↓ Skip to main content

Cross-validation of a learning climate instrument in a non-western postgraduate clinical environment

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Cross-validation of a learning climate instrument in a non-western postgraduate clinical environment
Published in
BMC Medical Education, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1127-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jaime L. Pacifico, Cees P. M. van der Vleuten, Arno M. M. Muijtjens, Erlyn A. Sana, Sylvia Heeneman

Abstract

In postgraduate training, there is a need to continuously assess the learning and working conditions to optimize learning. Students or trainees respond to the learning climate as they perceive it. The Dutch Residency Educational Climate Test (D-RECT) is a learning climate measurement tool with well-substantiated validity. However, it was originally designed for Dutch postgraduate trainees and it remains to be shown whether extrapolation to non-Western settings is viable. The dual objective of this study was to revalidate D-RECT outside of a Western setting and to evaluate the factor structure of a recently revised version of the D-RECT containing 35 items. We invited Filipino internal medicine residents from 96 hospitals to complete the revised 35-item D-RECT. Subsequently, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis to check the fit of the 9 scale model of the revised 35-item D-RECT. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using generalizability theory. Confirmatory factor analysis unveiled that the factor structure of the revised 35-item D-RECT provided a reasonable fit to the Filipino data, after removal of 7 items. Five to seven evaluations of individual residents were needed per scale to obtain a reliable result. Even in a non-Western setting, the D-RECT exhibited psychometric validity. This study validated the factor structure of the revised 35-item D-RECT after some modifications. We recommend that its application be extended to other Asian countries and specialties.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 8 17%
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 3 6%
Other 12 25%
Unknown 8 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 42%
Social Sciences 7 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 10 21%
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 07 February 2018.
All research outputs
#17,927,741
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,633
of 3,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#310,147
of 441,127 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#45
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,368 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 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 441,127 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.