-based medicine curriculum by collecting opinions from expert faculty and students.
methodsThe AEMEQ was evaluated by its reliability and validity measurement. Content validity was determined by expert opinion (n = 20). To determine the internal structure of the AEMEQ and construct validity, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted, followed by a confirmatory factor analysis to assess the good fit using responses from 552 medical students who completed the AEMEQ. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha and test-retest methods.
resultsCVI > 0.72 for relevance, clarity, and simplicity resulted in 23 items for final analysis. 21 items with high reliability (ICC = 0.92) were obtained following construct validity. Exploratory factor analysis revealed five components (KMO = 0.93) associated with significant results from the Bartlett test. All components with AVE and CR values >0.7 are considered acceptable. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated significant fit indices such as Chisq/df = 2.25 and comparative fit index, CFI = 0.93. The final version of AEMEQ with 20 items showed acceptable reliability in most dimensions with potent relationships among components. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionsThis study precisely validates a 20-item AEMEQ for assessing arts education in medicine, exhibiting strong content/construct validity and satisfactory reliability between dimensions. Findings indicated significant positive correlations between different dimensions of the AEMEQ, highlighting the necessity of integrating artistic education into medical 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.