Validation study demonstrates robust validity and reliability of a lifelong learning scale in medical students, indicating its utility for medical training programs.
OBJECTIVE: Lifelong Learning is a voluntary and self-motivated form of learning that lasts from birth to death for personal and professional reasons. As medical science has a dynamic nature, the knowledge gained in the faculty of medicine mostly will not be enough in the later professional life. The aim of this study is to determine the validity and reliability of the JeffSPLL-MS© in Turkish. METHOD: Linguistic equivalence analysis was applied first, and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was utilized in order to test the construct validity. Concurrent validity was tested by simultaneous administration of Lifelong Learning Trends Scale (LLTS) and JeffSPLL-MS©. Finally, internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the scores gathered from the scales in the study were calculated. RESULTS: = 1173,6; p=.001, df=91); model-data fit indices for JeffSPLL-MS© with 14 items in three factors were also satisfactory ((X2/df =1,51); RMSEA=0,046; NFI=0,918; RFI=0,902; CFI=0,971) and factor loadings of items were ranging between.522 and.764. The Pearson correlation coefficient as the indicator of concurrent validity of the scales LLTS and JeffSPLL-MS© was calculated as .624 (p=.001). The internal consistency (Cronbach alpha) of the total scores gathered from JeffSPLL-MS© is .843 and stratified alpha coefficient is .892. Cronbach alpha values for the subscales are as follows: .830 (F1=Learning beliefs and motivation), .719 (F2=Skills in seeking information), .721 (F3=Attention to learning opportunities). The test-retest reliability values for the scale, and its subscales were ranged between.709 and.812 within a four-week period. CONCLUSION: It is concluded that JeffSPLL-MS© can be used as a valid and reliable measurement instrument for medical education studies in Turkey.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kaptan et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: