Psychometric properties of the Feedback Orientation Scale in the clinical workplace of health professions students.

IF 1.6 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES International Journal of Medical Education Pub Date : 2025-02-25 DOI:10.5116/ijme.679e.07de
Javiera Fuentes-Cimma, Dominique Sluijsmans, Paulina Perez-Mejias, Ignacio Villagran, Arnoldo Riquelme, Sylvia Heeneman
{"title":"Psychometric properties of the Feedback Orientation Scale in the clinical workplace of health professions students.","authors":"Javiera Fuentes-Cimma, Dominique Sluijsmans, Paulina Perez-Mejias, Ignacio Villagran, Arnoldo Riquelme, Sylvia Heeneman","doi":"10.5116/ijme.679e.07de","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To cross-culturally validate the Feedback Orientation Scale in the clinical workplace, focusing on the Spanish adaptation of the instrument in the Chilean context.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-cultural validation of the Feedback Orientation Scale was conducted across six Chilean universities and nine health professions education programs. The target population were students in their clinical clerkship. The scale was translated through a rigorous process and was applied online. Validity and reliability of the constructs were evaluated through confirmatory factor analysis. A descriptive statistical analysis was conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 510 students participated (70% female, average age 24.1 years, 30% response rate). Students' responses were from Medicine (n=128), Physiotherapy (n=128), Nursing (n=63), Dentistry (n=49), and five other disciplines. Confirmatory factor analysis showed a sufficient fit of the original factor structure CFI = 0.96, SRMR = 0.045, RMSEA = 0.051, 90% CI [0.044, 0.057]. Item loadings were above 0.50. Factor reliability ranged from 0.77 to 0.91. Overall, students' perception of receptivity to feedback was positive, and the Feedback Self-efficacy subscale had the most \"disagree\" and \"strongly disagree\" responses.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings provide evidence regarding the validity and reliability of the Feedback Orientation Scale for assessing the feedback orientation of health profession education students in the clinical workplace. Students scored lowest on two items related to feedback self-efficacy, indicating low confidence in handling feedback. This Feedback Orientation Scale can reveal valuable insights into how students may differ in their receptivity and use of feedback in the clinical workplace, informing teaching practices and interventions, and redesigning existing feedback practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":14029,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Medical Education","volume":"16 ","pages":"36-44"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.679e.07de","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To cross-culturally validate the Feedback Orientation Scale in the clinical workplace, focusing on the Spanish adaptation of the instrument in the Chilean context.

Methods: A cross-cultural validation of the Feedback Orientation Scale was conducted across six Chilean universities and nine health professions education programs. The target population were students in their clinical clerkship. The scale was translated through a rigorous process and was applied online. Validity and reliability of the constructs were evaluated through confirmatory factor analysis. A descriptive statistical analysis was conducted.

Results: A total of 510 students participated (70% female, average age 24.1 years, 30% response rate). Students' responses were from Medicine (n=128), Physiotherapy (n=128), Nursing (n=63), Dentistry (n=49), and five other disciplines. Confirmatory factor analysis showed a sufficient fit of the original factor structure CFI = 0.96, SRMR = 0.045, RMSEA = 0.051, 90% CI [0.044, 0.057]. Item loadings were above 0.50. Factor reliability ranged from 0.77 to 0.91. Overall, students' perception of receptivity to feedback was positive, and the Feedback Self-efficacy subscale had the most "disagree" and "strongly disagree" responses.

Conclusions: Our findings provide evidence regarding the validity and reliability of the Feedback Orientation Scale for assessing the feedback orientation of health profession education students in the clinical workplace. Students scored lowest on two items related to feedback self-efficacy, indicating low confidence in handling feedback. This Feedback Orientation Scale can reveal valuable insights into how students may differ in their receptivity and use of feedback in the clinical workplace, informing teaching practices and interventions, and redesigning existing feedback practices.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Medical Education
International Journal of Medical Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
3.20%
发文量
38
期刊最新文献
Perceptions of the usefulness of an online simulated clinical examination. Psychometric properties of the Feedback Orientation Scale in the clinical workplace of health professions students. Development of a competency framework for postgraduate training in obstetrics and gynaecology using a Delphi study. Changing landscape of medical conferences: identifying the goals motivating virtual vs in-person participation. Assessing shared decision-making: a case study of third-year medical student standardized patient encounters.
×
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