坦桑尼亚远程教育项目需求评估调查的内容验证

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE African Journal of Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2023-11-24 DOI:10.1016/j.afjem.2023.11.004
Oriane Longerstaey , Humphrey Godwin , Raya Mussa , Alphonce Simbila , Said Kilindimo , Michael Gibbs , Breanna Lorenzen , Michael Runyon , Adeline Dozois
{"title":"坦桑尼亚远程教育项目需求评估调查的内容验证","authors":"Oriane Longerstaey ,&nbsp;Humphrey Godwin ,&nbsp;Raya Mussa ,&nbsp;Alphonce Simbila ,&nbsp;Said Kilindimo ,&nbsp;Michael Gibbs ,&nbsp;Breanna Lorenzen ,&nbsp;Michael Runyon ,&nbsp;Adeline Dozois","doi":"10.1016/j.afjem.2023.11.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Historically, educational initiatives in global health have involved expert lectures by visitors. However, incomplete understanding of the target population and resources can limit the efficacy of lectures by international faculty. Little data exists on the magnitude of this problem. The goal of this study was to create and validate a needs assessment tool to guide lecture development as part of a larger study to implement virtual lectures for a residency program in Tanzania by members of an American faculty.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Two study authors familiar with the Tanzanian hospital and residency program derived surveys for local residents and faculty. An expert panel consisting of two faculty members and one resident from each institution evaluated the questions. Each item was rated from 1 to 4 for clarity and relevance respectively. A content validity index (CVI) was calculated for each item using the proportion of experts who rated it as valid. Items with a CVI &lt; 0.8 were revised and resubmitted. A CVI was then calculated for each instrument.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>On the initial resident survey, 20 of 26 items were clear and 25 of 26 items were relevant with a CVI &gt; 0.8. One item was deemed irrelevant and deleted. For the faculty survey, 10 of 12 items were clear and all items were relevant with CVI &gt; 0.8. Five questions from the resident survey and two from the faculty survey deemed relevant but unclear were rewritten and resubmitted to experts. They all achieved CVI&gt;0.8. Each survey obtained a CVI of 1.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Using this approach, we validated a needs assessment tool to guide the creation of didactics for audiences that practice in a different setting from the lecturer.  This validated tool is an important step in the creation of a process to develop appropriate content and could be replicated by other groups planning similar initiatives.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48515,"journal":{"name":"African Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211419X23000599/pdfft?md5=85fb700e1b617d196ceae95ede018674&pid=1-s2.0-S2211419X23000599-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Content validation of needs assessment survey for remote education initiative in Tanzania\",\"authors\":\"Oriane Longerstaey ,&nbsp;Humphrey Godwin ,&nbsp;Raya Mussa ,&nbsp;Alphonce Simbila ,&nbsp;Said Kilindimo ,&nbsp;Michael Gibbs ,&nbsp;Breanna Lorenzen ,&nbsp;Michael Runyon ,&nbsp;Adeline Dozois\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.afjem.2023.11.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Historically, educational initiatives in global health have involved expert lectures by visitors. However, incomplete understanding of the target population and resources can limit the efficacy of lectures by international faculty. Little data exists on the magnitude of this problem. The goal of this study was to create and validate a needs assessment tool to guide lecture development as part of a larger study to implement virtual lectures for a residency program in Tanzania by members of an American faculty.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Two study authors familiar with the Tanzanian hospital and residency program derived surveys for local residents and faculty. An expert panel consisting of two faculty members and one resident from each institution evaluated the questions. Each item was rated from 1 to 4 for clarity and relevance respectively. A content validity index (CVI) was calculated for each item using the proportion of experts who rated it as valid. Items with a CVI &lt; 0.8 were revised and resubmitted. A CVI was then calculated for each instrument.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>On the initial resident survey, 20 of 26 items were clear and 25 of 26 items were relevant with a CVI &gt; 0.8. One item was deemed irrelevant and deleted. For the faculty survey, 10 of 12 items were clear and all items were relevant with CVI &gt; 0.8. Five questions from the resident survey and two from the faculty survey deemed relevant but unclear were rewritten and resubmitted to experts. They all achieved CVI&gt;0.8. Each survey obtained a CVI of 1.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Using this approach, we validated a needs assessment tool to guide the creation of didactics for audiences that practice in a different setting from the lecturer.  This validated tool is an important step in the creation of a process to develop appropriate content and could be replicated by other groups planning similar initiatives.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48515,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"African Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211419X23000599/pdfft?md5=85fb700e1b617d196ceae95ede018674&pid=1-s2.0-S2211419X23000599-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"African Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211419X23000599\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211419X23000599","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

从历史上看,全球卫生方面的教育活动都涉及到专家讲座。然而,对目标人群和资源的不完全了解会限制国际教师讲座的效果。关于这个问题的严重程度的数据很少。本研究的目的是创建和验证一个需求评估工具,以指导讲座的发展,作为一项更大的研究的一部分,该研究旨在为坦桑尼亚的一个美国教师的住院医师项目实施虚拟讲座。方法两位熟悉坦桑尼亚医院和住院医师计划的研究作者对当地居民和教师进行了调查。由两名教员和一名住院医师组成的专家小组对问题进行了评估。每个项目的清晰度和相关性分别从1到4分。每个项目的内容效度指数(CVI)计算使用专家的比例认为它是有效的。具有CVI的项目;修改并重新提交0.8份。然后计算每个仪器的CVI。结果初步居民调查26项中有20项清晰,26项中有25项与CVI相关;0.8. 有一项被认为不相关并被删除。在教师调查中,12个项目中有10个是清晰的,所有项目都与CVI和gt;0.8. 居民调查中的5个问题和教师调查中的2个问题被认为相关但不清楚,他们被重写并重新提交给专家。他们都达到了cvi0.8。每次调查的CVI为1。使用这种方法,我们验证了一个需求评估工具,以指导在与讲师不同的环境中练习的听众创建教学。这个经过验证的工具是创建开发适当内容的过程中的一个重要步骤,并且可以被计划类似活动的其他组复制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Content validation of needs assessment survey for remote education initiative in Tanzania

Background

Historically, educational initiatives in global health have involved expert lectures by visitors. However, incomplete understanding of the target population and resources can limit the efficacy of lectures by international faculty. Little data exists on the magnitude of this problem. The goal of this study was to create and validate a needs assessment tool to guide lecture development as part of a larger study to implement virtual lectures for a residency program in Tanzania by members of an American faculty.

Methods

Two study authors familiar with the Tanzanian hospital and residency program derived surveys for local residents and faculty. An expert panel consisting of two faculty members and one resident from each institution evaluated the questions. Each item was rated from 1 to 4 for clarity and relevance respectively. A content validity index (CVI) was calculated for each item using the proportion of experts who rated it as valid. Items with a CVI < 0.8 were revised and resubmitted. A CVI was then calculated for each instrument.

Results

On the initial resident survey, 20 of 26 items were clear and 25 of 26 items were relevant with a CVI > 0.8. One item was deemed irrelevant and deleted. For the faculty survey, 10 of 12 items were clear and all items were relevant with CVI > 0.8. Five questions from the resident survey and two from the faculty survey deemed relevant but unclear were rewritten and resubmitted to experts. They all achieved CVI>0.8. Each survey obtained a CVI of 1.

Conclusions

Using this approach, we validated a needs assessment tool to guide the creation of didactics for audiences that practice in a different setting from the lecturer.  This validated tool is an important step in the creation of a process to develop appropriate content and could be replicated by other groups planning similar initiatives.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
7.70%
发文量
78
审稿时长
85 days
期刊最新文献
From vocational to graduation: A mixed methods study of support needs for vocational learners pursuing post-graduate education in South Africa Improving pain management for trauma patients at two Rwandan emergency departments Descriptive analysis of road traffic crashes encountered by Tanzanian motorcycle taxi drivers trained in first aid Workplace violence in three public sector emergency departments, Gauteng, South Africa: A cross-sectional survey Healthcare professionals perceptions towards the determinants of effective emergency health care services in public health centres of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
×
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