Archivos en Medicina Familiar

Contents by Year, Volume and Issue

Table of Contents

General Information

Instructions for Authors

Message to Editor

Editorial Board

>Journals >Archivos en Medicina Familiar >Year 2006, Issue 3

León-Castañeda MEP, Ortiz-Montalvo A, Petra-Micu I, Ortega-Gómez JL
Practical Phase of the Professional Exam: Student-Opinion Questionnaire Validation.
Arch Med Fam 2006; 8 (3)

Language: Español
References: 11
Page: 183-190
PDF: 77.53 Kb.

Full text


Objective. Our aim was to validate a questionnaire in order to know student opinion concerning the professional examination’s practical phase for the Surgical Physician Major at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México’s (UNAM’S) Faculty of Medicine. Design. We carried out a descriptive transversal study. Materials and Methods. A group of professors defined the categories and the 27 indicators for structuring the questionnaire. Another two groups of professors performed the questionnaire’s face validity and analyzed its clarity. The instrument was applied to 292 students on concluding their previously mentioned examination. Factorial analysis was conducted with Varimax rotation, and we calculated general internal consistency and consistency-by-factor. Reactives with a factorial index of p › 0.50 were accepted. Results. The questionnaire finally comprised 20 items that made up four factors. General Cronbach alpha was 0.87; byfactor score was 0.67, 0.86, 0.87, and 0.84 for teachers, student, patient, and examination logistics factors, which explain 62.8% of the general variance. Conclusions. The factors reflect the essential components of the Real-Patient Integral Clinical Examination; this will allow the examination coordinators to evaluate the process and its parts integrally. It will be useful to modify strategies, provide feedback to the examiners, and increase the reliability of this evaluation format.

Key words: Education, Teaching, Medical students.


  1. Miller G. The Assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Acad Med 1990; 65(9): 563-7.

  2. Lyons N. Clinical competence: a review of methods used to assess competence and proposals for a realistic future strategy. Education for Primary Care. 2000; 13: 326-35.

  3. Van der Vleuten C. Validity of final examinations in undergraduate medical training. BMJ 2000; 321:1217-9.

  4. Spike N, Jolly B. Are orals worth talking about? Medical Education. 2003; 37:9293.

  5. Wass V, Wakeford W, Neighbour R, Van der Vleuten C. Achieving acceptable reliability in oral examinations: an analysis of the Royal College of General Practitioners membership examination’s oral component. Medical Education. 2003; 37: 126-31.

  6. Fowell S.L., Maudsley G, Maguire P, Leinster SJ, Bligh J. Student assessment in undergraduate medical education in the United Kingdom, 1998. Medical Education 2000; 34(suppl.1): 1-49.

  7. Newble DI, Hoare J & Elmslie RG. The validity and reliability of a new examination of the clinical competence of medical students. Medical Education. 1981;15: 46-52.

  8. Hutchinson L, Aitken P, Hayes T. Are medical postgraduate certification processes valid ¿ A systematic review of the published evidence. Medical Education. 2002; 36:73-91.

  9. Thorndike RL & Hagan E. Measurement and Evaluation in Psychology and Education. John Wiley and Sons Inc. New York; 1969.

  10. Prado-Vega R. Razonamiento clínico diagnóstico con bases cognitivas. Tesis doctoral en Ciencias Médicas. Facultad de Medicina, UNAM, 1998.

  11. Epstein RM, Hundert EM. Defining and Assessing Professional Competence. JAMA. 2002; 287: 226-235.

>Journals >Archivos en Medicina Familiar >Year 2006, Issue 3

· Journal Index 
· Links 

Copyright 2019