↓ Skip to main content

Enhancing students’ learning in problem based learning: validation of a self-assessment scale for active learning and critical thinking

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
365 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Enhancing students’ learning in problem based learning: validation of a self-assessment scale for active learning and critical thinking
Published in
BMC Medical Education, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12909-015-0422-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Umatul Khoiriyah, Chris Roberts, Christine Jorm, C. P. M. Van der Vleuten

Abstract

Problem based learning (PBL) is a powerful learning activity but fidelity to intended models may slip and student engagement wane, negatively impacting learning processes, and outcomes. One potential solution to solve this degradation is by encouraging self-assessment in the PBL tutorial. Self-assessment is a central component of the self-regulation of student learning behaviours. There are few measures to investigate self-assessment relevant to PBL processes. We developed a Self-assessment Scale on Active Learning and Critical Thinking (SSACT) to address this gap. We wished to demonstrated evidence of its validity in the context of PBL by exploring its internal structure. We used a mixed methods approach to scale development. We developed scale items from a qualitative investigation, literature review, and consideration of previous existing tools used for study of the PBL process. Expert review panels evaluated its content; a process of validation subsequently reduced the pool of items. We used structural equation modelling to undertake a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the SSACT and coefficient alpha. The 14 item SSACT consisted of two domains "active learning" and "critical thinking." The factorial validity of SSACT was evidenced by all items loading significantly on their expected factors, a good model fit for the data, and good stability across two independent samples. Each subscale had good internal reliability (>0.8) and strongly correlated with each other. The SSACT has sufficient evidence of its validity to support its use in the PBL process to encourage students to self-assess. The implementation of the SSACT may assist students to improve the quality of their learning in achieving PBL goals such as critical thinking and self-directed learning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 365 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Unknown 362 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 52 14%
Lecturer 45 12%
Student > Bachelor 35 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 6%
Other 88 24%
Unknown 92 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 18%
Social Sciences 58 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 6%
Psychology 15 4%
Computer Science 12 3%
Other 92 25%
Unknown 101 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 March 2016.
All research outputs
#6,883,326
of 24,292,134 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,177
of 3,701 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,293
of 272,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#19
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,292,134 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,701 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 272,139 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.