Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Reliability Analysis of the Feedback Scale of a Course with Classical Test Theory and Generalizability Theory

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 2, 20 - 24, 25.10.2020

Öz

Introduction: For the development of medical education within the framework of the concept of accountability, the preferred measurement tools for program evaluation should be reliable Reliability refers to the consistency of scores obtained with a certain measurement tool.
Objective: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the internal consistency reliability analysis of the qualitative research course feedback with classical test theory (Crohnbach alpha) and generalizability theory (G coefficient).
Method: In this study, feedback data of 46 participants from qualitative research courses implemented by the researcher were evaluated. The descriptive analyzes of the data of the feedback scale and reliability coefficients were determined according to the classical test theory and generalizability theory.
Results: In the evaluation of feedback by classical test theory, Crohnbach's alpha coefficient was calculated as 0.947 in the evaluation of the 20-item instrument of 47 participants. In the evaluation of the scale with generalizability theory,were estimated for predicting the single-surface crossed patterned variance components. G coefficient was calculated as 0,95.
Discussion: Reliability analysis of measurement tools preferred as data collection tools for program evaluation is important for accountability. In the literature, 0.70 and above is accepted as the universal reliability standard in reliability analyzes. In the reliability analysis of the scale in our study, it was considered acceptable according to the classical test theory and generalizability theory. We believe that the feedback scale evaluated in the scope of our study can be used as a reliable measurement tool in the evaluation of this training program.

Kaynakça

  • 1. Melle E Van, Flynn L, Kaba A, Tavares W, Horsley T. Program Evaluation for Competency-based medical Education : Are we making a difference ? Int Conf Resid Educ. 2016;
  • 2. Gandomkar R, Sandars J. The importance of context in medical education program evaluation. Med Teach [Internet]. 2018 Jan 2;40(1):106. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2017.1390215
  • 3. Medicine DF of. Program Evaluation - Division of Medical Education - Dalhousie University [Internet]. [cited 2019 Sep 7]. Available from: https://medicine.dal.ca/departments/core-units/DME/education/programs-centres/program-evaluation.html
  • 4. Francisco U of CS. Program Evaluation Policy (Medical Student) | UCSF Medical Education [Internet]. [cited 2019 Sep 7]. Available from: https://meded.ucsf.edu/policies-procedures/program-evaluation-policy-medical-student
  • 5. Vassar M, Wheeler DL, Davison M, Franklin J. Program Evaluation in Medical Education: An Overview of the Utilization-focused Approach Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions. J Educ Eval Heal Prof [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2019 Jan 4];7:1. Available from: http://jeehp.org/
  • 6. Behçet P, Yrd O, Taha D. Eğitimde program geliştirme ve değerlendirme. Eğitimde program geliştirme ve değerlendirme. 2017.
  • 7. Stufflebeam D. Evaluation models. New Dir Eval. 2001;2001(89):7–98.
  • 8. Durning SJ, Hemmer P, Pangaro LN. The structure of program evaluation: An approach for evaluating a course, clerkship, or components of a residency or fellowship training program. Teach Learn Med. 2007;19(3):308–18.
  • 9. Medicine SU of. Undergraduate Medical Educaion Program Evaluation Strategy [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2019 Jan 4]. Available from: https://medicine.usask.ca/documents/ugme/EvaluationFramework.pdf
  • 10. Walsh K. Evaluation in medical education [Internet]. [cited 2019 Jan 4]. Available from: https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/935692/evaluation-in-medical-education.pdf
  • 11. Cook DA, Hatala R. Validation of educational assessments: a primer for simulation and beyond. Adv Simul [Internet]. 2016;1(1):1–12. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41077-016-0033-y
  • 12. Şencan H. Sosyal ve Davranışsal Ölçümlerde Güvenilirlik ve Geçerlilik (Validity and Reliability in Social and Behavioral Measurements). 2005. 13. Baykul Y. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme: Klasik Test Teorisi ve Uygulaması. Ankara: ÖSYM Yayınları; 2000.
  • 14. Ercan İ, Kan İ. Ölçeklerde Güvenirlik ve Geçerlik. Uludağ Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Derg. 2004;30(3):211–6.
  • 15. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297–334.
  • 16. Tavakol M, Brennan RL. Medical education assessment : a brief overview of concepts in generalizability theory. Int J Med Educ. 2013;4(4):221–2.
  • 17. Castanelli DJ, Moonen-van Loon JMW, Jolly B, Weller JM. The reliability of a portfolio of workplace-based assessments in anesthesia training. Can J Anesth Can d’anesthésie [Internet]. 2019;66(2):193–200. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-018-1251-7
  • 18. Güler N. Genellenebilirlik Kuramı ve SPSS ile GENOVA Programlarıyla Hesaplanan G ve K Çalışmalarına İlişkin Sonuçların Karşılaştırılması Generalizability Theory and Comparison of the Results of G and D Studies Computed by SPSS and GENOVA Packet Programs. Eğitim ve Bilim. 2009;34(154):93–104.
  • 19. Cho E, Kim S. Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha: Well Known but Poorly Understood. Organ Res Methods. 2015;18(2):207–30.
  • 20. Atilgan H. Genellenebilirlik kurami ve puanlayicilar arasi güvenirlik için örnek bir uygulama. Egit ve Bilim. 2005;(7):95–108.
  • 21. Güler N, Eroğlu Y, Akbaba S. Reliability of Criterion-Dependent Measurement Tools According To Generalizability Theory: Application in the Case of Eating Skills. 2014;14:217–32.
  • 22. Shavelson RJ, Webb NM. Generalizability theory: A primer. Generalizability theory: A primer. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc; 1991. xiii, 137–xiii, 137. (Measurement methods for the social sciences series, Vol. 1.).
  • 23. Cronbach JL, Gleser GC NH& RN. The Dependability of Behavioral Measurements: Theory of Generalizability for Scores and Profiles. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1972.
  • 24. İbrahim Turan, Ümit Şimşek HA. The Use and Analysis of Likert Scales and Likert - Type Items in Educational Giriş. Sak Univ J Educ. 2015;(30):186–203.
  • 25. Mushquash, C., & O’Connor BP. SPSS, SAS, and MATLAB programs for generalizability theory analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2006;38(3):542–7.
  • 26. Brennan RL. Generalizability theory. Generalizability theory. New York, NY, US: Springer-Verlag Publishing; 2001. xx, 538–xx, 538. (Statistics for social science and public policy.).
  • 27. Gibson KA, Boyle P, Black DA, Cunningham M, Grimm MC, McNeil HP. Enhancing evaluation in an undergraduate medical education program. Acad Med. 2008;83(8):787–93. 28. Musick DW. A conceptual model for program evaluation in graduate medical education. Acad Med. 2006;81(8):759–65.
  • 29. Kassab SE, Du X, Toft E, Cyprian F, Al-Moslih A, Schmidt H, et al. Measuring medical students’ professional competencies in a problem-based curriculum: a reliability study. BMC Med Educ [Internet]. 2019;19(1):155. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1594-y
  • 30. Bajwa NM, Nendaz MR, Galetto-Lacour A, Posfay-Barbe K, Yudkowsky R, Park YS. Can Professionalism Mini-Evaluation Exercise Scores Predict Medical Residency Performance? Validity Evidence Across Five Longitudinal Cohorts. Acad Med [Internet]. 9000;Publish Ah. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Fulltext/publishahead/Can_Professionalism_Mini_Evaluation_Exercise.97503.aspx
  • 31. Monteiro S, Sullivan GM, Chan TM. Generalizability Theory Made Simple(r): An Introductory Primer to G-Studies. J Grad Med Educ [Internet]. 2019;11(4):365–70. Available from: http://www.jgme.org/doi/10.4300/JGME-D-19-00464.1
  • 32. Taşdelen Teker G, Odabaşı O. Reliability of scores obtained from standardized patient and instructor assessments. Eur J Dent Educ [Internet]. 2019 May 1;23(2):88–94. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12406
Yıl 2020, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 2, 20 - 24, 25.10.2020

Öz

Giriş: Mezuniyet öncesi tıp eğitimi programlarının hesap verebilirlik kavramı çerçevesinde gelişimleri için program değerlendirme için tercih edilen ölçüm araçlarının güvenirliğinin yüksek olması gerekmektedir. Güvenirlik belirli bir ölçme aracıyla elde edilen puanların tutarlı olmasını ifade etmektedir.
Amaç: Çalışmamızda nitel araştırma kursu geribildirimlerinin klasik test kuramı (Crohnbach alfa) ve genelllenebilirlik kuramı (G katsayısı) ile iç tutarlılık güvenirlik analizlerinin değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmaktadır.
Yöntem: Bu çalışmada araştırmacı tarafından uygulanmakta olan nitel araştırma kursuna ait 46 katılımcının geribildirim verileri değerlendirildi. Geribildirim ölçeğinin verilerinin tanımlayıcı analizleri, klasik test kuramına ve genellenebilirlik kuramına göre güvenirlik katsayıları belirlendi.
Bulgular: Geribildirimlerin klasik test kuramı ile değerlendirilmesinde 47 katılımcının, 20 maddelik ölçüm aracını değerlendirmesinde Crohnbach alfa katsayısı 0,947 olarak hesaplandı. Ölçeğin genellenebilirlik kuramı ile değerlendirilmesinde tek yüzeyli çaprazlanmış desenli varyans bileşenlerinin kestirilmesinde 0,95 olarak hesaplandı
Tartışma: Program değerlendirme için veri toplama aracı olarak tercih edilen ölçüm araçlarının güvenirlik analizlerinin yapılması hesap verebilirlik açısından önemlidir. Literatürde güvenirlik analizlerinde 0.70 ve üzeri evrensel güvenirlik standardı olarak kabul edilmektedir. Çalışmamızdaki ölçeğin güvenirlik analizlerinde klasik test kuramı ve genellenebilirlik kuramına göre ölçek “kabul edilebilir” olarak değerlendirildi. Çalışmamız kapsamında değerlendirilen geribildirim ölçeğinin bu eğitim programının değerlendirilmesinde güvenirliği yüksek bir ölçüm aracı olarak kullanılabileceği kanaatindeyiz.

Kaynakça

  • 1. Melle E Van, Flynn L, Kaba A, Tavares W, Horsley T. Program Evaluation for Competency-based medical Education : Are we making a difference ? Int Conf Resid Educ. 2016;
  • 2. Gandomkar R, Sandars J. The importance of context in medical education program evaluation. Med Teach [Internet]. 2018 Jan 2;40(1):106. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2017.1390215
  • 3. Medicine DF of. Program Evaluation - Division of Medical Education - Dalhousie University [Internet]. [cited 2019 Sep 7]. Available from: https://medicine.dal.ca/departments/core-units/DME/education/programs-centres/program-evaluation.html
  • 4. Francisco U of CS. Program Evaluation Policy (Medical Student) | UCSF Medical Education [Internet]. [cited 2019 Sep 7]. Available from: https://meded.ucsf.edu/policies-procedures/program-evaluation-policy-medical-student
  • 5. Vassar M, Wheeler DL, Davison M, Franklin J. Program Evaluation in Medical Education: An Overview of the Utilization-focused Approach Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions. J Educ Eval Heal Prof [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2019 Jan 4];7:1. Available from: http://jeehp.org/
  • 6. Behçet P, Yrd O, Taha D. Eğitimde program geliştirme ve değerlendirme. Eğitimde program geliştirme ve değerlendirme. 2017.
  • 7. Stufflebeam D. Evaluation models. New Dir Eval. 2001;2001(89):7–98.
  • 8. Durning SJ, Hemmer P, Pangaro LN. The structure of program evaluation: An approach for evaluating a course, clerkship, or components of a residency or fellowship training program. Teach Learn Med. 2007;19(3):308–18.
  • 9. Medicine SU of. Undergraduate Medical Educaion Program Evaluation Strategy [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2019 Jan 4]. Available from: https://medicine.usask.ca/documents/ugme/EvaluationFramework.pdf
  • 10. Walsh K. Evaluation in medical education [Internet]. [cited 2019 Jan 4]. Available from: https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/935692/evaluation-in-medical-education.pdf
  • 11. Cook DA, Hatala R. Validation of educational assessments: a primer for simulation and beyond. Adv Simul [Internet]. 2016;1(1):1–12. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41077-016-0033-y
  • 12. Şencan H. Sosyal ve Davranışsal Ölçümlerde Güvenilirlik ve Geçerlilik (Validity and Reliability in Social and Behavioral Measurements). 2005. 13. Baykul Y. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme: Klasik Test Teorisi ve Uygulaması. Ankara: ÖSYM Yayınları; 2000.
  • 14. Ercan İ, Kan İ. Ölçeklerde Güvenirlik ve Geçerlik. Uludağ Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Derg. 2004;30(3):211–6.
  • 15. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297–334.
  • 16. Tavakol M, Brennan RL. Medical education assessment : a brief overview of concepts in generalizability theory. Int J Med Educ. 2013;4(4):221–2.
  • 17. Castanelli DJ, Moonen-van Loon JMW, Jolly B, Weller JM. The reliability of a portfolio of workplace-based assessments in anesthesia training. Can J Anesth Can d’anesthésie [Internet]. 2019;66(2):193–200. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-018-1251-7
  • 18. Güler N. Genellenebilirlik Kuramı ve SPSS ile GENOVA Programlarıyla Hesaplanan G ve K Çalışmalarına İlişkin Sonuçların Karşılaştırılması Generalizability Theory and Comparison of the Results of G and D Studies Computed by SPSS and GENOVA Packet Programs. Eğitim ve Bilim. 2009;34(154):93–104.
  • 19. Cho E, Kim S. Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha: Well Known but Poorly Understood. Organ Res Methods. 2015;18(2):207–30.
  • 20. Atilgan H. Genellenebilirlik kurami ve puanlayicilar arasi güvenirlik için örnek bir uygulama. Egit ve Bilim. 2005;(7):95–108.
  • 21. Güler N, Eroğlu Y, Akbaba S. Reliability of Criterion-Dependent Measurement Tools According To Generalizability Theory: Application in the Case of Eating Skills. 2014;14:217–32.
  • 22. Shavelson RJ, Webb NM. Generalizability theory: A primer. Generalizability theory: A primer. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc; 1991. xiii, 137–xiii, 137. (Measurement methods for the social sciences series, Vol. 1.).
  • 23. Cronbach JL, Gleser GC NH& RN. The Dependability of Behavioral Measurements: Theory of Generalizability for Scores and Profiles. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1972.
  • 24. İbrahim Turan, Ümit Şimşek HA. The Use and Analysis of Likert Scales and Likert - Type Items in Educational Giriş. Sak Univ J Educ. 2015;(30):186–203.
  • 25. Mushquash, C., & O’Connor BP. SPSS, SAS, and MATLAB programs for generalizability theory analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2006;38(3):542–7.
  • 26. Brennan RL. Generalizability theory. Generalizability theory. New York, NY, US: Springer-Verlag Publishing; 2001. xx, 538–xx, 538. (Statistics for social science and public policy.).
  • 27. Gibson KA, Boyle P, Black DA, Cunningham M, Grimm MC, McNeil HP. Enhancing evaluation in an undergraduate medical education program. Acad Med. 2008;83(8):787–93. 28. Musick DW. A conceptual model for program evaluation in graduate medical education. Acad Med. 2006;81(8):759–65.
  • 29. Kassab SE, Du X, Toft E, Cyprian F, Al-Moslih A, Schmidt H, et al. Measuring medical students’ professional competencies in a problem-based curriculum: a reliability study. BMC Med Educ [Internet]. 2019;19(1):155. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1594-y
  • 30. Bajwa NM, Nendaz MR, Galetto-Lacour A, Posfay-Barbe K, Yudkowsky R, Park YS. Can Professionalism Mini-Evaluation Exercise Scores Predict Medical Residency Performance? Validity Evidence Across Five Longitudinal Cohorts. Acad Med [Internet]. 9000;Publish Ah. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Fulltext/publishahead/Can_Professionalism_Mini_Evaluation_Exercise.97503.aspx
  • 31. Monteiro S, Sullivan GM, Chan TM. Generalizability Theory Made Simple(r): An Introductory Primer to G-Studies. J Grad Med Educ [Internet]. 2019;11(4):365–70. Available from: http://www.jgme.org/doi/10.4300/JGME-D-19-00464.1
  • 32. Taşdelen Teker G, Odabaşı O. Reliability of scores obtained from standardized patient and instructor assessments. Eur J Dent Educ [Internet]. 2019 May 1;23(2):88–94. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12406
Toplam 30 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Sağlık Kurumları Yönetimi
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Giray Kolcu 0000-0001-8406-5941

Mukadder İnci Başer Kolcu 0000-0002-2996-7632

Yayımlanma Tarihi 25 Ekim 2020
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2020 Cilt: 3 Sayı: 2

Kaynak Göster

APA Kolcu, G., & Başer Kolcu, M. İ. (2020). Reliability Analysis of the Feedback Scale of a Course with Classical Test Theory and Generalizability Theory. Turkish Journal of Health Science and Life, 3(2), 20-24.