A suggested Scientific Research Environment Measure SREM in Medical Faculties

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1553940/v1

PDF

Research Article

A suggested Scientific Research Environment Measure SREM in Medical Faculties

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1553940/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: Creating a supportive environment for scientific research is vital to improve the quality of research and its impact on development of the society. This study outlines the development of a new scale that can measure the scientific research environment of postgraduate medical students.

Methods: Based on literature, an initial list with 58 items was formulated. After discussing with postgraduate students and academic staff members from Damascus University and the Syrian Virtual University, A 38-item scale remained from the initial list of 58 items. To test the scale, postgraduate medical students (n= 30) were asked to fill the scale and answer 38 questions-with a 5-point Likert scale-twice in two separate occasions. The Pearson's correlation coefficient was performed to study the internal correlation. The internal consistency test was performed with Cronbach's Alpha, and the Test-Retest Reliability was conducted to study the reliability of the scale.

Results: Thirty postgraduate medical students at Damascus University completed the 38-item scale. Scale scores in the sample displayed good reliability in relation to published results. Findings, showed an internal correlation among its sub-scales. The results showed an acceptable reliability values such as internal consistency (α = 0.863) and test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.093).

Conclusions: The Scientific Research Environment Measure (SREM), can be suggested as an effective evaluation instrument which can be applied easily to assess the scientific research environment of postgraduate medical students. This would help the decision makers to support teaching, learning, and research environment through implementing new strategies that inspire postgraduate medical students and increase their engagement.

postgraduate

medical environment

education

scientific research

scale.

Medical research is an essential part of healthcare efforts that can play a critical role in clinical practice. The quantity and quality of research papers are important indicators of the scientific progress of each country (Anbari et al, 2015). However, medical researchers are still facing various obstacles during undertaking their scientific research (Yousefi et al., 2015). Several factors play a role in ensuring the quality of medical research. Some of these factors are related to researchers and their research skills, and others are related to educational environment and supervising process (Matin., 2017). Ensuring an appropriate environment for students while undertaking research is still a source of concern in all universities, as this task faces various challenges, and these challenges may have negative effects on the research process (Manyike, 2017).

Educational environment measuring tools continue to be developed to measure the learning conditions to ensure the quality of the educational process. The Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM) was developed in 1997 to measure the state of the undergraduate medical school's learning and teaching climate (Roff et al., 1997). The Anaesthetic Trainee Theatre Educational Environment Measure (ATEEM) was developed to measure the educational environment for trainee anesthetists in the theatre setting (Holt & Roff, 2004). In 2007, The Postgraduate Hospital Educational Environment Measure (PHEEM) was developed to demonstrate whether trainees are working and learning in a good environment. PHEEM has proved to be a reliable and consistent tool to assess educational climate (Clapham et al., 2007). Using similar methodology to the existing tools, more instruments were developed to evaluate the educational environments in all medical specialties, and it was applied to various universities, hospitals or institutions concerned with medical education (Edelbring, 2012, Özkaya et al., 2021). In Syria, researchers' efforts continue to develop and design new tools in order to explore the different Syrian health professionals environments and investigate areas that require more attention; the Syrian Empathy Scale (SES) was recently developed for assessing the empathy of Syrian health professionals and proved its validity and reliability in measuring empathy in the field of health care (Dashash & Boubou, 2021).

Several studies in the medical literature show that the postgraduate research activity faces a number of obstacles, and highlights the need for stimulating further research on this critical issue (Chaturvedi & Aggarwal, 2001, Aslam et al., 2004). Despite the evidence, there is no current scale for assessing the scientific research environment, which means that solutions will be limited with many gaps in identifying obstacles precisely.

Therefore, this study aimed to develop a new scale that can measure the Scientific Research Environment (SREM) for the first time. In addition, a pilot study was undertaken to test the SREM in Damascus University, Syria.

The ethical approval was obtained from the ethical committee of the Syrian Virtual University (SVU) to make sure that the study design and stages were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. Initial list with 58 items was designed by the principal researcher (MY) in collaboration with the research supervisor (MD). Then, postgraduate students in the Program of Medical Education at the SVU were invited to participate in a focus group in order to test the list. In addition, medical professors at Damascus University, were also invited to participate as experts in assessing the list. The invitations were performed by the principle researcher (MY) directly and informed consent was obtained from all participants.

A total of 20 postgraduate students accepted to participate in the focus group meeting and 5 medical professors accepted to revise the list. The list was minimized to 45 items. More revision and modification were undertaken by the research team in order to make sure that all items are relevant to measurement of scientific research environment in medical faculties. A 5-point Likert scale (1 meaning ‘strongly disagree’ until 5 ‘strongly agree’) was used. Items with a mean score of more than 4 were considered as highly relevant and remained in the list. About 38 items remained to form the Scientific Research Environment Measure (SREM).

The final instrument produced, the Scientific Research Environment Measure (SREM), with 5 relevant sub-scales. The five relevant sub-scales were as follows: perceptions of research atmosphere (9 items), perceptions of autonomy (5 items), perceptions of the social atmosphere (4 items), perceptions of supervision (12 items), and learning opportunities and academic-self perceptions (8 items). The SREM instrument is outlined in Table 1. The maximum score for each sub-scale: Perceptions of research atmosphere: 9x5= 45 max; Perceptions of autonomy: 5x5= 25 max; Perceptions of social atmosphere: 4x5= 20 max; Perceptions of supervision: 12x5= 60 max; and learning opportunities and academic-self perceptions: 8x5= 40 max. This is made up of the number of items in the sub-scale times the maximum mark on a Likert scale of 1–5. The possible maximum score of the scale is 190 and the minimum score is 38. Information about managing SREM, scoring and interpreting the postgraduate medical students’ responses are given in table 2.

Table 1: The SREM -items grouped by sub-scale
Perceptions of research atmosphere
1	The university provides suitable places to work on the completion of scientific research.
2	The university provides the necessary tools, materials, and devices to conduct the research.
3	Financial support for scientific research is insufficient. *
4	The university's libraries contain the references and books necessary for writing the research.
5	The university facilitates access to databases, electronic libraries, and international journal websites.
6	The available period for the completion of scientific research is sufficient.
7	The formal procedures for registering scientific research in the specialized university councils are complex. *
8	The formal procedures for registering scientific research in the specialized university councils are long. *
9	Additional tasks (teaching burden /supervision of undergraduate students) hinder the completion of scientific research *
Perceptions of autonomy
10	All researcher students are treated equally without discrimination.
11	The scientific research topic is chosen according to the supervisor's decision *
12	There are clear instructions regarding procedures for submitting a complaint in case of a problems occurred between the student and the supervisor.
13	The supervisor's replacement procedures are difficult.*
14	The student personally chooses the appropriate supervisor for scientific research.
Perceptions of the social atmosphere
15	There is an atmosphere of respect and affection between the supervisor and the student.
16	Work is coordinated with the supervisor to complete scientific research as a team.
17	I feel uncomfortable when interacting with the postgraduate researcher colleagues *.
18	The postgraduate researcher colleagues refuse to help and collaborate with me during the completion of the research. *
Perceptions of supervision
19	My supervisor has experience in supervising scientific research
20	I feel the supervisor is not enthusiastic to supervise my research *
21	The supervisor is committed to set periodic appointments to discuss with me.
22	The time allocated by the supervisor to follow up my research progress is insufficient.*
23	The supervisor is constantly aware of the development of knowledge related to my scientific research topic.
24	The supervisor is stalling the nomination to defend my scientific research. *
25	The supervisor provides continuous feedback about the research.
26	The student /supervisor ratio is balanced.
27	The teaching load of the supervisor prevents him from supervising my research well.*
28	The supervisor performs his complete role and duties in the completion of scientific research.
29	There are difficulties in communicating with the supervisor. *
30	The supervisor asks me to complete personal tasks related to his/her own job. *
Learning opportunities and academic-self perceptions
31	Doing the research enhances my critical thinking skills
32	Doing the research hinders my social communication skills *
33	Doing the research improves my self-learning capabilities.
34	Doing the research develop my searching strategies in the educational databases
35	I am doing a traditional and non-original scientific research *
36	Doing the research improves my personality as a scientific researcher
37	I feel unenthusiastic to pursue my research *
38	I wish not to work in the field of scientific research later*
* negative items Each positive item is accompanied by a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Each negative item is accompanied by a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree).

A sample of 30 medical students from Damascus University were asked to answer the SREM after providing them with brief instructions and clarification. The informed consent was obtained from all subjects. Demographic characteristics such as age, gender, ethnicity, institution, and discipline, were collected. General information including the level of postgraduate study, duration spent in completing the research, the academic grade of the supervisor, the supervisor' gender, the number of studies previously supervised by the supervisor, and the number of studies currently supervised by the supervisor, were also collected. After a period of two weeks, the same students were asked to complete the scale again for the second time.

Data analysis was carried out using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS version 22), and statistical tests were conducted to analyze the distribution of the data. Pearson's correlation coefficient was performed to test the internal correlation among the five sub-scales. The internal consistency test was studied using the Cronbach's Alpha. The Test-Retest Reliability was conducted to study the reliability of the scale. An inter-class correlation test (Test-Retest Reliability) was conducted to study the reliability of the answers in the studied sample. The data were collected for the first time, and then the data were re-collected for the second time to ensure the stability of the answers. Exploratory data analysis was also performed to establish the distribution of all variables. Shapiro-Wilk test was used to study the normal distribution of each sub-scales. The P value of less than 0.05 was considered to be significant.

Table 2: The SREM sub-scales scoring and interpreting the responses

Perceptions of research atmosphere:

9-18= The atmosphere is inappropriate for scientific research

19-27= Needs many improvements

28-36= The atmosphere has a lot of positives

37-45= The atmosphere is excellent and suitable for scientific research

Perceptions of autonomy:

5-10= No students' autonomy at all

11-15= Lots of work needed to promote students' autonomy

16-20= Students have good autonomy

21-40= Students have full autonomy

Perceptions of the social atmosphere:

4-8= Unpleasant social atmosphere

9-12= a lot of social discomfort and tension

13-16= suitable social atmosphere

17-20= typical social atmosphere

Perceptions of supervision:

12-24= Bad supervision

25-36= The supervision needs many improvements

37-48= Good supervision

49-60 Ideal supervision

Learning opportunities and academic-self perceptions:

8-16= No educational opportunities or benefits

17-24= Inconsiderable educational benefits

25-32= Good learning opportunities and self-development

33-40= High learning opportunities and self-development

The total score of SREM scale:

38-76= A poor educational environment, not suitable for scientific research.

77-114= Lots of negatives that need improvement

115-152= Good educational environment for scientific research

153-190= Excellent environment for scientific research

A total of 30 postgraduate medical students of Damascus University (n=30) completed the SREM (response rate 100%) with valid responses for analysis.

The values showed a normal distribution for all of the five sub-scales, where the significance level value was greater than (0.05). Findings are presented in Table 3. Pearson's correlation coefficient showed the existence of several essential values, where, which indicates a fundamental correlation between a number of sub-scales (Table 4).

An internal consistency test was performed with alpha-correlation coefficient (Cronbach's Alpha) to study the strength and reliability of the scale. The test result showed that the 38 items of the scale were of excellent strength, as the test result was (0.863).

The test was repeated when each item of the scale was deleted. Table 5 shows the value of the alpha correlation coefficient when removing each item of the scale, as its value increased slightly when item No. 35 was deleted, and the value of the correlation coefficient became (0.875). The test results showed a high value of reliability between the two stages, as the value of the test was (0.093).

Table 3: Tests of Normality

	Shapiro-Wilk
	Statistic	Df	Sig.
The total score of the scale	.911	10	.285
Perceptions of research atmosphere	.914	10	.306
Perceptions of autonomy	.912	10	.292
Perceptions of social atmosphere	.930	10	.446
Perceptions of supervision	.843	10	.058
Learning opportunities and academic-self perceptions	.968	10	.874

Table 4: Internal Correlations
		The total score of the scale	Perceptions of research atmosphere	Perceptions of autonomy	Perceptions of social atmosphere	Perceptions of supervision	Learning opportunities and academic-self perceptions
The total score of the scale	Sig. (2-tailed)
Perceptions of research atmosphere	Sig. (2-tailed)	.156
Perceptions of autonomy	Sig. (2-tailed)	.063	.792
Perceptions of social atmosphere	Sig. (2-tailed)	.000*	.242	.033*
Perceptions of supervision	Sig. (2-tailed)	.000*	.356	.044*	.000*
Learning opportunities and academic-self perceptions	Sig. (2-tailed)	.045*	.761	.846	.210	.096
* an internal connection between the two sub-scales **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 5: Studying the value of the alpha correlation coefficient when omitting each of the items in the scale
	Scale mean if item deleted	Scale variance if item deleted	Corrected item-total correlation	Cronbach' Alpha if item deleted		Scale mean if item deleted	Scale variance if item deleted	Corrected item-total correlation	Cronbach' Alpha if item deleted
q1	114.4000	223.600	.291	.862	q20	113.4000	224.044	.454	.858
q2	115.1000	228.322	.270	.861	q21	115.0000	212.444	.667	.852
q3	115.8000	233.067	.231	.862	q22	114.3000	200.011	.853	.844
q4	114.7000	212.233	.615	.853	q23	113.9000	223.211	.324	.861
q5	115.2000	227.067	.707	.858	q24	114.4000	223.378	.297	.861
q6	112.8000	243.289	-.551	.869	q25	114.6000	198.267	.892	.843
q7	112.4000	244.044	-.501	.870	q26	114.2000	215.067	.597	.854
q8	112.6000	253.378	-.588	.878	q27	113.8000	216.400	.617	.854
q9	114.4000	221.600	.346	.860	q28	114.2000	211.067	.803	.849
q10	114.7000	217.567	.634	.854	q29	113.4000	222.267	.527	.856
q11	114.0000	256.000	-.619	.881	q30	113.7000	214.456	.398	.860
q12	115.4000	232.267	.234	.862	q31	113.4000	216.933	.518	.855
q13	115.2000	223.956	.627	.856	q32	113.5000	214.278	.657	.852
q14	114.9000	225.656	.452	.858	q33	112.7000	238.233	-.151	.866
q15	113.2000	226.844	.471	.859	q34	112.8000	233.733	.179	.863
q16	114.3000	196.678	.944	.841	q35	113.0000	250.000	-.559	.875
q17	112.8000	235.511	.041	.864	q36	113.0000	232.222	.134	.864
q18	112.8000	237.956	-.147	.865	q37	113.8000	223.067	.392	.859
q19	113.6000	213.600	.569	.854	q38	113.6000	220.044	.388	.859

About 90% of the global burden of diseases occurs in developing countries, and it should be noted that most of these diseases are preventable infectious diseases (Murray & Lopez, 1994). Despite this, developing countries still suffer from a lack of scientific research activities to solve problems related to disease outbreaks. The reasons for the lack of scientific research are due to the lack of research capabilities and commercial viability (Røttingen et al., 2012). The actual reality of scientific research environment in Syria still faces many obstacles. In 2011, a report demonstrated that between 1980 and 2011, only 593 papers in the medical literature were published from Syrian medical institutions (Diab et al., 2011). An observational survey that gathered self‑reported data indicated to the presence of many barriers that prevent the medical students' participation in scientific research. However, this observational survey showed that Syrians already managed to partially tackle some of the obstacles imposed by the poor research environment (Turk et al.,2018).

The study was undertaken to test the newly designed scale that measure the scientific research environment of postgraduate medical students. The scale has been developed with content formulated by different stakeholder groups including medical students, medical education master's students, and medical education teaching staff. The findings showed the SREM has been a practical, simple and quick tool that can be used for assessing the scientific research environment in medical schools.

Scientific Research Environment Measure (SREM) consists of 38 items (20 positive statements and 18 negative statements). Each item is accompanied by a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The SREM scale is easy to manage. It has proper internal consistency and construct validity. The SREM scale also showed good test-retest stability. This is the first attempt to develop a tool that measures the postgraduate medical research environment, which may help to accurately identify the obstacles in each medical school and later measure the differences existed

The findings of this study indicated that the appropriate atmosphere is an essential factor for scientific research. The elements of this scale indicate the students’ need for an infrastructure equipped to conduct scientific research at the university, in addition to the university’s ability to provide financial support to researchers and facilitate their access to databases. The given period to complete the research must be available without wasting it with complex or long formal procedures or other tasks within the university not related to scientific research. Some educational and official factors are perceived to be obstacles that negatively affect the completion of postgraduate medical scientific research. In the lack of stimulating educational environment, some students consider the achievement of the research as a difficult task that becomes more difficult due to the large additional workload. On the other hand, the good infrastructure and the available financial support are factors that motivate the postgraduate medical students (Anbari et al., 2015). Each academic institution should contain libraries, halls, and well-equipped laboratories to complete the stages of the scientific research (Matin, 2017). Therefore, nine statements of the 38-item scale asked the students about the research atmosphere.

Autonomy of the researcher is the first step in creating the scientific personality of this researcher (Thompson, 2005). The scale included 5 statements that measure the autonomy of the postgraduate medical students. Findings indicated that students did not have always the opportunity to choose the supervisor, which can consequently affect their satisfaction and negatively affect their attitude towards their research. Previous work indicated that the students should have the opportunity to choose the appropriate supervisor (Geraghty& Olivier, 2018). This scale demonstrates postgraduate students' need not only for the choosing of the supervisor, but even the procedures for replacing the supervisor and submitting complaints in the case of any problem should be more clear.

Furthermore, the student should also select the topic of the research because this will increase the motivation and enthusiasm to complete the research in the best possible way. Likewise, discrimination on religious, cultural, or ethnic basis shouldn't be existing (Delamont et al., 1997). However, when tensions arise the student must be fully aware of the procedures to submit a complaint to the directors of postgraduate studies. The students should also know that the change of a supervisor could be requested in some exceptional circumstances (Thompson 2005).

Four statements asked the students about the social atmosphere. Through these statements, students expressed the need for an appropriate social atmosphere at the university while conducting the research. In their opinion, this means that all supervisors and colleagues should work together as a team within an atmosphere of affection and respect. Researchers encountered several problems during the research period, including miserable working conditions, loss of motivation, depression, and loneliness (Delamont et al., 1997). Students must act professionally with each other to maintain mutual relations among the researchers, the colleagues, and also the supervisors (Yousefi et al., 2015). Maintaining good communication is the key for success of research mission (Winchester-Seeto et al., 2014).

Supervision was the most controversial point within this scale. The postgraduate students' perceptions of supervision were measured in this scale through 12 different statements. This essential focus on supervision can be explained by the fact that the supervisor is the researcher's partner in completing or even not completing the research. Supervising requires that the supervisor possess many skills that scientific experience alone is not sufficient. Through this scale, students ask that the supervisors have enough time to complete the supervision tasks without the presence of other burdens and tasks. Supervisors must be passionate about scientific research, committed to their duties, and cooperate with the students to complete the scientific research without having other goals that they might use their position to impose on the students. The literature indicates that roles, responsibilities, and expectations must be clarified from the beginning. Students and supervisors must work together in an atmosphere of respect, commitment, and collegiality (Thompson 2005). Role ambiguity can lead to unprofessional behaviors (Yousefi et al., 2015). Poor research supervision through limited feedback may contribute to the research. Besides, the lack of support may delay the completion of the research (Lategan 2014). The less active and enthusiastic the supervisor is, the less likely the student will learn, so the effectiveness of the supervisor is an important way to help the students to learn (Delamont et al., 1997). Several supervisors consider the task of supervision to be a challenge for them due to the lack of time and the excessive workload. Excessive numbers of postgraduate students will cause a problem when the ratio is not balanced between the number of researcher students and the number of supervisors (Yousefi et al., 2015).

Undoubtedly, the main purpose of the scientific research is not just to complete it to obtain a certain certificate, but the real goal is to make scientific researchers capable of adding more to medical science through their researches. The (SREM) scale includes 8 statements for evaluating learning opportunities and academic-self perceptions The postgraduate students expressed their hope for scientific research to develop their abilities in communication, scientific thinking, self-learning and scientific research strategies. These are things that develop their personalities as researchers and make them feel motivated to continue their work in scientific research in the future. The literature demonstrated that postgraduate medical students should not think that their duty is just to complete the research, but rather to possess scientific research competencies. A student who wants to become a scientific researcher should not be ill-communicating or misses necessary skills to accomplish research tasks (Yousefi et al., 2015). Researchers should strive to achieve several points, the most prominent of which are building self-confidence and readiness to show higher levels of thinking (Wisker and Kiley 2014). Studies show that early participation in scientific research assignments enhances the tendencies of graduate students in medical colleges to complete work in the field of scientific research later in their medical careers (Ejaz et al., 2011).

In sum, The SREM was found to be a practical tool for assessing the environment for scientific research. Further studies with a larger sample size and in different universities are still essential to ascertain our findings and confirm the validity and reliability of this measure in assessing the scientific research environment. In addition, more research should be undertaken to evaluate the scientific research environment for postgraduate students in other faculties of health professions such as Dentistry and Pharmacy. This will inevitably reflect positively on the level of scientific research and researchers' competencies.

The SREM is an effective evaluation instrument with five relevant sub-scales: perceptions of research atmosphere, perceptions of autonomy, perceptions of the social atmosphere, perceptions of supervision, learning opportunities and academic-self perceptions. The measure with its 5-point Likert points is simple to understand and easy to complete, resulting in scores that can be calculated without taking longtime. The measure produces reliable data and valid inferences about the environment of scientific research. However, future investigations are still required to confirm the findings.

Ethics approval and consent to participate:

The ethical approval was obtained from the ethical committee of the Syrian Virtual University and informed consent was obtained from all participants. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations

Consent for publication:

Not applicable

Availability of data and materials:

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available on reasonable request, taking into consideration the adherence to ethical approval obtained for this study, and adherence to confidentiality. The corresponding author should be contacted if there is a need to request the data from the study.

Competing interests:

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Funding:

This study was supported by the Syrian Virtual University.

Authors' contributions:

MY and MD conceived of the presented idea and contributed to the design and implementation of the research. All authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript.

Acknowledgments:

Financial support for this study was provided by the Syrian Virtual University. The authors wish to thank all faculty members and postgraduate students at Damascus University and the Syrian Virtual University for their contribution to the development of the amendments and suggestions.

Anbari, Z., Mohammadbeigi, A., &Jadidi, R. Barriers and challenges in researches by Iranian students of medical universities. Perspectives in clinical research. 2015; 6(2), 98.
Aslam, F., Qayyum, M. A., Mahmud, H., Qasim, R., &Haque, I. U. Attitudes and practices of postgraduate medical trainees towards research--a snapshot from Faisalabad. Journal of Pakistan Medical Association. 2004; 54(10), 534.
Chaturvedi, S., & Aggarwal, O. P. Training interns in population‐based research: learners’ feedback from 13 consecutive batches from a medical school in India. Medical education. 2001; 35(6), 585-589.
Clapham, M., Wall, D., &Batchelor, A. Educational environment in intensive care medicine—use of Postgraduate Hospital Educational Environment Measure (PHEEM). Medical teacher. 2007; 29(6), e184-e191.‏
Dashash, M., & Boubou, M. Measurement of empathy among health professionals during Syrian crisis using the Syrian empathy scale. BMC Med. Educ. 2021; 21(1): 1-10
Delamont, S., Atkinson, P., Parry, O. Supervising the PhD: a guide to success. Society for Research into Higher Education. Michigan. 1997.
Diab MM, Taftaf RM, Arabi M. Research productivity in Syria: Quantitative and qualitative analysis of current status. Avicenna J Med. 2011;1:4‑7
Edelbring, S. Measuring strategies for learning regulation in medical education: Scale reliability and dimensionality in a Swedish sample. BMC Med. Educ. 2012; 12(1), 1-8.‏
Ejaz K, Shamim MS, Shamim MS, Hussain SA. Involvement of medical students and fresh medical graduates of Karachi, Pakistan in research. J Pak Med Assoc. 2011; 61:115‑20
Geraghty, S., & Oliver, K. In the shadow of the ivory tower: Experiences of midwives and nurses undertaking PhDs. Nurse Education Today. 2018; 65, 36-40. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.02.017
Holt, M. C., &Roff, S. Development and validation of the anaesthetic theatre educational environment measure (ATEEM). Medical teacher. 2004; 26(6), 553-558.‏
Lategan, L. " Research education": a concept wider than postgraduate supervision? Journal for New Generation Sciences. 2014; 12(2),43-58.
Manyike, T. V. Postgraduate supervision at an open distance e-learning institution in South Africa. South African Journal of Education. 2017; 37(2), 1-11. doi:10.15700/saje.v37n2a1354
Matin, M. A., & Khan, M. A. Common problems faced by postgraduate students during their thesis works in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Medical Education. 2017; 8(1), 22-27
Murray, C. J., & Lopez, A. D. Global comparative assessments in the health sector: disease burden, expenditures and intervention packages.‏ Geneva: World Health Organization; 1994.
Özkaya, G., Aydin, M. O., &Alper, Z. (2021). Distance education perception scale for medical students: a validity and reliability study. BMC Medical Education, 21(1), 1-8.‏
Roff, S. U. E., McAleer, S., Harden, R. M., Al-Qahtani, M., Ahmed, A. U., Deza, H., ...&Primparyon, P. Development and validation of the Dundee ready education environment measure (DREEM). Medical teacher. 1997; 19(4), 295-299
Røttingen, J. A., Chamas, C., Goyal, L. C., Harb, H., Lagrada, L., & Mayosi, B. M. Securing the public good of health research and development for developing countries. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2012; 90: 398-400.
Thompson, D. R., Kirkman, S., Watson, R., & Stewart, S. Improving research supervision in nursing. Nurse Education Today. 2005; 25(4), 283–290. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2005.01.011
Turk, T., Al Saadi, T., Alkhatib, M., Hanafi, I., Alahdab, F., Firwana, B., ... & Al-Moujahed, A. Attitudes, barriers, and practices toward research and publication among medical students at the University of Damascus, Syria. Avicenna J Clin Med. 2018; 8(01), 24-33
Winchester-Seeto T, Homewood J, Thogersen J, Jacenyik-Trawoger C, Manathunga C, Reid A, et al. Doctoral supervision in a cross-cultural context: issues affecting supervisors and candidates. Higher Education Research & Development. 2014; 33(3): 610-26
Wisker G, Kiley M. Professional learning: lessons for supervision from doctoral examining. International Journal for Academic Development. 2014; 19(2): 125-38
Yousefi, A., Bazrafkan, L., & Yamani, N. A qualitative inquiry into the challenges and complexities of research supervision: viewpoints of postgraduate students and faculty members. Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism. 2015;3(3), 91–98.

No competing interests reported.

PDF

Editor assigned by journal
14 May, 2022
Editor invited by journal
22 Apr, 2022
Submission checks completed at journal
22 Apr, 2022
First submitted to journal
13 Apr, 2022

You are reading this latest preprint version

A suggested Scientific Research Environment Measure SREM in Medical Faculties

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Background

Materials And Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Declarations

References

Competing Interests

Status:

Version 1