PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: The popularity of medical writing workshops highlights the need for a standard measurement tool to assess the impact of such workshops on participants\' confidence in: 1- writing a standard article and 2- using optimal English language. Because such an instrument is not yet available, we undertook this study to devise and evaluate the first measurement tool to assess such confidence.
METHODS: We created an item pool of 50 items by searching Medline, Embase, and Clarivate Analytics to find related articles, using our prior experience, and approaching the key informants. We revised and edited the item pool, and redundant ones were excluded. Finally, the 36-item tool comprised two domains. We tested it in a group of workshop applicants for internal consistency and temporal reliability using Cronbach\'s α and Pearson correlations and for content and convergent validity using the content validity index and Pearson correlations.
RESULTS: The participants had a mean age of 40.3 years, a female predominance (74.3%), and a majority of faculty members (51.4%). The internal consistency showed high reliability (> 0.95). Test-retest reliability showed very high correlations (r = 0.93). The CVI for domain 1 was 0.78, for domain 2 was 0.73, and for the entire instrument was 0.75.
CONCLUSIONS: This unique, reliable, and valid measurement tool could accurately measure the level of confidence in writing a standard medical article and in using the appropriate English language for this purpose.
METHODS: We created an item pool of 50 items by searching Medline, Embase, and Clarivate Analytics to find related articles, using our prior experience, and approaching the key informants. We revised and edited the item pool, and redundant ones were excluded. Finally, the 36-item tool comprised two domains. We tested it in a group of workshop applicants for internal consistency and temporal reliability using Cronbach\'s α and Pearson correlations and for content and convergent validity using the content validity index and Pearson correlations.
RESULTS: The participants had a mean age of 40.3 years, a female predominance (74.3%), and a majority of faculty members (51.4%). The internal consistency showed high reliability (> 0.95). Test-retest reliability showed very high correlations (r = 0.93). The CVI for domain 1 was 0.78, for domain 2 was 0.73, and for the entire instrument was 0.75.
CONCLUSIONS: This unique, reliable, and valid measurement tool could accurately measure the level of confidence in writing a standard medical article and in using the appropriate English language for this purpose.
摘要：
背景：医学写作研讨会的普及凸显了对标准测量工具的需求，以评估此类研讨会对参与者的信心的影响：1-撰写标准文章，2-使用最佳英语语言。因为这样的仪器还没有，我们进行这项研究是为了设计和评估第一个评估这种可信度的测量工具.
方法：我们通过搜索Medline创建了一个包含50个项目的项目池，Embase,和ClarivateAnalytics查找相关文章，利用我们以前的经验，接近关键线人。我们修改和编辑了项目池，多余的被排除在外。最后,36项工具包括两个域。我们在一组研讨会申请人中使用Cronbach'sα和Pearson相关性对内部一致性和时间可靠性进行了测试，并使用内容有效性指数和Pearson相关性对内容和收敛有效性进行了测试。
结果：参与者的平均年龄为40.3岁，女性占主导地位(74.3%)，和大多数教职员工(51.4%)。内部一致性显示出较高的可靠性(>0.95)。重测信度表现出很高的相关性(r=0.93)。域1的CVI为0.78，域2的CVI为0.73，整个仪器的CVI为0.75。
结论：这种独特的，可靠,并且有效的测量工具可以准确地测量撰写标准医学文章以及为此目的使用适当的英语的信心水平。
方法：我们通过搜索Medline创建了一个包含50个项目的项目池，Embase,和ClarivateAnalytics查找相关文章，利用我们以前的经验，接近关键线人。我们修改和编辑了项目池，多余的被排除在外。最后,36项工具包括两个域。我们在一组研讨会申请人中使用Cronbach'sα和Pearson相关性对内部一致性和时间可靠性进行了测试，并使用内容有效性指数和Pearson相关性对内容和收敛有效性进行了测试。
结果：参与者的平均年龄为40.3岁，女性占主导地位(74.3%)，和大多数教职员工(51.4%)。内部一致性显示出较高的可靠性(>0.95)。重测信度表现出很高的相关性(r=0.93)。域1的CVI为0.78，域2的CVI为0.73，整个仪器的CVI为0.75。
结论：这种独特的，可靠,并且有效的测量工具可以准确地测量撰写标准医学文章以及为此目的使用适当的英语的信心水平。
