ArticleJournal of medical education and curricular development
Reliability and Validity of the Chinese Version of the Undergraduate Research Student Self-Assessment Among Chinese Medical Undergraduates.
Article in Journal of medical education and curricular development. 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
Background: Undergraduate research (UR) plays a pivotal role in medical education, fostering scientific thinking and professional development. At present, China lacks standardized tools to effectively appraise UR experiences among medical undergraduates. The Undergraduate Research Student Self-Assessment (URSSA), widely used in Western countries, has not been validated for Chinese populations and culture. This study aimed to translate and adapt the URSSA into Chinese and assess its psychometric properties for use with medical undergraduates. Methods: The URSSA was translated following Brislin's model, including forward-backward translation, expert panel review, and pilot testing. The final Chinese version was administered to 165 medical undergraduates from Peking University Health Science Center with UR experience. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's α and Guttman split-half coefficients. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) tested the four-factor structure (Skills, Thinking and Working Like a Scientist, Personal Gains, and Attitudes and Behaviors). Discriminant validity was examined by comparing scores across distinct subgroups. Results: A total of 165 medical undergraduates were included, among whom 66.7% were majoring in clinical medicine. After rigorous translation and back-translation, we obtained the URSSA questionnaire suitable for the Chinese context. The Chinese URSSA demonstrated excellent reliability (Cronbach's α coefficients = .972; Guttman split-half coefficients = 0.956). CFA supported the original structure and related metrics for testing the overall fitness of the structural equation model, including χ Conclusions: The Chinese URSSA is a valid and reliable tool for assessing UR gains among medical undergraduates. Its adoption can aid in program evaluation and curriculum development. Future research should validate the tool nationally and explore its predictive validity for long-term academic outcomes.
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.