Fri, Nov 22, 2024
[Archive]
Volume 16, Issue 52 (2024)
JMED 2024, 16(52): 1-9 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: IR.KAUMS.NUHEPM.REC1401.022
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Norouzi A, Shakeri Goki M H, Atoof F, Ezzaddin Alkhateeb N, Mirhosseini F. Psychometric analysis of a tool to assess metamotivational strategies in undergraduate anesthesia students. JMED 2024; 16 (52) :1-9
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-1791-en.html
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-1791-en.html
Ali Norouzi 
, Mohammad Hossein Shakeri Goki , Fatemeh Atoof , Nazdar Ezzaddin Alkhateeb , Fakhrosadat Mirhosseini *
, Mohammad Hossein Shakeri Goki , Fatemeh Atoof , Nazdar Ezzaddin Alkhateeb , Fakhrosadat Mirhosseini *
Trauma Research Center & Educational Development Center& Anesthesia Department, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran*
Abstract: (1308 Views)
Background & Objective: Undergraduate anesthesia students benefit from motivational self-regulation strategies when facing specific academic challenges to maintain and improve their academic motivation. Due to the absence of valid and reliable instruments to assess these strategies, the present study aimed at the psychometrical analysis of MSMQ (Metamotivational Strategies in Medical Students) which is used to measure meta-motivational strategies in undergraduate anesthesia students.
Materials & Methods: In this psychometric study, 358 undergraduate anesthesia students were selected by convenience sampling method. The research community included undergraduate anesthesia students in Iran, and the MSMQ questionnaire was provided for them to complete. Its validity was determined by face and content validity methods, and its reliability was determined by the internal consistency method. The confirmatory factor analysis method was used to check construct validity.
Results: The CVI and CVR values were obtained at ≥ 0.80 for all items. In the confirmatory factor analysis, the factor loading of all items was reported to be ≤ 0.40, and the mentioned instrument enjoyed the goodness of fit indices (RMSEA = 0.064, NNFI = 0.96, CFI = 0.97, SRMR = 0.06, GFI = 0.86). Acceptable reliability coefficients were obtained for the subscales, and Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the whole questionnaire was 0.922.
Conclusion: As evidenced by the results of this study, the MSMQ questionnaire is a valid and reliable instrument; therefore, it can be used for Iranian undergraduate anesthesia students.
Materials & Methods: In this psychometric study, 358 undergraduate anesthesia students were selected by convenience sampling method. The research community included undergraduate anesthesia students in Iran, and the MSMQ questionnaire was provided for them to complete. Its validity was determined by face and content validity methods, and its reliability was determined by the internal consistency method. The confirmatory factor analysis method was used to check construct validity.
Results: The CVI and CVR values were obtained at ≥ 0.80 for all items. In the confirmatory factor analysis, the factor loading of all items was reported to be ≤ 0.40, and the mentioned instrument enjoyed the goodness of fit indices (RMSEA = 0.064, NNFI = 0.96, CFI = 0.97, SRMR = 0.06, GFI = 0.86). Acceptable reliability coefficients were obtained for the subscales, and Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the whole questionnaire was 0.922.
Conclusion: As evidenced by the results of this study, the MSMQ questionnaire is a valid and reliable instrument; therefore, it can be used for Iranian undergraduate anesthesia students.
Keywords: Metamotivational Strategies, Motivational Regulation, Self-Regulation, Motivation, Undergraduate Anesthesia Student
Article Type : Orginal Research |
Subject:
Medical Education
Received: 2022/11/28 | Accepted: 2023/07/26 | Published: 2024/03/16
Received: 2022/11/28 | Accepted: 2023/07/26 | Published: 2024/03/16
References
1. Saif AA. Modern educational psychology (Psychology of learning and instruction). Tehran: Doran; 2020, 239-241.
2. Miele DB, Scholer AA, Fujita K. Metamotivation: emerging research on the regulation of motivational states. In: Elliot AJ, editor. Advances in Motivation Science. 7rd Ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2020, 1-42.
3. Wolters CA. Self-regulated learning and college students' regulation of motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1998; 90(2): 224–35. [DOI]
4. Wolters CA. Regulation of motivation: evaluating an underemphasized aspect of self-regulated learning. educational psychologist. 2003; 38(4): 189-205. [DOI]
5. Miele DB, Scholer AA. Self-regulation of motivation. In: Wentzel KR, Miele DB, editor. Handbook of Motivation at School. 2nd Ed. New York: Routledge; 2016, 363-384.
6. Miele DB, Scholer AA. The role of metamotivational monitoring in motivation regulation. Educational Psychologist. 2018; 53(1): 1–21. [DOI]
7. Norouzi A, Parmelee D, Shariati M, Norouzi S, Nedjat S, Alizadeh M. The development and validation of metamotivational strategies in medical students' questionnaire. Medical Teacher. 2021; 43(10): 1186-95. [DOI]
8. Schwinger M, LadenT, Spinath B. Motivational regulation strategies and their measurement. Zeitschrift Fur Entwicklungspsychologie Und Padagogische Psychologie. 2007; 39(2): 57–69. [DOI]
9. Wolters CA, Benzon MB. Assessing and predicting college students' use of strategies for the self-motivational regulation. The Journal of Experimental Education. 2013; 81(2): 199-22. [DOI]
10. Lyons KM, Cain JJ, Haines ST, et al. The clinical educator's guide to fostering learner motivation: AMEE Guide No. 137. Medical Teacher. 2021; 43(5): 492-500. [DOI]
11. Wolters CA. The relation between high school students' motivational regulation and their use of learning strategies, effort, and classroom performance. Learning and Individual Differences. 1999; 11(3): 281-99. [DOI]
12. Grunschel C, Schwinger M, Steinmayr R, et al. Effects of using motivational regulation strategies on students' academic procrastination, academic performance, and well-being. Learning and Individual Differences. 2016; 49: 162-70. [DOI]
13. Ljubin-Golub T, Petricevic E, Rovan D. The role of personality in motivational regulation and academic procrastination. Educational Psychology. 2019; 39(4): 550-68. [DOI]
14. Schwinger M, Otterpohl N. Which one works best? Considering the relative importance of motivational regulation strategies. Learning and Individual Differences. 2017; 53: 122-32. [DOI]
15. Smit K, de Brabander CJ, Boekaerts M, et al. The self-regulation of motivation: Motivational strategies as mediator between motivational beliefs and engagement for learning. International Journal of Educational Research. 2017; 82: 124-34. [DOI]
16. Wolters CA, Rosenthal H. The relation between students' motivational beliefs and their use of motivational regulation strategies. International Journal of Educational Research. 2000; 33(7): 801-20. [DOI]
17. Kryshko O, Fleischer J, Waldeyer J, Wirth J, Leutner D. Do motivational regulation strategies contribute to university students' academic success? Learning and Individual Differences. 2020; 82: 101912. [DOI]
18. Cooper CA, Corpus JH. Learners' developing knowledge of strategies for regulating motivation. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 2009; 30(4): 525-36. [DOI]
19. Umemoto T. The effects of metacognitive and motivational regulation strategies on the use of cognitive strategies and persistence in learning. Japan Journal of Educational Technology. 2013; 37(1): 79-87. [DOI]
20. Sanchez Rosas JA, Soledad Aguirre R, Bovina-Martijena N, Lucia Galarza V. Motivational regulation strategies: a questionnaire for its measurement in argentinian university students. Revista Evaluar. 2019; 19: 35-42. [DOI]
21. Wang L. Understanding EFL learners' learning motivational regulation strategies: an exploratory evidence from students in a chinese-foreign cooperative project. Revista de Cercetare si Interventie Sociala. 2019; 66: 41–58. [DOI]
22. Kusurkar RA. Autonomous motivation in medical education. Medical Teacher. 2019; 41(9): 1083-4. [DOI]
23. Bachelor of Anesthesiology Curriculum in Iran, (2018).
24. Farghadani Z, Ghanbari Afra L, Aliakbarzadeh Arani Z, et al. Evaluation of the Status of clinical education from the perspective of anesthesiology and operating room students in qom university of medical sciences, 2017, (Iran). Qom University of Medical Sciences Journal. 2019; 13(1): 49-57. [DOI]
25. Firouznia S, Yousefi A, Ghassemi G. The relationship between academic motivation and academic achievement in medical students of isfahan university of medical sciences. Iranian Journal of Medical Education. 2009; 9(1): 79-84. [DOI]
26. Saif AA. Educational measurement, assessment and evaluation. Tehran, Iran: Doran; 2017, 551-552.
27. Howard M. A review of exploratory factor analysis decisions and overview of current practices: what we are doing and how can we improve? International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction. 2016; 32(1): 51-62. [DOI]
28. Kyriazos TA. Applied psychometrics: sample size and sample power considerations in factor analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in general. Psychology. 2018; 09(08): 2207-30. [DOI]
29. Kaplan DW. Structural equation modeling: foundations and extensions. 2 th ed. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications; 2009, 110-132.
30. Hu Lt, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. structural equation modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 1999; 6(1): 1-55. [DOI]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
