Validation of the Physician Teaching Motivation Questionnaire (PTMQ)

BMC Medical Education

Sigrid Harendza¹  Christoph Dybowski¹ 

[1] Department of Internal Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, III. Medizinische Klinik, Martinistr. 52, Hamburg, D-20246, Germany

关键词: Undergraduate medial education;    Teaching involvement;    Teaching;    Self-efficacy;    Self-determination theory;    Physician;    Motivation;   

Others  :  1228673
DOI  :  10.1186/s12909-015-0448-5

 received in 2015-05-29, accepted in 2015-09-22,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Physicians play a major role as teachers in undergraduate medical education. Studies indicate that different forms and degrees of motivation can influence work performance in general and that teachers’ motivation to teach can influence students’ academic achievements in particular. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop and to validate an instrument measuring teaching motivations in hospital-based physicians.

Methods

We chose self-determination theory as a theoretical framework for item and scale development. It distinguishes between different dimensions of motivation depending on the amount of self-regulation and autonomy involved and its empirical evidence has been demonstrated in other areas of research. To validate the new instrument (PTMQ = Physician Teaching Motivation Questionnaire), we used data from a sample of 247 physicians from internal medicine and surgery at six German medical faculties. Structural equation modelling was conducted to confirm the factorial structure, correlation analyses and linear regressions were performed to examine concurrent and incremental validity.

Results

Structural equation modelling confirmed a good global fit for the factorial structure of the final instrument (RMSEA = .050, TLI = .957, SRMR = .055, CFI = .966). Cronbach’s alphas indicated good internal consistencies for all scales (α = .75 – .89) except for the identified teaching motivation subscale with an acceptable internal consistency (α = .65). Tests of concurrent validity with global work motivation, perceived teaching competence, perceived teaching involvement and voluntariness of lesson allocation delivered theory-consistent results with slight deviations for some scales. Incremental validity over global work motivation in predicting perceived teaching involvement was also confirmed.

Conclusions

Our results indicate that the PTMQ is a reliable, valid and therefore suitable instrument for assessing physicians’ teaching motivation.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Dybowski and Harendza.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Spencer JA, Jordan RK. Learner centred approaches in medical education. BMJ. 1999; 318:1280-3.
• [2]Barrows HS. Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: a brief overview. New Dir Teach Learn. 1996; 1996:3-12.
• [3]Chen FM, Bauchner H, Burstin H. A call for outcomes research in medical education. Acad Med. 2004; 79:955-60.
• [4]Cook DA, West CP. Perspective: reconsidering the focus on “outcomes research” in medical education: a cautionary note. Acad Med. 2013; 88:162-7.
• [5]Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Inc, Englewood Cliffs; 1986.
• [6]Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol. 2000; 55:68-78.
• [7]Wayne AJ, Youngs P. Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: a review. Rev Educ Res. 2003; 73:89-122.
• [8]Zumwalt K, Craig E. Teachers’ characteristics: research on the indicators of quality. In: Studying teacher education: the report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education. Cochrane-Smith M, Zeichner KM, editors. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah; 2005: p.157-260.
• [9]Kunter M, Klusmann U, Baumert J, Richter D, Voss T, Hachfeld A. Professional competence of teachers: effects on instructional quality and student development. J Educ Psychol. 2013; 105:805-20.
• [10]Radel R, Sarrazin P, Legrain P, Wild TC. Social contagion of motivation between teacher and student: analyzing underlying processes. J Educ Psychol. 2010; 102:577-87.
• [11]Roth G, Assor A, Kanat-Maymon Y, Kaplan H. Autonomous motivation for teaching: how self-determined teaching may lead to self-determined learning. J Educ Psychol. 2007; 99:761-74.
• [12]Kusurkar RA, Ten Cate TJ, Vos CM, Westers P, Croiset G. How motivation affects academic performance: a structural equation modelling analysis. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2013; 18:57-69.
• [13]Kusurkar RA, Croiset G, Mann KV, Custers E, Ten Cate O. Have motivation theories guided the development and reform of medical education curricula? A review of the literature. Acad Med. 2012; 87:735-43.
• [14]Steinert Y, Mann K, Centeno A, Dolmans D, Spencer J, Gelula M, Prideaux D. A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to improve teaching effectiveness in medical education: BEME Guide No. 8. Med Teach. 2006; 28:497-526.
• [15]Bird J, Hall A, Maguire P, Heavy A. Workshops for consultants on the teaching of clinical communication skills. Med Educ. 1993; 27:181-5.
• [16]Irby DM, Vontver LA, Stenchever MA. Improving teaching in a multisite clerkship. Faculty-development workshops. J Reprod Med. 1982; 27:307-10.
• [17]Skeff KM, Stratos GA, Bergen MR, Regula DP. A pilot study of faculty development for basic science teachers. Acad Med. 1998; 73:701-4.
• [18]Skeff KM, Stratos GA, Bergen MR, Sampson K, Deutsch SL. Regional teaching improvement programs for community-based teachers. Am J Med. 1999; 106:76-80.
• [19]Sutkin G, Wagner E, Harris I, Schiffer R. What makes a good clinical teacher in medicine? A review of the literature. Acad Med. 2008; 83:452-66.
• [20]Gagné M, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and work motivation. J Organ Behav. 2005; 26:331-62.
• [21]Ten Cate TJ, Kusurkar RA, Williams GC. How self-determination theory can assist our understanding of the teaching and learning processes in medical education. AMEE guide No. 59. Med Teach. 2011; 33:961-73.
• [22]Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Education Research Association, Washington; 1999.
• [23]Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol Bull. 1955; 52:281-302.
• [24]Downing SM. Validity: on the meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Med Educ. 2003; 37:830-7.
• [25]Gagné M, Forest J, Vansteenkiste M, Crevier-Braud L, Broeck AV, Aspeli AK, Bellerose J, Benabou C, Chemolli E, Güntert ST et al.. The Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale: validation evidence in seven languages and nine countries. Eur J Work Organ Psychol. 2014; 24:1-19.
• [26]Fernet C. Development and validation of the Work Role Motivation Scale for School Principals (WRMS-SP). Educ Admin Q. 2011; 47:307-31.
• [27]Mallett C, Kawabata M, Newcombe P, Otero-Forero A, Jackson S. Sport Motivation Scale-6 (SMS-6): a revised six-factor sport motivation scale. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2007; 8:600-14.
• [28]Tremblay MA, Blanchard CM, Taylor S, Pelletier LG, Villeneuve M. Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale: its value for organizational psychology research. Can J Behav Sci. 2009; 41:213-26.
• [29]Bandura A. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. Worth Publishers, New York; 1997.
• [30]Rodgers WM, Markland D, Selzler AM, Murray TC, Wilson PM. Distinguishing perceived competence and self-efficacy: an example from exercise. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2014; 85:527-39.
• [31]Schwarzer R, Hallum S. Perceived teacher self-efficacy as a predictor of job stress and burnout: mediation analyses. Appl Psychol. 2008; 57:152-71.
• [32]Caprara G, Barbaranelli C, Borgogni L, Petitta L, Rubinacci A. Teachers’, school staff’s and parents’ efficacy beliefs as determinants of attitudes toward school. Eur J Psychol Educ. 2003; 18:15-31.
• [33]Bandura A. Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In: Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. Pajares F, Urdan T, editors. IAP, Greenwich; 2006: p.307-37.
• [34]Dybowski C, Harendza S. “Teaching is like nightshifts …”: a focus group study on the teaching motivations of clinicians. Teach Learn Med. 2014; 26:393-400.
• [35]Dybowski C, Harendza S. Bedside teaching: general and discipline-specific teacher characteristics, criteria for patient selection and difficulties. GMS Z Med Ausbild. 2013; 30:Doc23.
• [36]Gierk B, Harendza S. Patient selection for bedside teaching: inclusion and exclusion criteria used by teachers. Med Educ. 2012; 46:228-33.
• [37]Celenza A, Rogers IR. Qualitative evaluation of a formal bedside clinical teaching programme in an emergency department. Emerg Med J. 2006; 23:769-73.
• [38]Berger TJ, Ander DS, Terrell ML, Berle DC. The Impact of the demand for clinical productivity on student teaching in academic emergency departments. Acad Emerg Med. 2004; 11:1364-7.
• [39]Norman G. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2010; 15:625-32.
• [40]West SG, Finch JF, Curran PJ. Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: problems and remedies. In: Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues, and applications. Hoyle RH, editor. Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks; 1995: p.56-75.
• [41]Kriston L, Gunzler C, Harms A, Berner M. Confirmatory factor analysis of the German version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF): a comparison of four models. J Sex Med. 2008; 5:92-9.
• [42]Kline P. The handbook of psychological testing. Routledge, London; 2000.
• [43]Gagné M, Forest J, Gilbert M-H, Aubé C, Morin E, Malorni A. The Motivation at Work Scale: validation evidence in two languages. Educ Psychol Meas. 2010; 70:628-46.
• [44]Grolnick WS, Ryan RM. Autonomy in children’s learning: an experimental and individual difference investigation. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987; 52:890-8.
• [45]Chemolli E, Gagne M. Evidence against the continuum structure underlying motivation measures derived from self-determination theory. Psychol Assessment. 2014; 26:575-85.
• [46]Barnett RC, Carr P, Boisnier AD, Ash A, Friedman RH, Moskowitz MA, Szalacha L. Relationships of gender and career motivation to medical faculty members’ production of academic publications. Acad Med. 1998; 73:180-6.
• [47]Engbers R, Fluit CMG, Bolhuis S, Sluiter R, Stuyt PJ, Laan RJM. Relations between policy for medical teaching and basic need satisfaction in teaching. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2014;20:1–12.
• [48]Vansteenkiste M, Neyrinck B, Niemiec CP, Soenens B, De Witte H, Van den Broeck A. On the relations among work value orientations, psychological need satisfaction and job outcomes: a self-determination theory approach. J Occup Organ Psychol. 2007; 80:251-77.
• [49]Spector PE. Method variance in organizational research: truth or urban legend? Organ Res Meth. 2006; 9:221-32.
• [50]Richardson HA, Simmering MJ, Sturman MC. A tale of three perspectives: examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance. Organ Res Meth. 2009; 12:762-800.
• [51]Plant J, van Schaik S, Sliwka D, Boscardin C, O’Sullivan P. Validation of a self-efficacy instrument and its relationship to performance of crisis resource management skills. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2011; 16:579-90.
• [52]Canrinus E, Helms-Lorenz M, Beijaard D, Buitink J, Hofman A. Self-efficacy, job satisfaction, motivation and commitment: exploring the relationships between indicators of teachers’ professional identity. Eur J Psychol Educ. 2012; 27:115-32.
• [53]Alivernini F, Lucidi F. Relationship between social context, self-efficacy, motivation, academic achievement, and intention to drop out of High School: a longitudinal study. J Educ Res. 2011; 104:241-52.
• [54]Pajares F. Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Rev Educ Res. 1996; 66:543-78.
• [55]Fletcher WL, Hansson RO, Bailey L. Assessing occupational self-efficacy among middle-aged and older adults. J Appl Gerontol. 1992; 11:489-501.
• [56]Stajkovic AD, Luthans F. Self-efficacy and work-related performance: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 1998; 124:240-61.
• [57]Bandura A, Cervone D. Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1983; 45:1017-28.
• [58]Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997; 50:1129-36.
• [59]Jepson C, Asch DA, Hershey JC, Ubel PA. In a mailed physician survey, questionnaire length had a threshold effect on response rate. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005; 58:103-5.