ArticleBMC medical education2025
Clinical learning environment, supervision and teacher evaluation scale: psychometric evaluation of the Persian version.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical education is pivotal in nursing education programs, with students’ feedback being crucial for enhancing educational quality. Hence, a reliable tool is essential to assess students’ perspectives. This study aimed to validate the Clinical Learning Environment, Supervision, and Nurse Teacher (CLES + T) scale from the viewpoint of students.
methodsThis methodological study was conducted between November 2016 and December 2018. The CLES + T underwent forward translation from English to Persian and back-translation to English. To ensure qualitative face validity, the questionnaire was reviewed by 10 nursing faculty professors in Iran. Quantitative face validity was determined by calculating the item impact index with the target group. Content validity was evaluated using the Content Validity Ratio (CVR) and Content Validity Index (CVI). Construct validity was established by administering the questionnaire to 427 nursing students, followed by confirmatory factor analysis. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient.
resultsThe findings show that the value of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and composite reliability for research constructs is above 0.7. Therefore, the research constructs have a very favorable fit. Regarding structural validity, items 2, 3, and 13 were removed from the final questionnaire due to factor loadings below 0.4. Also, for two constructs, supervisory relationship and pedagogical atmosphere, a value lower than 0.5 was calculated, which is due to not obtaining a high AVE value. The value of the coefficient of determination for all the endogenous structures of the model are in the acceptable range, which indicates a very favorable fit of the structural model of the research.
conclusionsThe Persian version of the CLES + T tool exhibited appropriate validity and reliability, making it a valuable instrument for students to evaluate clinical mentors, supervisors, and the clinical environment.
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.