Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background: Midwifery laboratories are essential for developing clinical competencies, yet service quality and resource adequacy are frequently assessed separately. Objectives: This study aimed to develop and internally evaluate an integrated instrument for assessing midwifery laboratory quality. Methods: Five experts validated the instrument, and 446 midwifery students with laboratory experience completed a 44 item questionnaire. Psychometric evaluation included content validity, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), preliminary confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), Rasch analysis, and internal consistency testing. Results: The average scale content validity index was 0.982. EFA identified six factors explaining 56.96% of total variance, with the first factor contributing 44.02%. Preliminary CFA demonstrated X²/df = 2.240, RMSEA = 0.053, SRMR = 0.041, GFI = 0.991, CFI = 0.898, and TLI = 0.886. Rasch person reliability was 0.969, whereas item reliability was 0.641. Cronbach alpha reached 0.970, with corrected item total correlations ranging from 0.561 to 0.739. Conclusions: The instrument demonstrated promising internal psychometric properties for evaluating midwifery laboratory quality. However, independent external validation and comprehensive ordinal and Rasch diagnostics remain necessary before broader implementation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arifuddin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: