↓ Skip to main content

Exploring the relationships between epistemic beliefs about medicine and approaches to learning medicine: a structural equation modeling analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Exploring the relationships between epistemic beliefs about medicine and approaches to learning medicine: a structural equation modeling analysis
Published in
BMC Medical Education, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0707-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yen-Lin Chiu, Jyh-Chong Liang, Cheng-Yen Hou, Chin-Chung Tsai

Abstract

Students' epistemic beliefs may vary in different domains; therefore, it may be beneficial for medical educators to better understand medical students' epistemic beliefs regarding medicine. Understanding how medical students are aware of medical knowledge and how they learn medicine is a critical issue of medical education. The main purposes of this study were to investigate medical students' epistemic beliefs relating to medical knowledge, and to examine their relationships with students' approaches to learning medicine. A total of 340 undergraduate medical students from 9 medical colleges in Taiwan were surveyed with the Medical-Specific Epistemic Beliefs (MSEB) questionnaire (i.e., multi-source, uncertainty, development, justification) and the Approach to Learning Medicine (ALM) questionnaire (i.e., surface motive, surface strategy, deep motive, and deep strategy). By employing the structural equation modeling technique, the confirmatory factor analysis and path analysis were conducted to validate the questionnaires and explore the structural relations between these two constructs. It was indicated that medical students with multi-source beliefs who were suspicious of medical knowledge transmitted from authorities were less likely to possess a surface motive and deep strategies. Students with beliefs regarding uncertain medical knowledge tended to utilize flexible approaches, that is, they were inclined to possess a surface motive but adopt deep strategies. Students with beliefs relating to justifying medical knowledge were more likely to have mixed motives (both surface and deep motives) and mixed strategies (both surface and deep strategies). However, epistemic beliefs regarding development did not have significant relations with approaches to learning. Unexpectedly, it was found that medical students with sophisticated epistemic beliefs (e.g., suspecting knowledge from medical experts) did not necessarily engage in deep approaches to learning medicine. Instead of a deep approach, medical students with sophisticated epistemic beliefs in uncertain and justifying medical knowledge intended to employ a flexible approach and a mixed approach, respectively.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 4 7%
Lecturer 3 5%
Other 16 27%
Unknown 19 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 18%
Social Sciences 9 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 21 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 July 2016.
All research outputs
#20,336,031
of 22,881,154 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#3,162
of 3,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#317,181
of 363,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#64
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,154 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,337 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 363,152 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.