ArticleJournal of education and health promotion2025
Factor analysis validation of the student feedback questionnaire for the subcutaneous swelling simulation model.
Article in Journal of education and health promotion, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSubcutaneous swelling simulation models play a crucial role in medical education, providing practical hands-on experience to students. Evaluating these models through student feedback is essential for continual improvement. This study focuses on the validation of a feedback questionnaire intended to capture student perceptions effectively. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe Student Feedback Questionnaire was developed based on aspects relevant to the subcutaneous swelling simulation model. The questionnaire was distributed among a cohort of 265 students who had engaged with the simulation model. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was employed to validate the questionnaire's structure.
resultsThe factor analysis revealed a robust structure within the questionnaire, consolidating key domains that encompassed student evaluations of the simulation model. Identified factors represented aspects such as fidelity, clinical competency, and rating and recommendation with the simulation experience. The students also rated the model high and expressed that they would recommend the use of such a simulation model for hands-on training in future. Factor loadings demonstrated high correlations between questionnaire items and the underlying factors, affirming the questionnaire's validity. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient computed at 0.91 indicated high internal consistency among the questionnaire items, affirming its reliability.
conclusionThe factor analysis provided evidence supporting the multidimensionality of student feedback pertaining to the subcutaneous swelling simulation model. The validated questionnaire exhibited reliability in discerning various aspects of the simulation model that significantly impact student learning experiences. This study underscores the importance of a validated feedback instrument tailored to assess subcutaneous swelling simulation models.
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.