Formative peer evaluation instrument for a team-based learning course: Content and construct validity.

IF 3.3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Medical Teacher Pub Date : 2024-07-08 DOI:10.1080/0142159X.2024.2374511
Kyle A Robertson, David J Gunderman, Jessica N Byram
{"title":"Formative peer evaluation instrument for a team-based learning course: Content and construct validity.","authors":"Kyle A Robertson, David J Gunderman, Jessica N Byram","doi":"10.1080/0142159X.2024.2374511","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Team-based learning (TBL) is an evidence-based approach to promote teamwork. Peer evaluation (PE) is an essential component to shape future team engagement and promote reflection. As PEs vary in use, implementation, and assessment, this study establishes the content and construct validity of a formative PE tool for a TBL course.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A ten-item instrument was developed based on a comprehensive review of PE literature and was critically edited by a team of experienced educators. Each student in a graduate histology course rated peers at two timepoints on a scale from Never to Always (0-3). The instrument's factor structure was analyzed by dividing the response set (D1 and D2); with D1 utilized for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and D2 for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Cronbach's alpha assessed internal consistency.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data from 158 students across four cohorts were included in the analyses (D1, D2 = 972). A three-factor solution had good overall internal consistency (alpha = 0.82), and within the subscales ranged from 0.67 to 0.81. The factor structures were resonant with existing literature on (1) <i>preparation,</i> (2) <i>providing feedback</i>, and (3) f<i>eedback receptivity and attitude.</i></p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study establishes evidence of content and construct validity of a formative PE instrument for a TBL course.</p>","PeriodicalId":18643,"journal":{"name":"Medical Teacher","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Teacher","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2024.2374511","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Team-based learning (TBL) is an evidence-based approach to promote teamwork. Peer evaluation (PE) is an essential component to shape future team engagement and promote reflection. As PEs vary in use, implementation, and assessment, this study establishes the content and construct validity of a formative PE tool for a TBL course.

Methods: A ten-item instrument was developed based on a comprehensive review of PE literature and was critically edited by a team of experienced educators. Each student in a graduate histology course rated peers at two timepoints on a scale from Never to Always (0-3). The instrument's factor structure was analyzed by dividing the response set (D1 and D2); with D1 utilized for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and D2 for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Cronbach's alpha assessed internal consistency.

Results: Data from 158 students across four cohorts were included in the analyses (D1, D2 = 972). A three-factor solution had good overall internal consistency (alpha = 0.82), and within the subscales ranged from 0.67 to 0.81. The factor structures were resonant with existing literature on (1) preparation, (2) providing feedback, and (3) feedback receptivity and attitude.

Conclusion: This study establishes evidence of content and construct validity of a formative PE instrument for a TBL course.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
团队学习课程的形成性同伴评价工具:内容和结构的有效性。
目的:基于团队的学习(TBL)是一种促进团队合作的循证方法。同伴评价(PE)是塑造未来团队参与和促进反思的重要组成部分。由于 PE 在使用、实施和评估方面各不相同,本研究确定了 TBL 课程形成性 PE 工具的内容和结构有效性:方法:根据对体育教学文献的全面回顾,开发了一个由十个项目组成的工具,并由一组经验丰富的教育工作者进行了严格的编辑。组织学研究生课程的每位学生在两个时间点对同伴进行评分,评分标准从 "从不 "到 "总是"(0-3)。该工具的因子结构分析是通过划分响应集(D1 和 D2)进行的;D1 用于探索性因子分析(EFA),D2 用于确认性因子分析(CFA)。Cronbach's alpha 评估内部一致性:来自四批学生中 158 名学生的数据被纳入分析(D1, D2 = 972)。三因素解决方案具有良好的整体内部一致性(α = 0.82),子量表内部的内部一致性从 0.67 到 0.81 不等。因子结构与现有文献中关于(1)准备、(2)提供反馈以及(3)反馈接受能力和态度的内容相吻合:本研究证明了 TBL 课程形成性体育教学工具在内容和结构上的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Teacher
Medical Teacher 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
8.50%
发文量
396
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Teacher provides accounts of new teaching methods, guidance on structuring courses and assessing achievement, and serves as a forum for communication between medical teachers and those involved in general education. In particular, the journal recognizes the problems teachers have in keeping up-to-date with the developments in educational methods that lead to more effective teaching and learning at a time when the content of the curriculum—from medical procedures to policy changes in health care provision—is also changing. The journal features reports of innovation and research in medical education, case studies, survey articles, practical guidelines, reviews of current literature and book reviews. All articles are peer reviewed.
期刊最新文献
Integration of behavioral, social, and humanities sciences into healthcare and education and their alignment with medical education programs. Submitting artificial intelligence in health professions education papers to medical teacher. Transformative power of an early ICU internship: A reflection from our undergraduate medical students. Medical education challenges in Mainland China: An analysis of the application of problem-based learning. Transforming remediation for competency-based medical education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1