medigraphic.com
ISSN 1561-2902 (Electronic)

2018, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Revista Cubana de Educación Médica Superior 2018; 32 (2)

Factorial structure and internal consistency of Clinic Teachers Assessment Questionnaire in Speech Therapy Internship

Martínez CR, Pérez VC, León VH, Carmona SL

Language: Spanish
References: 17
Page: 1-10
PDF size: 106.91 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Final year Speech Therapy students are supervised by a tutor in the clinic, who plays a role of teacher without necessarily being qualified. There are not instruments available to evaluate if these tutors teaching is proven to be reliable.
Objective: The aim is to evaluate the psychometric properties of "Clinic Teachers Assessment Questionnaire (CTAQ)" in Speech Therapy degree internships in a traditional university in Concepción.
Method: Analytical, relational and mixed studies, using surveys. The surveys were answered by 43 students who were selected using a sampling method that was not probabilistic in terms of accessibility. These students carried out 137 reviews using the CTAQ, evaluating 38 tutors. Informed consent was given and it was authorized by the person in charge of the major.
Results: An exploratory factor analysis was carried out using the Kaiser-Meyer- Olkin=0,95 statistical calculation of sampling adequacy and Bartlett's test of sphericity c2(325)=4092,05; p<0,001. The Kaiser-Guttman criterion was used when estimating the number of factors, identifying three factors with eigenvalues of 16,71, 1,23 and 1,07. These factors displayed reliability with Cronbach's alpha coefficients a=0,97, a=0,93 and a=0,89. They also displayed a direct correlation with the teacher's overall score of that were statistically significant.
Conclusions: The CTAQ shows signs of reliability and validity of design and criteria. The CTAQ displays the following factors: "promotes ongoing dialogue", "promotes conditions for safe performance" and "teaches techniques". The CTAQ allows the clinical teachers to be characterized, and enables teaching innovation in the internships.


REFERENCES

  1. Rumani S, Leinster S. AMEE Guide no. 34: Teaching in the clinical environment. Med Teach [Internet]. 2008. [cited 2015 Oct 21]; 30(4):347-364. Available from: http://www.bumc.bu.edu/facdev-medicine/files/2010/06/AMEE-guide-paper.pdf

  2. Stalmeijer R, Dolmans D, Wolfhagen I, Muijtjens A, Scherpbier A. The development of an instrument for evaluating clinical teachers: involving stakeholders to determine content validity. Med Teach [Internet]. 2008. [cited 2014 Ago 3]; 30(8):e272-e277. Available from: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01421590802258904

  3. Stalmeijer R, Dolmans D, Wolfhagen I, Scherpbier A. Cognitive apprenticeship in clinical practice: can it stimulate learning in the opinion of students?. Adv in Health Sci Educ [Internet]. 2009. [cited 2015 Oct 21]; 14(4): 535-546. Available from: http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10459-008-9136-0.pdf

  4. Fasce E, Ibáñez P. Fundamentos y práctica de la educación médica. Concepción: Editorial Universidad de Concepción; 2013. 198 p.

  5. Glaría R, Carmona L, Pérez C, Parra P. Evaluación del curriculum por estudiantes de Fonoaudiología de la Universidad de Concepción, Chile. Educ Med Super [Internet]. 2016. [cited 2017 Sep 20]; 30(4):287-303. Available from: http://scielo.sld.cu/pdf/ems/v30n4/ems05416.pdf

  6. Lyons K, McLaughlin J, Khanova J, Roth M. Cognitive apprenticeship in health sciences education: a qualitative review. Adv in Health Sci Educ [Internet]. 2016. [cited 2017 Sep 20]; 22(3):723-739. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10459-016-9707-4

  7. Center for the Study of Reading. COGNITIVE APPRENTICESHIP:TEACHING THE CRAFT OF READING, WRITING, AND MATHEMATICS [Internet]. Champaign: University of Illinois; 1987 [cited 2015 Oct 21]. Available from: http://ocw.metu.edu.tr/pluginfile.php/9107/mod_resource/content/1/Collins%20report.pdf

  8. Tornimbeni S, Pérez E, y Olaz, F. Introducción a la psicometría. Buenos Aires: Paidós; 2008. 280 p.

  9. Hernández R, Fernández C, Baptista M. Metodología de la investigación. México DF: McGraw-Hill; 2010. 613 p.

  10. Hair J, Black W, Babin B, Anderson R, Tatham R. Análisis multivariante. Nueva Jersey: Prentice Hall; 2005. 832 p.

  11. Tabachnick B, Fidell L. Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 2006. 980 p.

  12. Martínez R, Hernández M, Hernández M. Psicometría. Madrid: Alianza; 2006. 488 p.

  13. Buja A, Eyuboglu N. Remarks on parallel analysis. Multivariate Behav Res. 1992; 27(4): 509-540.

  14. Stalmeijer R, Dolmans D, Wolfhagen I, Muijtjens A, Scherpbier A. The Maastricht Clinical Teaching Questionnaire (MCTQ) as a Valid and Reliable Instrument for the Evaluation of Clinical Teachers. Acad Med [Internet]. 2010. [cited 2014 Ago 3]; 85(11):1732-1738. Available from: http://pdfs.journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/2010/11000/The_Maastricht_Clinical_T eaching_Questionnaire.33.pdf

  15. Stalmeijer R, Dolmans D, Snellen-Balendong H, Van Santen-Hoeufft M, Wolfhagen I, Scherpbier A. Clinical Teaching Based on Principles of Cognitive Apprenticeship: Views of Experienced Clinical Teachers. Acad Med [Internet]. 2013. [cited 2017 Sep 20]; 88(6):861-865. Available from: http://pdfs.journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/2013/06000/Clinical_Teaching_Based_ on_Principles_of_Cognitive.32.pdf

  16. Berk R. Top five flashpoints in the assessment of teaching effectiveness. Med Teach [Internet]. 2013. [cited 2017 Sep 20]; 35(1): 15-26. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3109/0142159X.2012.732247

  17. Pérez J, Lavalle C. La educación médica en el siglo XXI. México DF: Editoriales FT; 2008. 262 p.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com