Table 5.
Psychometric properties of revised learning model scales.
Learning Model: Refined Scales | Mean | Standard Deviation | Number of Items | αa | rb | Scale Biasc | Scale Sensitivityd |
Preceptor Support | 3.94 | 0.69 | 6 | 0.847 | 0.510 | 0.104 | 0.336 |
Learning Opportunities | 4.00 | 0.62 | 6 | 0.837 | 0.510 | 0.214 | 0.304 |
Patient Consultations (estimated number) | 10.67 | 6.66 | 1 | 0.475 | 0.580 | -0.182 | 0.715 |
Skills Improvement | 3.65 | 0.86 | 6 | 0.873 | 0.520 | 0.093 | 0.622 |
Attitude Enhancement | 4.03 | 0.65 | 6 | 0.837 | 0.520 | -0.157 | 0.393 |
Overall Study Model Scale (refinedf) | 3.89 | 0.56 | 25 | 0.920 | 0.796 | 0.057 | 0.574 |
Overall Study Model Scale (original)f | 3.87 | 0.47 | 70 | 0.959 | 0.816 | 0.121 | 0.410 |
αa – Cronbach's alpha-reliability, and the index of convergent validity; how well do items converge on each scale's central concept.
rb – Highest correlation with any other scale. Low correlations mean the scale does not duplicate information in other scales.
c – Pearson r with preceptor vs. student. Non-significant r's indicate absence of bias.
d – Pearson r (or eta) with study arm. Positive correlations indicate sensitivity to predicting enhanced clerkship.
e – Since the patient consultation estimate was a single variable measure, its α-reliability estimate is its SMR with the other four indices.
f – Both Refined and Original scales are listed to document that streamlining resulted in no appreciable loss of scale power and efficiency.