Tue, Aug 19, 2025
[Archive]
Volume 18, Issue 2 (2025)
JMED 2025, 18(2): 121-128 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: IR.NASRME.REC.1402.097
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Mohammadi E, Salajegheh M. Developing and validating a questionnaire for evaluation faculty members' retention in medical science universities. JMED 2025; 18 (2) :121-128
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-2436-en.html
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-2436-en.html
1- Department of Medical Education, Health Professions Education Research Center, Educational Development Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2- Department of Medical Education, Medical Education Development Center, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran ,mahla.salajegheh90@gmail.com
2- Department of Medical Education, Medical Education Development Center, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran ,
Abstract: (229 Views)
Background & Objective: Due to individual and organizational reasons, the retention of faculty members in medical science universities has become a critical challenge. Identifying and prioritizing the factors influencing faculty retention is essential. This study aimed to develop and validate a questionnaire designed to assess faculty retention at medical science universities.
Materials & Methods: This psychometric study, employing a multi-phase instrument development approach, was conducted in 2023 in Iran. The study consisted of two main phases: item generation and psychometric evaluation. A 25-item preliminary questionnaire was developed based on qualitative interviews with faculty members from several medical sciences universities. In the psychometric phase, face and content validity were assessed using expert judgment, and the Content Validity Index and Content Validity Ratio were calculated based on Lawshe's method. Construct validity was examined using exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Reliability was evaluated through internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and stability (test-retest method using Spearman-Brown coefficient). The sample consisted of 351 faculty members selected through convenience sampling.
Results: The final questionnaire included 21 items across three domains: individual factors, institutional factors, and socio-political factors. The CVI and CVR values were 0.91 and 0.84, respectively. EFA revealed a three-factor structure that explained 64% of the total variance. The results of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) indicated that the fit indices for the questionnaire's three-factor structure were appropriate. Cronbach's alpha for the total scale was 0.80, and domain-specific alphas ranged from 0.78 to 0.82. The stability assessment indicated acceptable reliability (Spearman-Brown coefficient = 0.78).
Conclusions: The developed questionnaire demonstrates acceptable validity and reliability for assessing factors related to faculty retention in medical science universities. Further validation in diverse academic contexts is recommended to enhance generalizability.
Materials & Methods: This psychometric study, employing a multi-phase instrument development approach, was conducted in 2023 in Iran. The study consisted of two main phases: item generation and psychometric evaluation. A 25-item preliminary questionnaire was developed based on qualitative interviews with faculty members from several medical sciences universities. In the psychometric phase, face and content validity were assessed using expert judgment, and the Content Validity Index and Content Validity Ratio were calculated based on Lawshe's method. Construct validity was examined using exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Reliability was evaluated through internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and stability (test-retest method using Spearman-Brown coefficient). The sample consisted of 351 faculty members selected through convenience sampling.
Results: The final questionnaire included 21 items across three domains: individual factors, institutional factors, and socio-political factors. The CVI and CVR values were 0.91 and 0.84, respectively. EFA revealed a three-factor structure that explained 64% of the total variance. The results of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) indicated that the fit indices for the questionnaire's three-factor structure were appropriate. Cronbach's alpha for the total scale was 0.80, and domain-specific alphas ranged from 0.78 to 0.82. The stability assessment indicated acceptable reliability (Spearman-Brown coefficient = 0.78).
Conclusions: The developed questionnaire demonstrates acceptable validity and reliability for assessing factors related to faculty retention in medical science universities. Further validation in diverse academic contexts is recommended to enhance generalizability.
Keywords: faculty, faculty retention, psychometrics, medical education, organizational loyalty, questionnaires
Article Type : Orginal Research |
Subject:
Medical Education
Received: 2025/03/2 | Accepted: 2025/06/23 | Published: 2025/07/13
Received: 2025/03/2 | Accepted: 2025/06/23 | Published: 2025/07/13
References
1. Tabouli EM, Habtoor NA, Nashief SM. The impact of human resources management on employee performance: organizational commitment mediator variable. Asian Social Science. 2016;12(9):176-92. [DOI]
2. Mihaylova T, Dimitrov T, Gradinarova N, Todorova D. Characteristics of human resource planning in healthcare. Journal of IMAB–Annual Proceeding Scientific Papers. 2018;24(1):1953-6. [DOI]
3. Scheuermann TS, Clark L, Sultana N, et al. Race, gender, and faculty retention in academic medicine. JAMA Network Open. 2024;7(11):e2445143 [DOI]
4. Vuong B, Tung D, Tushar H, Quan T, Giao H. Determinants of factors influencing job satisfaction and organizational loyalty. Management Science Letters. 2021;11(1):203-12. [DOI]
5. Gonzalo JD, Ahluwalia A, Hamilton M, Wolf H, Wolpaw DR, Thompson BM. Aligning education with health care transformation: identifying a shared mental model of “new” faculty competencies for academic faculty. Academic Medicine. 2018;93(2):256-64 [DOI]
6. Salajegheh M, Hekmat SN, Macky M. Challenges and solutions for the promotion of medical sciences faculty members in Iran: a systematic review. BMC Medical Education. 2022;22(1):1-9. [DOI]
7. Anari NN. Teachers: emotional intelligence, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Journal of Workplace Learning. 2012;24(4):256-69. [DOI]
8. Bibi A, Khalid MA, Hussain A. Perceived organizational support and organizational commitment among special education teachers in Pakistan. International Journal of Educational Management. 2019;33(5):848-59. [DOI]
9. Zhang L-f. Do academics’ emotions in teaching affect their organizational commitment? Journal of Educational Psychology. 2019;111(7):1317. [DOI]
10. Selesho JM, Naile I. Academic staff retention as a human resource factor: university perspective. International Business & Economics Research Journal. 2014;13(2):295-304. [DOI]
11. Mowday RT, Steers RM, Porter LW. The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 1979;14(2):224-47 [DOI]
12. Spector PE. Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: development of the job satisfaction survey. American Journal of Community Psychology. 1985;13(6):693 [DOI]
13. Hom PW, Griffeth RW, Sellaro CL. The validity of Mobley's (1977) model of employee turnover. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 1984;34(2):141-74 [DOI]
14. Mohammadi E, Salajegheh M. Exploring the viewpoint of faculty members of medical sciences universities about effective factors on their organizational retention: a qualitative study. BMC Medical Education. 2023;23(1):725. [DOI]
15. Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today. 2004;24(2):105-12. [DOI]
16. Wilson FR, Pan W, Schumsky DA. Recalculation of the critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development. 2012;45(3):197-210. [DOI]
17. Wynd CA, Schmidt B, Schaefer MA. Two quantitative approaches for estimating content validity. Western Journal of Nursing Research. 2003;25(5):508-18 [DOI]
18. Schmitt TA. Current methodological considerations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 2011;29(4):304-21. [DOI]
19. Wolf EJ, Harrington KM, Clark SL, Miller MW. Sample size requirements for structural equation models: an evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2013;73(6):913-34 [DOI]
20. Vican S, Friedman A, Andreasen R. Metrics, money, and managerialism: faculty experiences of competing logics in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education. 2020;91(1):139-64. [DOI]
21. Mea MH, Se H. Work-Life Balance, Job Satisfaction, and Work Environment Influences on Educators’ Loyalty. InInternational Conference on Business, Accounting, Banking, and Economics (ICBABE 2022) 2023 May 22 (pp. 3-13). Atlantis Press [DOI]
22. Nguyen CM, Ha MT. The interplay between internal communication, employee engagement, job satisfaction, and employee loyalty in higher education institutions in Vietnam. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2023;10(1):1-3 [DOI]
23. Haas M, Triemstra J, Tam M, et al. A decade of faculty development for health professions educators: lessons learned from the Macy faculty scholars program. BMC Medical Education. 2023;23(1):1-12 [DOI]
24. Madurani DN, Pasaribu M. The effect of talent management on employee retention mediated by organizational justice and talent perception congruence. In7th Sriwijaya Economics, Accounting, and Business Conference (SEABC 2021) 2022 Mar 8 (pp. 228-246). Atlantis Press. [DOI]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
