See the published version of this preprint at BMC Medical Education.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Christopher R. Stephenson
Mayo Clinic
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8537-392X
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: Continuing medical education (CME) often uses passive educational models including lectures. However, numerous studies have questioned the effectiveness of these less engaging educational strategies. Studies outside of CME suggest that engaged learning is associated with improved educational outcomes. However, measuring participants’ engagement can be challenging. We developed and determined the validity evidence for a novel instrument to assess learner engagement in CME.
Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional validation study at a large, didactic-style CME conference. Content validity evidence was established through review of literature and previously published engagement scales and conceptual frameworks on engagement, along with an iterative process involving experts in the field, to develop an eight-item Learner Engagement Instrument (LEI). Response process validity was established by vetting LEI items on item clarity and perceived meaning prior to implementation, as well as using a well-developed online platform with clear instructions.. Internal structure validity evidence was based on factor analysis and calculating internal consistency reliability. Relations to other variables validity evidence was determined by examining associations between LEI and previously validated CME Teaching Effectiveness (CMETE) instrument scores. Following each presentation, all participants were invited to complete the LEI and the CMETE.
Results: 51 out of 206 participants completed the LEI and CMETE (response rate 25%) Correlations between the LEI and the CMETE overall scores were strong (r=0.80). Internal consistency reliability for the LEI was excellent (Cronbach’s alpha=0.96). To support validity to internal structure, a factor analysis was performed and revealed a two dimensional instrument consisting of internal and external engagement domains. The internal consistency reliabilities were 0.96 for the internal engagement domain and 0.95 for the external engagement domain.
Conclusion: Engagement, as measured by the LEI, is strongly related to teaching effectiveness. The LEI is supported by robust validity evidence including content, response process, internal structure, and relations to other variables. Given the relationship between learner engagement and teaching effectiveness, identifying more engaging and interactive methods for teaching in CME is recommended.
Keywords
CME; Engagement, Validity, Teaching Effectiveness
Figure 1
Figure 2
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Medical Education.
Version 2
Posted 31 Aug, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 25 Oct, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 21 Oct, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 18 Sep, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 18 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 16 Sep, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 15 Sep, 2020
Editor assigned
On 28 Aug, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 27 Aug, 2020
Editor invited
On 27 Aug, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 26 Jul, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 21 Jul, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 16 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 02 Jul, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 30 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 30 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 21 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 20 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 20 Jun, 2020
First submitted
On 19 Jun, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Medical Education.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Christopher R. Stephenson
Mayo Clinic
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8537-392X
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Medical Education.
Version 2
Posted 31 Aug, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 25 Oct, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 21 Oct, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 18 Sep, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 18 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 16 Sep, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 15 Sep, 2020
Editor assigned
On 28 Aug, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 27 Aug, 2020
Editor invited
On 27 Aug, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 26 Jul, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 21 Jul, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 16 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 02 Jul, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 30 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 30 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 21 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 20 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 20 Jun, 2020
First submitted
On 19 Jun, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Medical Education.
Background: Continuing medical education (CME) often uses passive educational models including lectures. However, numerous studies have questioned the effectiveness of these less engaging educational strategies. Studies outside of CME suggest that engaged learning is associated with improved educational outcomes. However, measuring participants’ engagement can be challenging. We developed and determined the validity evidence for a novel instrument to assess learner engagement in CME.
Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional validation study at a large, didactic-style CME conference. Content validity evidence was established through review of literature and previously published engagement scales and conceptual frameworks on engagement, along with an iterative process involving experts in the field, to develop an eight-item Learner Engagement Instrument (LEI). Response process validity was established by vetting LEI items on item clarity and perceived meaning prior to implementation, as well as using a well-developed online platform with clear instructions.. Internal structure validity evidence was based on factor analysis and calculating internal consistency reliability. Relations to other variables validity evidence was determined by examining associations between LEI and previously validated CME Teaching Effectiveness (CMETE) instrument scores. Following each presentation, all participants were invited to complete the LEI and the CMETE.
Results: 51 out of 206 participants completed the LEI and CMETE (response rate 25%) Correlations between the LEI and the CMETE overall scores were strong (r=0.80). Internal consistency reliability for the LEI was excellent (Cronbach’s alpha=0.96). To support validity to internal structure, a factor analysis was performed and revealed a two dimensional instrument consisting of internal and external engagement domains. The internal consistency reliabilities were 0.96 for the internal engagement domain and 0.95 for the external engagement domain.
Conclusion: Engagement, as measured by the LEI, is strongly related to teaching effectiveness. The LEI is supported by robust validity evidence including content, response process, internal structure, and relations to other variables. Given the relationship between learner engagement and teaching effectiveness, identifying more engaging and interactive methods for teaching in CME is recommended.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Loading...