Psychometric study identifies three core dimensions of name-based instructor–student interaction among medical students, indicating robust validity for evaluating relational teaching.
Purpose: When instructors address students by name, this may be associated with students’ engagement and sense of inclusion in higher education. However, name-based instructor–student interaction has rarely been conceptualized as a multidimensional construct, and no psychometrically evaluated instrument is available for medical education. This study developed and psychometrically evaluated a pilot questionnaire assessing students’ perceived experiences of being addressed by name in medical teaching contexts.Methods: Questionnaire development followed a multistep exploratory approach that included qualitative input, iterative item refinement, and expert content review. An initial pool of 59 items was administered to medical students (n=270) from semesters 2–10 at a German medical faculty. Factor structure was examined using exploratory factor analysis based on Pearson correlations, oblique rotation, and predefined item-reduction criteria. Internal consistency was assessed using McDonald’s ω and Cronbach’s α, discriminant validity using the heterotrait–monotrait ratio, and generalized partial credit models were estimated separately for each factor.Results: Exploratory factor analysis yielded a parsimonious 3-factor solution comprising 15 items: cognitive activation, appreciation & social belonging, and social evaluative anxiety. The final model showed good fit, and all factors demonstrated strong internal consistency (ω=0.84–0.88), good measurement precision (expected a posteriori reliability=0.83–0.88), adequate discriminant validity (heterotrait–monotrait ratio <0.85), and acceptable item fit.Conclusion: The pilot questionnaire captures 3 distinct dimensions of name-based instructor–student interaction and provides promising initial psychometric evidence for medical education research. It may support confirmatory validation and further study of relational teaching practices.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Weber et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: