ArticleJournal of advances in medical education & professionalism2026
Designing and Psychometric Evaluation of Professional Competency Assessment Tools in Educating Accident and Emergency Managers.
Article in Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study is novel in that it is one of the first efforts in Iran to develop and validate a culturally relevant assessment tool tailored to evaluate the professional competencies of emergency managers. The study provides a foundation for evidence-based training of managers, competency development, and improved disaster preparedness and response in Iran by addressing this unmet need. Methods: This methodological exploratory study which aimed to design and validate a competency assessment tool for the education of emergency managers was conducted in 2022. First, an item pool was collected from the literature review (previously designed questionnaires and existing models of reflection) and experts' and researchers' perspectives. After that, 40 experts were shown the first draft of the questionnaire to assess its face and content validity. To assess the construct validity, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were done. 288 participants consciously completed the questionnaire. The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS version 26.0 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) Statistics and AMOS 26.0 software. Results: The study yielded a structured questionnaire with 36 items across eight competency areas, including Critical thinking, Strategic thinking, Knowledge and experience, Skill management, Effective Communication, Ethical, Resiliency, and Personality. The content validity index (CVI), content validity ratio (CVR), and impact score (IS) for the questionnaire were 0.97, 0.62, and 4.61, respectively. This tool demonstrated strong reliability (Cronbach's alpha=0.74) and robust convergent and discriminant validity. EFA identified eight key factors that, taken together, explained 51.9 percent of the overall variation. CFA revealed that there was a positive and significant correlation. Conclusion: The findings confirmed that the assessment tool is a valid and reliable instrument for evaluating professional competencies in Iranian emergency managers. Beyond assessment, it offers a foundation for developing competency-based training strategies that enhance the effectiveness and resilience of emergency response teams. This tool was designed with cultural adaptation to address current limitations and can potentially significantly influence Iran's emergency management procedures in the future.
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.