medigraphic.com
ISSN 2007-5057 (Print)
Investigación en Educación Médica

2024, Number 51

<< Back Next >>

Inv Ed Med 2024; 13 (51)

Validity evidence of an instrument to assess the teachers’ digital competence in medical education

Massieu PA, Díaz Barriga-Arceo F, Sánchez MM, Martínez GA

Language: Spanish
References: 36
Page: 82-92
PDF size: 633.49 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Currently, the leading role of information and communication technologies (ICT), as well as the characteristics of the new generations of students and the health challenges worldwide, require that teachers have the necessary training in digital teaching competence. The current work aims to create an instrument that measures the teachers’ digital competence in Medical Education and find its validity evidence.
Objective: Develop a tool to assess teacher’s digital competence and find its validity evidence.
Method: An initial instrument of 42 items was built and to find the validity evidence, the recommendations and steps proposed by international guidelines were followed, which include literature review, focus groups, synthesis, drafting, validation by experts, cognitive interviews and pilot test.
Results: The degree of agreement was calculated, among 10 experts, regarding the clarity, coherence and relevance of the items. Subsequently, a tree of categories was completed and the coding, grouping of testimonies by categories and subsequent analysis of the cognitive interviews continued. From the pilot test, 65 responses were obtained. Internal validity was confirmed by calculating Cronbach’s alpha, obtaining a result of 0.905. Subsequently, the exploratory factorial analysis with the principal component extraction method and the Varimax rotation method, yielded a KMO of 0.642 and a Bartlett’s sphericity test of 0.001.
Conclusions: An instrument was built that gathers sufficient validity evidence to be used to measure the teachers’ digital competence in Medical Education.


REFERENCES

  1. Tackett S, Steinert Y, Whitehead CR, Reed DA, Wright SM.Blind spots in medical education: how can we envision newpossibilities? Perspect Med Educ. 2022;11(6):365-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40037-022-00730-y

  2. Ludmerer KM. Learner-Centered Medical Education. [Internet]NEJM. 2004;351(12):1163-4. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/2x4grv55

  3. Baker LR, Phelan S, Woods NN, Boyd VA, Rowland P, Ng SL. Reenvisioningparadigms of education: towards awareness, alignment,and pluralism. Adv in Health Sci Edu. 2021;26(3):1045-58.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-021-10036-z

  4. Rose S. Medical Student Education in the Time of COVID-19. JAMA. 2020;323(21):2131-2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.5227

  5. Patil NG, Yan YCH. SARS and its effect on medical educationin Hong Kong. Med Educ. 2003;37(12):1127-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01723.x

  6. Servin-Rojas M, Olivas-Martinez A, Dithurbide-HernandezM, Chavez-Vela J, Petricevich VL, García-Juárez I, et al. Impactof the COVID-19 pandemic on the clinical trainingof last year medical students in Mexico: a cross-sectionalnationwide study. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-03085-w

  7. Sánchez Mendiola M, Fortoul van der Goes TI. Zoom yla educación en ciencias de la salud: ¿medio o mensaje?Inv Ed Med. 2021;(38):76-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/fm.20075057e.2021.38.21349

  8. Niño Carrasco SA, Castellanos-Ramírez JC, Bermúdez VivasR. Reacciones de las universidades mexicanas frente alvirus SARS-CoV-2. REEC. 2021;(39):180-202. http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/reec.39.2021.28890

  9. Bozkurt A, Sharma RC. Emergency remote teaching in a timeof global crisis due to CoronaVirus pandemic. AsianJDE.15(1):2020. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3778083

  10. de Agüero Servín M, Benavides Lara MA, Rendón CazalesJ, Pompa Mansilla M, Hernández-Romo AK, Hernández-Martínez AM del P, et al. Los retos educativos durante la pandemiade COVID-19: segunda encuesta a profesoras y profesoresde la UNAM.RDU. 2021;22(5). http://doi.org/10.22201/codeic.16076079e.2020.v21n3.a12

  11. Jauregui J, Watsjold B, Welsh L, Ilgen JS, Robins L. Generational‘othering’: The myth of the Millennial learner. MedEduc. 2020;54(1):60-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/medu.13795

  12. Bennett S, Maton K, Kervin L. The ‘digital natives’ debate: Acritical review of the evidence. BJET. 2008;39(5):775-86. Disponibleen: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x

  13. Bennett S, Maton K. Beyond the ‘digital natives’ debate: Towardsa more nuanced understanding of students’ technologyexperiences. J Comput Assist Learn. octubre de 2010;26(5):321-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00360.x

  14. Tirado F, Peralta J. Desarrollo de diseños educativos dinámicos.Perfiles Educativos. 2021;43(172). https://doi.org/10.22201/iisue.24486167e.2021.172.59490

  15. Lázaro-Cantabrana JL, Usart-Rodríguez M, Gisbert-CerveraM. Assessing Teacher Digital Competence: the Constructionof an Instrument for Measuring the Knowledge of Pre-ServiceTeachers. NAER. 2019;8(1):73-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.7821/naer.2019.1.370

  16. Kožuh A, Maksimović JŽ, Zajić JO. Fourth Industrial Revolutionand digital competences of teachers. WJET. 2021;13(2):160-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v13i2.5651

  17. Krumsvik R. Situated learning in the network society andthe digitised school. EJTE. 2009;32(2):167-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619760802457224

  18. Castañeda L, Esteve F, Adell J. ¿Por qué es necesario repensarla competencia docente para el mundo digital? RED.2018;(56). http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/red/56/6

  19. Redecker C, Punie Y. Digital Competence of Educators Dig-CompEdu. 2019 http://dx.doi.org/10.5220/0007679005410548

  20. INTEF. Marco común de competencia digital docente octubre2017 [Internet]. Disponible en: http://aprende.educalab.es

  21. UNESCO. What’s Next? Lessons on Education Recovery.2021 jul. [Internet]. Disponible en: lessons_on_education_recovery.pdf (unesco.org)

  22. Competencias Digitales Docentes MetaRed México, estudio2021 Resultados de la herramienta de autoevaluación CheckinDigCompEdu. [Internet]. Disponible en: CompDigDoc-MetaredMexico2021.pdf (anuies.mx)

  23. Downing SM. Validity: on the meaningful interpretationof assessment data. Med Educ. 2003;37:830-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01594.x

  24. Artino AR, La Rochelle JS, Dezee KJ, Gehlbach H. Developingquestionnaires for educational research: AMEE GuideNo. 87. Med Teach. 2014;36(6):463-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.889814

  25. Lázaro-Cantabrana JL, Gisbert-Cervera M, Silva-QuirozJE. Una rúbrica para evaluar la competencia digital del profesoruniversitario en el contexto latinoamericano. Edutec.2018;(63). http://dx.doi.org/10.21556/edutec.2018.63.1091

  26. Martínez-Garcés J, Garcés-Fuenmayor J. Competencias digitalesdocentes y el reto de la educación virtual derivadode la covid-19. Educación y Humanismo. 2020;22(39):1-16.http://dx.doi.org/10.17081/eduhum.22.39.4114

  27. Lázaro-Cantabrana JL, Usart-Rodríguez M, Gisbert-CerveraM. Assessing Teacher Digital Competence: the Constructionof an Instrument for Measuring the Knowledge of Pre-ServiceTeachers. JNEAR. 2019;8(1):73-8. https://doi.org/gqf4rm

  28. Artino AR, Gehlbach H, Durning SJ. AM Last Page: AvoidingFive Common Pitfalls of Survey Design. Academic Medicine.2011;86(10):1327. https://doi.org/fg5zfj

  29. Escobar-Pérez J, Cuervo-Martínez Á. Validez de contenidoy juicio de expertos: una aproximación a su utilización. [Internet]Avances en Medición. 2008;6:27-36. Disponible en:Validez de contenido y juicio de expertos: Una aproximacióna su utilización (researchgate.net)

  30. Willis GB, Artino AR. What Do Our Respondents ThinkWe’re Asking? Using Cognitive Interviewing to ImproveMedical Education Surveys. J Grad Med Educ. 2013;5(3):353-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-13-00154.1

  31. Varela-Ruiz M, Díaz-Bravo L, García-Durán R. Descripción yusos de la técnica Delphi. Inv Ed Med. [Internet] 2012;1(2):90-5. Disponible en Descripción y usos del método Delphi eninvestigaciones del área de la salud (scielo.org.mx)

  32. Wetzel AP. Factor Analysis Methods and Validity Evidence.Academic Medicine. 2012;87(8):1060-9. https://doi.org/f373zh

  33. Ponce López JL, Vicario-Solórzano CM, López-Valencia F(Coords.). Competencias Digitales Docentes Metared México,estudio 2021. México: Asociación Nacional de Universidadese Instituciones de Educación Superior. 2021. Disponible en:https://tinyurl.com/ynzmuryw

  34. Esther Urrutia MA, Barojas JW, Ramón Torres JS, EfrénPonce RR, Martínez AG. Predictores de autoevaluación deldesempeño docente en Ciencias de la Salud. [Internet] RevEduc Cienc Salud. 2008. Disponible en: Predictores de autoevaluaciondel desempeno docente en ciencias de la salud(researchgate.net)

  35. Rippey R. The evaluation of teaching in medical schools.New York: Springer Publishing; 1981. https://doi.org/cdgmc3

  36. Martínez-González A, Moreno-Altamirano L, Ponce-RosasE, Martínez-Franco A, Urrutia-Aguilar M. Evaluación deldesempeño docente en Salud Pública mediante tres estrategias.[Internet] Gac Med Mex. 2011;147(3):234-43. Disponibleen: Evaluación del desempeño docente en Salud Públicamediante tres estrategias (medigraphic.com)




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com