临床教学问卷的跨文化调试及信效度研究

doi:10.3761/j.issn.1672-9234.2020.07.015

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的引入马斯特里赫特临床教学问卷（the Maastricht Clinical Teaching Questionnaire,MCTQ）,并进行跨文化调适,形成中文版MCTQ,并进行信、效度检验。方法对英文版MCTQ进行翻译、回译及文化调适,形成中文版MCTQ。选取426名护理实习生作为研究对象采用中文版MCTQ问卷进行调查,其中30名学生在2周后进行重测,邀请 8名专家对中文版MCTQ进行内容效度评价,以评价该问卷的信度及效度。结果中文版MCTQ探索性因子分子提取4个公因子,包括建模、辅导、表达探索、学习环境。量表的Cronbach’s α系数为0.912,重测信度为0.862,内容效度为0.960。结论中文版MCTQ问卷有严谨的理论基础,在中国文化背景下具有较高的信度和效度,可作为护理实习生反馈评价临床教学质量的有效工具。

关键词: 学生, 护理, 信度, 效度, 临床教学

Abstract:

Objective This study was to translate the Maastricht Clinical Teaching Questionnaire（MCTQ） into Chinese and to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of MCTQ. Methods After the translation,re-translation and cultural adjustment of the MCTQ,the Chinese version of MCTQ was obtained. A total of 426 nursing interns were surveyed by the Chinese version of the MCTQ questionnaire. Among them,30 students were retested after 2 weeks. Eight experts were invited to evaluate the content validity of the Chinese version of MCTQ. Results Exploratory factor analysis showed that there were 4 factors of the Chinese version of MCTQ, including modeling, coaching, expression exploration, and learning environment. The Cronbach’s α coefficient of the overall scale was 0.912. The test-retest reliability of the scale was 0.862. Its content validity was 0.960. Conclusion The Chinese version of MCTQ has a rigorous theoretical basis and high reliability and validity in the context of Chinese culture. It can be used as an effective tool to evaluate the clinical teaching quality for nursing students.

Key words: Students, Nursing, Reliability, Validity, Clinical teaching

于健,谌璐,许彬,谢黎黎,冯建萍,林征,徐晶晶. 临床教学问卷的跨文化调试及信效度研究[J]. 中华护理教育, 2020, 17(7): 643-647.

YU Jian,CHEN Lu,XU Bin,XIE Li-li,FENG Jian-ping,LIN Zheng,XU Jing-jing. Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties testing of the Chinese version of the Maastricht Clinical Teaching Questionnaire[J]. Chinese Journal of Nursing Education, 2020, 17(7): 643-647.

图/表 2

参考文献 20

[1]	国家卫生和计划生育委员会. “十三五”全国卫生计生人才发展规划[EB/OL]. [2017-01-04]. http://www. nhc. gov. cn/.
[2]	Lyons K, McLaughlin JE, Khanova J, et al. Cognitive apprenticeship in health sciences education:a qualitative review[J]. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract, 2017,22(3):723-739. pmid: 27544386
[3]	侯淑肖, 孙静, 郭桂芳. 护理专业本科生社区护理实习过程师生双向评价的研究[J]. 中华护理教育, 2018,15(10):748-751.
[4]	陈凌英, 杨晶晶. 双向评价体系对临床护理带教的质量影响研究[J]. 中国高等医学教育, 2018(11):104-105.
[5]	张红伟, 梁羽嘉, 张嘉冰. 互为评价法在临床护理带教中的应用[J]. 科技创新导报, 2019,16(23):179-180.
[6]	陈益. 自制教与学评价表在护生临床带教中的应用[J]. 实用临床护理学电子杂志, 2018(9):184,190.
[7]	Stalmeijer RE, Dolmans DH, Wolfhagen IH, et al. The Maastricht Clinical Teaching Questionnaire(MCTQ) as a valid and reliable instrument for the evaluation of clinical teachers[J]. Acad Med, 2010,85(11):1732-1738. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181f554d6 pmid: 20881822
[8]	Kelly M, Bennett D, McDonald P. Evaluation of clinical teaching in general practice using the Maastricht Clinical Teaching Questionnaire[J]. Med Teach, 2012,34(12):1089. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.716562 pmid: 22931143
[9]	Rodino AM, Wolcott MD. Assessing preceptor use of cognitive apprenticeship:is the maastricht clinical teaching questionnaire(MCTQ) a useful approach?[J]. Teach Learn Med, 2019,31(5):506-518. doi: 10.1080/10401334.2019.1604356 pmid: 31064222
[10]	Al Ansari A, Tabbara KS. Evaluating the reliability and validity of the maastricht clinical teaching questionnaire in Bahrain[J]. Oman Med J, 2019,34(5):427-433. doi: 10.5001/omj.2019.78 pmid: 31555419
[11]	Takuya, Saiki, Iyo, et al. A cognitive apprenticeship based evaluation form of clinical teachers by students:the Maastricht Clinical Teaching Questionnaire(MCTQ)in Japanese[J]. Igaku Kyoiku/Medical Education(Japan), 2012,43(2):86.
[12]	李颖颖. 肿瘤护理质量量表的汉化及应用[D]. 郑州:郑州大学, 2019.
[13]	Collins A, Brown JS, Newman SE. Cognitive apprenticeship:teaching the Crafts of reading,writing,and mathematics[J]. Knowing Learning and Instruction, 1989:453-494.
[14]	Gemuhay HM, Kalolo A, Mirisho R, et al. Factors affecting performance in clinical practice among preservice diploma nursing students in Northern Tanzania[J]. Nurs Res Pract, 2019,2019:3453085. doi: 10.1155/2019/3453085 pmid: 30941212
[15]	Nyqvist J, Brolin K, Nilsson T, et al. The learning environment and supportive supervision promote learning and are based on the relationship between students and supervisors-A qualitative study[J]. Nurse Educ Pract, 2020,42:102692. doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2019.102692 pmid: 31884207
[16]	Mikkonen K, Tomietto M, Cicolini G, et al. Development and testing of an evidence-based model of mentoring nursing students in clinical practice[J]. Nurse Educ Today, 2020,85:104272. pmid: 31785572
[17]	李航, 高歌. 基于护理本科生视角的临床实践教学感知服务质量评价[J]. 中国实用护理杂志, 2019,35(5):386-391.
[18]	吴隽彦, 徐燕. 护理本科生临床实习体验的研究[J]. 中华护理教育, 2018,15(1):35-38.
[19]	Lloyd-Penza M, Rose A, Roach A. Using feedback to improve clinical education of nursing students in an academic-practice partnership[J]. Teach Learn Nurs, 2019,14(2):125-127. doi: 10.1016/j.teln.2018.12.007
[20]	美国教育研究协会, 美国心理学协会, 全美教育测量学会. 教育与心理测试标准[M]. 燕娓琴,谢小庆,译. 沈阳: 沈阳出版社, 2003.