Assessment of validity and reliability of the feedback quality instrument
BMC Research Notes, ISSN: 1756-0500, Vol: 17, Issue: 1, Page: 227
2024
- 2Citations
- 14Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Background: The purpose was to investigate the psychometric features of the Feedback Quality Instrument (FQI) in medical students, emphasizing the instrument’s utility for evaluating the quality of feedback provided in clinical contexts and the importance of performing so for medical trainees. Methods and material: The Persian version of the FQI was evaluated for content validity through a focus group of medical education experts. The questionnaire’s face, content, and construct validity were assessed using Confirmatory Factor Analysis, internal consistency, and inter-rater reliability. The questionnaire was revised and pilot-tested, with medical students’ feedback in different clinical situations. The data was analyzed using AMOS26. Results: The content validity index equaled 0.88(> 0.79). The content validity ratio representing the proportion of participants who agreed on a selected item was 0.69(> 0.42). According to experts, item 25 is the only modified item, while items 23 and 24 are presented as one item. For reliability, Cronbach alpha was equaled to 0.98. Conclusions: The Persian version of the Feedback Quality Instrument (FQI) was valid, reliable, and fair in assessing feedback quality in medical students, providing valuable insights for other institutions. Establishing a basis for systematically analyzing how certain educator behaviors affect student outcomes is practical.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85195144494&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-024-06881-x; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39152449; https://bmcresnotes.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13104-024-06881-x; https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-024-06881-x
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know