ArticleBMC medical education2025
Development and validation of the clinical educator self-regulated learning scale (CTSRS): insights from faculty development.
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.
- Development and validation of a dual-perspective competency scale for novice medical laboratory scientists in Japan.BMC medical education · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEffective faculty development is crucial for improving clinical teaching methods, especially in the context of educational changes and public health crises. Many current programs do not have personalized assessment instruments, which diminishes their potential impact. This research employed Zimmerman’s self-regulated learning (SRL) model to develop a tool that evaluates clinical educators’ capacity to adjust and regulate their teaching approaches. The aim of this research was to develop and validate a Clinical Educator Self-Regulation Scale (CTSRS) designed for clinical faculty, with the goal of identifying and addressing deficiencies in clinical teaching approaches through customized faculty training initiatives.
methodsThe development of the CTSRS involved multiple stages, starting with the review of an established Chinese teachers’ SRL scale, alongside narrative interviews with 52 clinical faculty members. This process resulted in 78 preliminary items, which were then refined by a panel of experts to produce 35 items. Pilot testing involving 25 experienced clinical educators led to additional adjustments and culminated in a final set of 35 items. The validation study included 378 clinical educators from five medical institutions and utilized confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to validate the structure of the scale. Item retention was based on standardized loadings ≥ 0.50 and theoretical relevance.
resultsConfirmatory factor analysis indicated that the scale had an optimal eight-factor structure, including past teaching experiences, intrinsic interest and engagement, self-adjustment during the teaching process, teaching opportunities, resistance to change in teaching methods, peer comparison and self-evaluation, help-seeking and peer collaboration, and application of learning from faculty development. The model demonstrated good fit (χ² = 1116; p < .05; CFI = 0.90; TLI = 0.89; NFI = 0.86; RMSEA = 0.07) and strong convergent validity (all items had standardized factor loadings above 0.60 and average variance extracted (AVE) above 0.50). The final scale model consists of 30 items.
conclusionsThe CTSRS offers a reliable instrument to identify and improve self-regulatory teaching skills in faculty development programs. Its psychometric characteristics suggest potential for broader implementation, with the prospect of meaningful enhancements in clinical education practices. Subsequent research will focus on cross-cultural validation, linguistic adaptation, and the design of interventions informed by the scale to support improvements in clinical teaching. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: N/A. This is a scale development and validation study. There is no healthcare intervention involving human participants.
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.