| Literature DB >> 35281386 |
Leili Mosalanejad1, Saeed Abdollahifard2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of social networks in the field of education has also accelerated and has become a powerful source of learning for transformation and empowerment in various fields. This study aimed to test the adaptation and psychometric properties of an instrument for students' prospective on e-professionalism in the use of social media in Iranian medical science students.Entities:
Keywords: Ethic; IRAN; medical students; professionalism; social media
Year: 2022 PMID: 35281386 PMCID: PMC8893103 DOI: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_1666_20
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Educ Health Promot ISSN: 2277-9531
Flowchart 1Study design and stage of evaluation of instrument
Item descriptive statistics and correlations in survey instrument
| Questions | Mean | SD | SE | Skewness | Kurtosis | Correlation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Should a student pharmacist be accountable for an illegal act discovered through social media site postings? | 3.5909 | 1.02015 | 0.08 | −0.68 | 0.47 | 0.91 |
| Should a student pharmacist be accountable for unprofessional behavior discovered through social media site postings? | 3.9156 | 0.79993 | 0.06 | 0.19 | 3.45 | 073 |
| If an employer of graduates chose to review a prospective employee’s social media sites, should the profile information be considered when making a hiring decision? | 3.8506 | 0.82274 | 0.07 | −0.50 | 0.26 | 0.69 |
| Do you feel it is justified for a residency director or supervisor to research a candidate online and make decisions based on the information they find? | 3.8247 | 0.94373 | 0.08 | −0.58 | −0.04 | 0.81 |
| Do you feel it is important to edit your social media site prior to applying for a job? | 3.4545 | 1.04219 | 0.06 | −0.54 | −0.16 | 0.56 |
| Do you plan on making changes to your social media profiles prior to an upcoming career fair or meeting? | 3.2922 | 0.85501 | 0.07 | −0.90 | 0.36 | 0.69 |
| Do you feel that photos, groups, postings, comments, and other information posted on your social media sites affect people’s opinion of you as a professional health-care provider? | 3.5844 | 0.98817 | 0.07 | −0.52 | 0.001 | 0.90 |
| Should professional students be held to higher standards than others regarding the image they portray on social media sites? | 3.9610 | 0.74871 | 0.06 | −0.78 | 0.99 | 0.77 |
| Are you aware of the privacy settings on your social media sites? | 3.8117 | 0.83054 | 0.07 | 0.83 | −049 | 0.78 |
| Do you use the privacy settings available in your social media sites to limit public access to your information? | 3.8831 | 0.94245 | 0.08 | 0.94 | 0.43 | 0.71 |
SD=Standard deviation, SE=Standard error
Correlation coefficient of each question together in survey instrument
| Items | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Q10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | 1.000 | |||||||||
| Q2 | 0.262 | 1.000 | ||||||||
| Q3 | −0.019 | 0.209 | 1.000 | |||||||
| Q4 | 0.163 | 0.361 | 0.530 | 1.000 | ||||||
| Q5 | 0.108 | 0.282 | 0.171 | 0.088 | 1.000 | |||||
| Q6 | −0.169 | 0.084 | 0.127 | 0.032 | 0.268 | 1.000 | ||||
| Q7 | 0.952 | 0.195 | −0.013 | 0.139 | 0.108 | −0.157 | 1.000 | |||
| Q8 | 0.184 | 0.857 | 0.277 | 0.379 | 0.350 | 0.100 | 0.225 | 1.000 | ||
| Q9 | 0.040 | 0.301 | 0.810 | 0.683 | 0.228 | 0.069 | 0.023 | 0.324 | 1.000 | |
| Q10 | 0.140 | 0.334 | 0.508 | 0.844 | 0.161 | 0.043 | 0.137 | 0.373 | 0.548 | 1.000 |
Figure 1Scree plot to determine the number of factors to retain in an exploratory factor analysis (FA)
Bartlett test and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin indicator for sufficiency of sampling or analysis
| KMO indicator | 0.516 |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Bartlett test | |
|
| 1182.802 |
| Df | 45 |
| P | <0.001 |
KMO=Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
Matrix of the rotated factor loads with main component method and varimax rotation with three factors in survey questionnaire
| Questions | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q4 | 0.880 | 0.148 | 0.120 |
| Q9 | 0.871 | −0.049 | 0.155 |
| Q10 | 0.821 | 0.136 | 0.152 |
| Q3 | 0.817 | −0.123 | 0.113 |
| Q1 | 0.030 | 0.949 | 0.115 |
| Q7 | 0.019 | 0.943 | 0.112 |
| Q8 | 0.293 | 0.200 | 0.805 |
| Q2 | 0.254 | 0.238 | 0.782 |
| Q5 | 0.052 | −0.025 | 0.676 |
| Q6 | −0.022 | −0.407 | 0.475 |
| Eigenvalue | 3.029 | 2.113 | 2.042 |
| Percentage of variances | 30.289 | 21.126 | 20.422 |
| Cumulative of variances | 30.289 | 51.415 | 71.836 |
Matrix of factor loads by the principal component and varimax rotation in survey questionnaire
| Questions | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q4 | 0.880 | ||
| Q9 | 0.871 | ||
| Q10 | 0.821 | ||
| Q3 | 0.817 | ||
| Q1 | 0.949 | ||
| Q7 | 0.943 | ||
| Q8 | 0.805 | ||
| Q2 | 0.782 | ||
| Q5 | 0.676 | ||
| Q6 | 0.475 | ||
| Eigenvalue | 3.029 | 2.113 | 2.042 |
| Percentage of variances | 30.289 | 21.126 | 20.422 |
| Cumulative of variances | 30.289 | 51.415 | 71.836 |
Correlation coefficient of each extracted factor with the total score of the instrument
| Factor | Correlation coefficient | P |
|---|---|---|
| F1 | 0.791* | <0.001 |
| F2 | 0.503* | <0.001 |
| F3 | 0.723* | <0.001 |
Level of significance P<0.05