| Title |
Assessing physical therapist students’ self-efficacy: measurement properties of the Physiotherapist Self-Efficacy (PSE) questionnaire
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12909-017-1094-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wim van Lankveld, Anne Jones, Jaap J. Brunnekreef, Joost P. H. Seeger, J. Bart Staal |
| Abstract |
Apart from skills, and knowledge, self-efficacy is an important factor in the students' preparation for clinical work. The Physiotherapist Self-Efficacy (PSE) questionnaire was developed to measure physical therapy (TP) students' self-efficacy in the cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and neurological clinical areas. The aim of this study was to establish the measurement properties of the Dutch PSE questionnaire, and to explore whether self-efficacy beliefs in students are clinical area specific. Methodological quality of the PSE was studied using COSMIN guidelines. Item analysis, structural validity, and internal consistency of the PSE were determined in 207 students. Test-retest reliability was established in another sample of 60 students completing the PSE twice. Responsiveness of the scales was determined in 80 students completing the PSE at the start and the end of the second year. Hypothesis testing was used to determine construct validity of the PSE. Exploratory factor analysis resulted in three meaningful components explaining similar proportions of variance (25%, 21%, and 20%), reflecting the three clinical areas. Internal consistency of each of the three subscales was excellent (Cronbach's alpha > .90). Intra Class Correlation Coefficient was good (.80). Hypothesis testing confirmed construct validity of the PSE. The PSE shows excellent measurement properties. The component structure of the PSE suggests that self-efficacy about physiotherapy in PT students is not generic, but specific for a clinical area. As self-efficacy is considered a predictor of performance in clinical settings, enhancing self-efficacy is an explicit goal of educational interventions. Further research is needed to determine if the scale is specific enough to assess the effect of educational interventions on student self-efficacy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 116 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 27 | 23% |
| Unknown | 41 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 34 | 29% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 10% |
| Psychology | 9 | 8% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Unknown | 45 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 21 December 2017.
All research outputs
#7,485,026
of 23,011,300 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,342
of 3,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,887
of 439,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#52
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,011,300 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,366 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
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 439,142 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.