↓ Skip to main content

Adaptation and validation of the instrument Clinical Learning Environment and Supervision for medical students in primary health care

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
Adaptation and validation of the instrument Clinical Learning Environment and Supervision for medical students in primary health care
Published in
BMC Medical Education, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0809-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eva Öhman, Hassan Alinaghizadeh, Päivi Kaila, Håkan Hult, Gunnar H. Nilsson, Helena Salminen

Abstract

Clinical learning takes place in complex socio-cultural environments that are workplaces for the staff and learning places for the students. In the clinical context, the students learn by active participation and in interaction with the rest of the community at the workplace. Clinical learning occurs outside the university, therefore is it important for both the university and the student that the student is given opportunities to evaluate the clinical placements with an instrument that allows evaluation from many perspectives. The instrument Clinical Learning Environment and Supervision (CLES) was originally developed for evaluation of nursing students' clinical learning environment. The aim of this study was to adapt and validate the CLES instrument to measure medical students' perceptions of their learning environment in primary health care. In the adaptation process the face validity was tested by an expert panel of primary care physicians, who were also active clinical supervisors. The adapted CLES instrument with 25 items and six background questions was sent electronically to 1,256 medical students from one university. Answers from 394 students were eligible for inclusion. Exploratory factor analysis based on principal component methods followed by oblique rotation was used to confirm the adequate number of factors in the data. Construct validity was assessed by factor analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to confirm the dimensions of CLES instrument. The construct validity showed a clearly indicated four-factor model. The cumulative variance explanation was 0.65, and the overall Cronbach's alpha was 0.95. All items loaded similarly with the dimensions in the non-adapted CLES except for one item that loaded to another dimension. The CLES instrument in its adapted form had high construct validity and high reliability and internal consistency. CLES, in its adapted form, appears to be a valid instrument to evaluate medical students' perceptions of their clinical learning environment in primary health care.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
Sweden 1 3%
Unknown 38 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 20%
Unspecified 6 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 13%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Other 13 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 25%
Unspecified 8 20%
Psychology 2 5%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 December 2016.
All research outputs
#7,646,462
of 8,815,676 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,236
of 1,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#245,546
of 300,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#45
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,815,676 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,361 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 300,899 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.