ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Learning style analysis of traditional Chinese medicine residents in Taiwan: validation of the traditional Chinese version of the index of learning styles.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) education in Taiwan is transitioning from an apprenticeship model to a standardized residency program. This unique training cohort of TCM residents integrates the knowledge systems of TCM and Western Medicine (WM). To understand this population, we aim to translate, validate, and use the Traditional Chinese version of the Index of Learning Styles (TC-ILS) to profile the learning style distribution of Taiwanese TCM residents. Methods: A cross-sectional survey recruited 217 TCM residents from the Chang Gung Memorial Hospital system. Psychometric properties were assessed via Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Composite Reliability (CR). Learning style profiles and subgroup differences were also analyzed. Results: Psychometric evaluation of the TC-ILS yielded mixed fit findings: while RMSEA (0.035) suggested small average residuals, CFI (0.730), TLI (0.714), and SRMR (0.136) indicated substantial misfit. Accordingly, the CFA provides only partial support for the hypothesized four-factor structure, consistent with prior ILS reports involving dichotomous items and highly correlated dimensions. Regarding internal consistency, the CR was acceptable for Sensing/Intuitive (0.639) and Visual/Verbal (0.625), but below the 0.6 standard for Active/Reflective (0.461) and Sequential/Global (0.485). The cohort exhibited strong preferences for Sensing (77.42%), Visual (87.56%), Reflective (62.21%), and Global (59.45%) styles. Discussion: This study translated, adapted, and assessed the TC-ILS for use in this specific TCM resident cohort. The profile demonstrated a distinct tendency toward Visual, Sensing, Reflective, and Global styles. The Global preference differs from the Sequential style typically observed in WM participants and may reflect features of this specific professional training context.
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.