| Literature DB >> 35031044 |
Majid Yousefi Afrashteh1, Shamsi Rezaei2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The support of students' academic well-being is one of the main agendas of medical education. For medical students, well-being can help prevent burnout and provides students with grounds for their future healthcare setting. The aim of this study was to examine the mediating role of motivated strategies for learning in the relationship between formative assessment and academic well-being.Entities:
Keywords: Academic well-being; Formative assessment; Medical students; Motivated strategies for learning
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35031044 PMCID: PMC8759764 DOI: 10.1186/s12909-022-03118-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Educ ISSN: 1472-6920 Impact factor: 2.463
Fig. 1Conceptual model of research
Demographic statistics of the participants
| Characteristic | Frequencies | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| < 20 | 92 | 23 |
| 20–25 | 185 | 47 |
| 25–30 | 70 | 18 |
| 30 < | 44 | 2 |
| Married | 98 | 25 |
| Single | 293 | 75 |
| Undergraduate | 282 | 72 |
| Masters | 82 | 21 |
| PhD | 27 | 7 |
| yes | 200 | 51 |
| no | 191 | 49 |
| Health | 85 | 22 |
| Paramedical | 111 | 28 |
| Rehabilitation | 89 | 23 |
| Nursing and midwifery | 106 | 27 |
Descriptive statistics for research variables and correlation coefficient between them
| variable | M | SD | Correlation matrix | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |||
| 1-Formative assessment | 29.89 | 5.38 | - | |||||
| 2-Self-efficacy | 36.54 | 5.90 | 0.36*** | - | ||||
| 3-Internal value | 29.98 | 5.21 | 0.25*** | 0.25*** | - | |||
| 4-Test anxiety | 14.90 | 3.14 | -0.28*** | -0.30*** | -0.39*** | - | ||
| 5-Cognitive strategies | 55.13 | 7.79 | 0.30*** | 0.27*** | 0.16** | 0.30*** | - | |
| 6-Self-regulation | 41.74 | 6.36 | 0.24** | 0.26*** | 0.29*** | 0.27*** | 0.21*** | - |
| 7-Academic well-being | 40.40 | 8.27 | 0.02 | 0.39*** | 0.28*** | -0.26*** | 0.19*** | 0.28*** |
M Mean, SD Standard deviation
**P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001
Path coefficients for direct, indirect and total relationships
| Dependent | Predictors | Standard estimate | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-efficacy | Formative assessment | 0.24 | 4.95 | 0.001 |
| Internal value | Formative assessment | 0.17 | 3.52 | 0.001 |
| Test anxiety | Formative assessment | -0.20 | -4.01 | 0.001 |
| Cognitive strategies | Formative assessment | 0.19 | 3.52 | 0.001 |
| Self-regulation | Formative assessment | 0.16 | 3.11 | 0.001 |
| Academic well-being (R2 = 0.50) | Self-efficacy | 0.26 | 5.21 | 0.001 |
| Internal value | 0.21 | 4.23 | 0.001 | |
| Test anxiety | -0.20 | -4.09 | 0.001 | |
| Cognitive strategies | 0.16 | 3.33 | 0.001 | |
| Self-regulation | 0.22 | 4.32 | 0.001 | |
| Indirect effect of formative assessment to Academic well-being | 0.16 | 4.08 | 0.001 | |
| Total effect of formative assessment Academic well-being | 0.16 | 4.08 | 0.001 | |
Standard estimate (and t-value) for relationship between variables has showed in Fig. 2
Fig. 2standard estimate (and t-value) for relationship between variables
The goodness of Fit Indices for the Models
| Index: | CFI | AGFI | RMSEA | χ2 | df | χ2/df | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Value: | 0.97 | 0.95 | 0.06 | 7.05 | 3 | 2.35 | 0.001 |
CFI Comparative Fit Index, AGFI Adjusted Goodness Fit Index, RMSEA Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, χ2/df: χ2 to the degree of freedom index