• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

验证韩国版反思实践问卷在韩国医学生临床实习中的应用。

Validation of the Korean version of the Reflective Practice Questionnaire in clinical clerkship of Korean medical students.

机构信息

Department of Medicine, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea.

Department of Medical Education Humanities, Yeungnam University College of Medicine, Daegu, Korea.

出版信息

Korean J Med Educ. 2023 Jun;35(2):153-163. doi: 10.3946/kjme.2023.256. Epub 2023 Jun 1.

DOI:10.3946/kjme.2023.256
PMID:37291844
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10258360/
Abstract

PURPOSE

This study aims to verify whether the Reflective Practice Questionnaire (RPQ) developed by Priddis and Rogers is valid in the Korean context to identify the level of reflection of medical students in clinical practice.

METHODS

A total of 202 third- and fourth-year medical students from seven universities participated in the study. After receiving approval for use from the authors, a survey was conducted on the students through an adaptation process. The original scale consists of 10 factors with 40 items. The Self-efficacy in Clinical Performance Scale (SECP), Korean Self-reflection and Insight Scale (K-SRIS), and Reflection-in-Learning Scale (RinLS) were used to validate the scale. Exploratory factor, confirmatory factor, correlation, and reliability analyses were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

As a result of exploratory factor analysis, 10 subfactors were extracted (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin=0.856, Bartlett's test: χ 2 =5,044.337, degrees of freedom=780, p<0.001). Among the 40 items, one that showed a high overlapping load for other factors was excluded. As a result of confirmatory factor analysis, the 10-factor structure model was found suitable (χ 2 =1.980, comparative fit index=0.859, Tucker-Lewis index=0.841, root mean square error of approximation=0.070). As a result of the criterion validity test, most of the subfactors of the Korean version of the RPQ (K-RPQ) showed a positive correlation with K-SRIS, RinLS, and SECP. The reliability of 10 subfactors was satisfactory, ranging from 0.666 to 0.919.

CONCLUSION

The K-RPQ was confirmed to be a reliable and valid tool to evaluate the level of reflection among Korean medical students in clinical clerkship. This scale can be used as a tool to provide feedback on each student's level of reflection in clinical clerkship.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在验证 Priddis 和 Rogers 开发的反思实践问卷(RPQ)在韩国语境下是否有效,以确定医学生在临床实践中的反思水平。

方法

共有来自 7 所大学的 202 名三、四年级医学生参与了这项研究。在获得作者的使用许可后,通过改编过程对学生进行了调查。原始量表由 10 个因素组成,共 40 个项目。使用临床绩效自我效能感量表(SECP)、韩国自我反思与洞察量表(K-SRIS)和学习反思量表(RinLS)对量表进行验证。采用探索性因子分析、验证性因子分析、相关性和可靠性分析进行数据分析。

结果

探索性因子分析结果提取出 10 个亚因素(Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin=0.856,Bartlett 检验:χ 2 =5044.337,自由度=780,p<0.001)。在 40 个项目中,有一个项目与其他因素的重叠负荷较高,被排除在外。验证性因子分析结果表明,10 因素结构模型较为合适(χ 2 =1.980,比较拟合指数=0.859,Tucker-Lewis 指数=0.841,近似均方根误差=0.070)。效标效度检验结果表明,K-RPQ 的大多数亚因素与 K-SRIS、RinLS 和 SECP 呈正相关。10 个亚因素的可靠性均令人满意,范围为 0.666 至 0.919。

结论

K-RPQ 被证实是一种可靠有效的工具,可用于评估韩国医学生临床实习中的反思水平。该量表可作为提供临床实习中学生反思水平反馈的工具。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/869f/10258360/1496e7096ccb/kjme-2023-256f1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/869f/10258360/1496e7096ccb/kjme-2023-256f1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/869f/10258360/1496e7096ccb/kjme-2023-256f1.jpg

相似文献

1
Validation of the Korean version of the Reflective Practice Questionnaire in clinical clerkship of Korean medical students.验证韩国版反思实践问卷在韩国医学生临床实习中的应用。
Korean J Med Educ. 2023 Jun;35(2):153-163. doi: 10.3946/kjme.2023.256. Epub 2023 Jun 1.
2
Psychometric Properties of the Korean Version of the Nursing Profession Self-Efficacy Scale.《护理职业自我效能量表》韩文版的心理测量学特性。
J Nurs Res. 2022 Feb 21;30(2):e197. doi: 10.1097/jnr.0000000000000481.
3
Psychometric Evaluation of the Korean Version of the Student Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire (S-EBPQ).韩国版学生循证实践问卷(S-EBPQ)的心理测量学评估
Asian Nurs Res (Korean Soc Nurs Sci). 2021 Feb;15(1):47-52. doi: 10.1016/j.anr.2020.10.003. Epub 2020 Nov 20.
4
A validation study of the Korean version of the Toronto empathy questionnaire for the measurement of medical students' empathy.用于测量医学生同理心的多伦多同理心问卷韩文版的验证研究。
BMC Med Educ. 2021 Feb 19;21(1):119. doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-02561-7.
5
Reliability and validity test of the Korean version of Noe's evaluation.诺伊评估韩文版的信效度检验。
Korean J Med Educ. 2017 Mar;29(1):15-26. doi: 10.3946/kjme.2017.49. Epub 2017 Feb 28.
6
The Korean Version of the Academic Cyberincivility Assessment Questionnaire for Nursing Students in South Korea: Validity and Reliability Study.韩国护理专业学生学术网络不文明行为评估问卷的韩语版本:效度与信度研究。
J Med Internet Res. 2020 May 5;22(5):e15668. doi: 10.2196/15668.
7
Chinese Version of Psychometric Evaluation of Self-Reflection and Insight Scale on Taiwanese Nursing Students.台湾护理学生自我反思与洞察量表的心理测量评估中文版
J Nurs Res. 2016 Dec;24(4):337-346. doi: 10.1097/JNR.0000000000000132.
8
Validation of the Korean Version of the Assessment of Strategies in Families-Effectiveness Scale.《家庭策略有效性评估量表(韩文版)》的验证。
J Nurs Res. 2023 Oct 1;31(5):e290. doi: 10.1097/jnr.0000000000000569.
9
The development of a shortened, Korean version of the Anticipated Turnover Scale for hospital nurses.开发一种用于医院护士的缩短版、韩文版的离职预期量表。
Res Nurs Health. 2021 Jun;44(3):548-558. doi: 10.1002/nur.22131. Epub 2021 Mar 31.
10
The Korean version of the Virtual Patient Learning System Evaluation Tool: Assessment of reliability and validity.《虚拟患者学习系统评估工具的韩文版:信度和效度评估》。
Nurse Educ Today. 2021 Nov;106:105093. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2021.105093. Epub 2021 Aug 10.

引用本文的文献

1
Evaluation of family medicine residents' reflection skills.家庭医学住院医师反思技能评估
BMC Med Educ. 2024 Dec 4;24(1):1417. doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-06404-z.
2
Further development of the reflective practice questionnaire.反思实践问卷的进一步发展。
PeerJ. 2024 Feb 8;12:e16879. doi: 10.7717/peerj.16879. eCollection 2024.
3
Grading reflective essays: the construct validity and reliability of a newly developed Tool- GRE-9.评价反思性文章:新开发的工具-GRE-9 的构建效度和信度。

本文引用的文献

1
How Educators Conceptualize and Teach Reflective Practice: A Survey of North American Pediatric Medical Educators.教育工作者如何理解和教授反思性实践:对北美儿科医学教育工作者的调查
Acad Pediatr. 2017 Apr;17(3):303-309. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2016.12.008. Epub 2016 Dec 18.
2
Competency is not enough: integrating identity formation into the medical education discourse.能力不足:将身份认同纳入医学教育论述。
Acad Med. 2012 Sep;87(9):1185-90. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182604968.
3
Exploring reflection as a process embedded in experienced nurses' practice: a qualitative study.
BMC Med Educ. 2023 Nov 16;23(1):870. doi: 10.1186/s12909-023-04845-6.
探索反思作为经验丰富护士实践中嵌入的过程:一项定性研究。
J Adv Nurs. 2013 Apr;69(4):905-14. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2012.06082.x. Epub 2012 Jul 8.
4
Readiness for self-directed change in professional behaviours: factorial validation of the Self-Reflection and Insight Scale.专业行为自我导向改变准备度:自我反思与洞察量表的因子验证。
Med Educ. 2008 Nov;42(11):1054-63. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03156.x.
5
The development of a scale to measure personal reflection in medical practice and education.一种用于衡量医学实践与教育中个人反思的量表的开发。
Med Teach. 2007 Mar;29(2-3):177-82. doi: 10.1080/01421590701299272.
6
[Concept analysis of insight].[洞察力的概念分析]
Taehan Kanho Hakhoe Chi. 2007 Apr;37(3):353-64. doi: 10.4040/jkan.2007.37.3.353.
7
The developing physician--becoming a professional.成长中的医生——迈向专业之路。
N Engl J Med. 2006 Oct 26;355(17):1794-9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra054783.
8
Teaching professionalism: general principles.传授职业素养:一般原则
Med Teach. 2006 May;28(3):205-8. doi: 10.1080/01421590600643653.
9
The structure of reflective practice in medicine.医学反思性实践的结构。
Med Educ. 2004 Dec;38(12):1302-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01917.x.
10
Medical professionalism in the new millennium: a physician charter.新千年的医学职业精神:一份医师宪章
Ann Intern Med. 2002 Feb 5;136(3):243-6. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-136-3-200202050-00012.