Questionnaire to Assess a Teacher’s Perception of Their Current Personal Commitment and Preferred Future Commitment to Each of the Eight Roles: Turkish Version

Abstract

Introduction: There are eight key roles defined for trainers. The trainer is expected to identify their roles in a training program and maximize their potential. This study aimed to expand the “Questionnaire to Assess a Teacher’s Perception of Their Current Personal Commitment and Preferred Future Commitment to Each of the Eight Roles”, which was developed by Harden and Lilley 2018, and adapt it to Turkish. Method: The study was carried out in four faculties between 10 December 2018 and 30 August 2019. The original questionnaire, which questioned the roles of an educator over a total of eight items, was expanded in accordance with the source in which it was published. The psychometric analyses of the new scale consisting of 32 items were conducted. Results: The final version of the scale consisted of 29 items and eight subscales. The scale-based content validity index for the scale was calculated as 1.00. Cronbach's alpha values for the Scale and its subscales were 0.95, 0.67, 0.90, 0.92, 0.87, 0.84, 0.88, 0.90, and 0.78, respectively. The item-total correlations for the scale and the Goodness of Fit model were deemed acceptable. Conclusion: The scale proved useful as a measurement tool for measuring educators’ current and future commitments to their eight roles. We recommend the scale for educator evaluation, needs assessment, and/or educator development training.

Keywords

• Health Educators
• Education;Medical
• Role
• Nursing
• Reliability and Validity

References

1. 1. Harden RM, Crosby J. AMEE Guide No 20: The good teacher is more than a lecturer-the twelve roles of the teacher. Med Teach. 2000; 22 (4):334-347.
2. 2. Harden RM. Ten key features of the future medical school-not an impossible dream. Med Teach.2018;40(10):1010-1015.
3. 3. MedEdWord: e global medical education community. [Accessed 2019 Sep 9]. The [data are available at https://www.mededworld.org/Resources/Publications/Articles.aspx
4. 4. Ravindran R, Kashyap M, Lilis L, Vivekanantham S, Phoenix G. Evaluation of an online medical teaching forum. Clin Teach.2014;11: 274-8.
5. 5. Choo EK, Ranney ML, Chan TM, Trueger NS, Walsh AE, Tegtmeyer K et al. Twitter as a tool for communication and knowledge exchange in academic medicine: A guide for skeptics and novices. Med Teach.2015;37(5):411-416.
6. 6. Gallardo-Echenique EE, de Oliveira JM, Marques-Molias L, esteve-Mon F. Digital competence in the knowledge society. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. 2015;11(1):1-16.
7. 7. Purdy E, Thoma B, Bednarczyk J, Migneault D, Sherbino J. The use of free online educational resources by Canadian emergency medicine residents and program directors. CJEM. 2015;17(2):101-106.
8. 8. Harden RM, Lilley P. The Eight Roles of the Medical Teacher: The Purpose and Function of a Teacher in the Healthcare Professions. The Eight Roles of the Medical Teacher.1st Edition. Elsevier,2018.

9. 9. Lim KH, Loo ZY, Goldie SJ, Adams JW, McMenamin PG. Use of 3D printed models in medical education: A randomized control trial comparing 3D prints versus cadaveric materials for learning external cardiac anatomy. Anat Sci Educ.2016;9(3):213-21.
10. 10. AlAli AB, Griffin MF, Calonge WM, Butler PE. Evaluating the Use of Cleft Lip and Palate 3D-Printed Models as a Teaching Aid. J Surg Educ.2018; 75(1):200-208.
11. 11. Reeves S, Macmillan K, van Soeren M. Leadership of interprofessional health and social care teams: a socio-historical analysis. J Nurs Manag.2010;18(3): 258-64.
12. 12. Shrader S, Mauldin M, Hammad S, Mitcham M, Blue A. Developing a comprehensive faculty development program to promote interprofessional education, practice and research at a free-standing academic health science center. J Interprof Care.2015;29(2):165-7.
13. 13. Brewer ML, Flavell H, Trede F, Smith M. Creating change agents for interprofessional education and practice: a leadership programme for academic staff and health practitioners. International Journal of Leadership in Education.2018;21(5):580-592.
14. 14. Van Zanten M, Boulet JR, Greaves I. The importance of medical education accreditation standards. Med Teach.2012;34(2):136-145.
15. 15. Barzansky B, Hunt D, Moineau G, Ahn D, Lai CW, Humphrey H et al. Continuous quality improvement in an accreditation system for undergraduate medical education: Benefits and challenges. Med Teach.2015;37(11):1032-1038, 2015.
16. 16. Altmiller G, Armstrong G. National quality and safety education for nurse’s faculty survey results. Nurse Educ.2017;42(5S):3-7.
17. 17. Ard N, Beasley S, Nunn-Ellison K. Quality education through accreditation. Teaching and Learning in Nursing.2017;12(2):85-87.
18. 18. Jaffar AA. Exploring the use of a Facebook page in anatomy education. Anat Sci Educ.2014;7(3):199-208.
19. 19. Sterling M, Leung P, Wright D, Bishop TF. The Use of Social Media in Graduate Medical Education: A Systematic Review. Acad Med.2017;92(7): 1043-1056.
20. 20. Latif MZ, Hussain I, Saeed R, Qureshi MA, Maqsood U. Use of Smart Phones and Social Media in Medical Education: Trends, Advantages, Challenges and Barriers. Acta Inform Med.2019;27(2):133.
21. 21. Rattray J, Jones MC. Essential Elements of Questionnaire Design and Development. J Clin Nurs.2007;16:234-243.
22. 22. Sousa VD, Rojjanasrirat W. Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: a clear and user-friendly guideline. J Eval Clin Pract.2011;17(2):268-274.
23. 23. DeVellis RF. Scale Development: Theory and Applications (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,2017
24. 24. [WHO]World Health Organization. Process of translation and adaptation of instruments, 2017. [data are available at http://www. who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/translation/en/]
25. 25. Crestani AH, Moraes AB, Souza APR. Content validation: clarity/relevance, reliability and internal consistency of enunciative signs of language acquisition. Codas 29.2017:e20160180.
26. 26. Jonhson B, Christensen L. Educational research: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. California, SAGE Publication, 2014. Inc.
27. 27. Kaiser HF. A second-generation little jiffy. Psychometrika.1970;35(4):401-415, 1970.
28. 28. Steiger JH. Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences. 2006;42(5):893–898.
29. 29. Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen MR. Structural equation modelling: quidelines for determining model fit. Electronic J Business Res Methods. 2008;6(1):53-60.
30. 30. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory (3rd Ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2010.