| Literature DB >> 35682236 |
Taghreed Abunada1, Atiyeh M Abdallah1, Rajvir Singh2, Marawan Abu-Madi1.
Abstract
Student perspectives on their final year clinical placements in biomedical sciences at Qatar University are assessed using the clinical practicum assessment tool (CPAT), which was developed in-house following accreditation body requirements. The tool, which we call the CPAT-Qatar University (CPAT-QU), covers the three clinical practicum domains: practicum content, preceptors, and competencies. Here, we validate this tool. The CPAT-QU has 27 Likert-scale questions and free-text open questions. CPAT-QU readability was calculated using the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease (FKRE) instrument. Content validity was assessed using the average and universal average scale-level content validity indices (S-CVI/Average and S-CVI/UA). For construct validity, 50 employed graduates who had completed the practicum were consented for study participation, and the validity was calculated by a principal component analysis (PCA). Reliability was analyzed by Cronbach's alpha. The S-CVI/Average and S-CVI/UA were 0.90 and 0.59, respectively, indicating that an adequate proportion of the content was relevant. The PCA extracted two core components, which explained 63% of the variance in the CPAT-QU. Cronbach's alpha values for the items were within the acceptable range of 0.60-1.00, showing that internal consistency has a good level. CPAT-QU appears to be a useful tool for assessing student perspectives on their clinical placements; however, construct validity needs continuous improvement.Entities:
Keywords: NAACLS; clinical practicum; medical laboratory sciences; students assessment; tool validation
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35682236 PMCID: PMC9180805 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19116651
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1A flow chart depicting the process used for validating the CPAT-QU for the MLS clinical practicum.
CPAT-QU items with inadequate universal agreement among the experts.
| Domain | Item * | Experts in Agreement (N) | Relevance CVI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Content of MLS clinical practicum | 1. Organization | 6 | 1.00 |
| 2. Content of the clinical training rotations | 6 | 1.00 | |
| 3. Evaluation criteria of the clinical training rotations | 6 | 1.00 | |
| 4. Length of the clinical training rotations | 6 | 1.00 | |
| Preceptors mastering MLS clinical practicum | 1. Instructor’s attitude | 5 | 0.83 |
| 2. Command of material, knowledge, and expertise | 6 | 1.00 | |
| 3. Ability to convey knowledge and expertise | 5 | 0.83 | |
| 4. Interest in clinical teaching and training | 5 | 0.83 | |
| Skills and competencies of MLS clinical practicum | 1. Recall of basic knowledge and comprehension | 6 | 1.00 |
| 2. Awareness of organizational structure, lab management, safety, infection prevention control measures, and quality | 6 | 1.00 | |
| 3. Awareness of financial management, budget, lab staffing, HR laws, and regulation of the degree profession | 3 | 0.50 | |
| 4. Application and interpretation of content or lab result | 6 | 1.00 | |
| 5. Critical analysis, decision-making, problem solving | 5 | 0.83 | |
| 6. Ability to retrieve/locate information from a range of sources | 6 | 1.00 | |
| 7. Readiness; an awareness of and ready to analyze samples or observe | 6 | 1.00 | |
| 8. Competence and confidence with performing a task or analyzing samples | 6 | 1.00 | |
| 9. Proficiency and adaptation, ability to alter performance successfully | 6 | 1.00 | |
| 10. Research skills, such as planning and designing experiments | 4 | 0.67 | |
| 11. Using technology in communication skills and information exchange | 5 | 0.83 | |
| 12. Report writing and written communication skills | 6 | 1.00 | |
| 13. Oral presentation and verbal communication skills | 4 | 0.67 | |
| 14. Appreciation of ethical scientific behavior | 5 | 0.83 | |
| 15. Leadership skills | 4 | 0.67 | |
| 16. Team working skills | 6 | 1.00 | |
| 17. Time management and organizational skills | 6 | 1.00 | |
| 18. Ability to have and use own initiative | 6 | 1.00 | |
| 19. Possession of independent learning required for continuing professional development | 5 | 0.83 | |
| S-CVI/Average | 0.90 | ||
| Total agreement | 16.00 | ||
| S-CVI/UA | 0.59 | ||
* Numbers indicate the item order as listed in the questionnaire.
Factor analysis for construct validity.
| Component | Initial Eigenvalues | Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Variance % | Cumulative % | Total | |
| 1 | 3.448 | 43.102 | 43.102 | 2.852 |
| 2 | 1.602 | 20.029 | 63.131 | 2.198 |
Principal component analysis of the questionnaire variables matrix. All variables were positive in the first component, and only 4, 6 and 8 were positive in the second component.
| Variables | Component | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | |
| 1. Content of the clinical practicum | 0.609 | −0.076 |
| 2. Instructors mastering the clinical practicum | 0.565 | −0.252 |
| 3. Cognitive knowledge and skills developed during the clinical practicum | 0.773 | −0.416 |
| 4. Cognitive knowledge and skills used in the degree profession | 0.566 | 0.589 |
| 5. Psychomotor skills developed during the clinical practicum | 0.826 | −0.309 |
| 6. Psychomotor skills used in the degree profession | 0.623 | 0.649 |
| 7. Affective skills developed during the clinical practicum | 0.671 | −0.429 |
| 8. Affective skills used in the degree profession | 0.566 | 0.558 |
Figure 2Scree plot for the principal component analysis (PCA) for the CPAT-QU construct validity. The descending tendency became weak from the third point.
Internal consistency of the questionnaire domain indices.
| Variable | Cronbach’s Alpha |
|---|---|
| Content of the clinical practicum | 0.80 |
| Instructors mastering the clinical practicum | 0.76 |
| Cognitive knowledge and skills developed during the clinical practicum | 0.89 |
| Cognitive knowledge and skills used in the degree profession | 0.76 |
| Psychomotor skills developed during the clinical practicum | 0.81 |
| Psychomotor skills used in the degree profession | 0.85 |
| Affective skills developed during the clinical practicum | 0.86 |
| Affective skills used in the degree profession | 0.92 |