Perception of the Integration of Scientific Activities in the Medicine Curriculum: Development and Validation of an Instrument.
Abstract
Scientific training is essential in Medicine to address the advancement of knowledge and support evidence-based clinical decision-making. To promote this competency, the 2008 Curriculum of the School of Medicine, Universidad de la República (Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de la República) incorporated curricular components designed to strengthen it, including the courses Scientific Methodology I (Metodología Científica I, MCI), Scientific Methodology II (Metodología Científica II, MCII), and the Workshop on Scientific Conferences (Taller de Conferencias Científicas, TCC). This study aimed to evaluate these courses through the design and validation of the Questionnaire on Perception of the Integration of Research Activities (Cuestionario de Percepción sobre la Integración de Actividades de Investigación, CPIAI). In the first phase, 271 students from the 2022 cohort completed a 40-item questionnaire regarding the courses Cell and Molecular Biology (Biología Celular y Molecular, BCM), MCI, MCII, and TCC. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to identify the instrument’s internal structure. In the second phase, 639 students from the 2023 cohort completed the same questionnaire, which was then analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and exploratory bifactor analysis (EBA) to assess structural consistency and the interpretability of the total score. The EFA revealed a four-factor structure, which was confirmed by the CFA (SRMR = 0.063; RMSEA = 0.079). Factor loadings were high and statistically significant, and internal consistency was excellent for all factors (Cronbach’s α ≥ 0.84). The EBA yielded a hierarchical omega (ωh) of 0.78 and an explained common variance (ECV) of 0.54, supporting the presence of a general factor interpretable as integration of scientific knowledge. The scores reflected levels of perceived integration consistent with each course’s objectives, teaching methods, and activities, with the highest scores observed in research-focused courses (TCC and MCII). A progressive increase in perceived integration was also observed across the program. These findings support the validity and reliability of the CPIAI as a tool to assess medical students’ perception of the integration of research activities. Furthermore, they highlight the positive impact of the 2008 Curriculum courses on students’ scientific training and underscore the importance of incorporating research-oriented learning experiences into medical education.
Downloads
Metrics
-
Abstract98
-
pdf (Español (España))94
-
pdf94
-
Material suplementario (E...22
References
Flexner A. Medical education in the United States and Canada. From the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Bulletin Number Four, 1910. Bull World Health Organ. 2002, 80(7), 594-602. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2567554/
Grande JP. Training of physicians for the twenty-first century: role of the basic sciences. Med Teach. 2009, 31(9), 802-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590903137049
Irby DM, Cooke M, O'Brien BC. Calls for reform of medical education by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching: 1910 and 2010. Acad Med. 2010, 85(2), 220-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181c88449
Lindor K, Porter BL. Linking medical education and patient care. Minn Med. 2010, 93(11), 32, 4. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000002092
Lindor KD, Pawlina W, Porter BL, Viggiano TR, Grande JP, Barrier PA, et al. Commentary: improving medical education during financially challenging times. Acad Med. 2010, 85(8), 1266-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181e5a75c
Healey M. Linking research and teaching: exploring disciplinary spaces and the role of inquiry-based learning. In: Barnet R, editor. Reshaping the University: new relationships between research, scholarship and teaching: McGraw Hill: Open University Press; 2005. p. 67-78. https://www.academia.edu/3420439/Linking_research_and_teaching_exploring_disciplinary_spaces_and_the_role_of_inquiry_based_learning
Healey M, Jenkins A. Developing undergraduate research inquiry. 2009. https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets.creode.advancehe-document-manager/documents/hea/private/developingundergraduate_final_1568036694.pdf
Healey M, Jenkins A. The role of academic developers in embedding high-impact undergraduate research and inquiry in mainstream higher education: twenty years´ reflection. International Journal for Academic Development. 2018, 23, 52-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2017.1412974
Vereijken MWC, van der Rijst RM, de Beaufort AJ, al e. Fostering first-year student learning through research integration into teaching: students perceptions, beliefs about the value os research student and student achievement. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 2018, 55(4), 425-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2016.1260490
Vereijken MWC, van der Rijst RM, van Driel JH, Dekker FW. Student learning outcomes, perceptions and beliefs in the context of strengthening research integration into the first year of medical school. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2018, 23(2), 371-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-017-9803-0
Bartesaghi S. Formación Científica en Estudiantes de Medicina. Percepción sobre la integración de actividades de investigación durante la Carrera, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de la República, Uruguay. Buenos Aires: Maestría en Educación para Profesionales de la Salud. Instituto Universitario Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires. 2024.https://trovare.hospitalitaliano.org.ar/greenstone/collect/tesisytr/index/assoc/D2067.dir/tesis-bartesaghi-silvina.pdf
Bartesaghi S, Garcés G, Barrios E, Radi R. A scientifc methodology course for advanced medical students: en eight-year perspective. MedEdPublish. 2022. https://doi.org/10.12688/mep.19171.1
Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de la República. Informe de Autoevaluación Institucional Facultad de Medicina. Universidad de la República, Uruguay; 2012. https://www.fmed.edu.uy/sites/default/files/decanato/documentos/Acreditacion/INFORME%20FINAL%20FACULTAD%20DE%20MEDICINA%20UDELAR.pdf
Bucero M, Guidobono A, Hernandez A, Herold V, Suhr M, Walsh M, et al. Análisis del registro de proyectos de investigación en seres humanos en Uruguay: Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de la República; 2022. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12008/38073
Altez N, Agustoni G, Baltar E, Rodríguez N, Velázquez F, Zanolli M, et al. Una década de descubrimientos: Investigación en el marco del curso de Metodología Científica II. Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de la República. [Undergraduate]. Repositorio Colibrí: Universidad de la República; 2024. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12008/51355
DiGiovanni BF, Ward DS, O'Donnell SM, Fong CT, Gross RA, Grady-Weliky T, et al. Process of discovery: a fourth-year translational science course. Med Educ Online. 2011, 16. https://doi.org/10.3402/meo.v16i0.8443
Houlden RL, Raja JB, Collier CP, Clark AF, Waugh JM. Medical students' perceptions of an undergraduate research elective. Med Teach. 2004, 26(7), 659-61. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590400019542
MacCallum RC, Widaman KF, Zhang S, Hong S. Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods. 1999, 4, 84-90. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84
Visser-Wijnveen GJ, van der Rijst RM, van Driel JH. A questionnaire to capture students’ perceptions of research integrations in their courses. High Educ. 2016, 71, 473-88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9918-2
Arribas A. Adaptación transcultural de instrumentos. Guía para el proceso de validación de instrumentos tipo encuestas. Revista Científica de la AMBB. 2006, 16(3), 74-82. https://www.ambb.org.ar/ojs/index.php/RCAMBB/article/view/153
Ramada-Rodilla JM, Serra-Pujadas C, Delclós-Clanchet GL. Adaptación cultural y validación de cuestionarios de salud: revisión y recomendaciones medodológicas. Salud Pública Mex. 2013, 55, 57-66. https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0036-36342013000100009
Field AP, Field Z. Discovering statistics using R. Sage editorial. 2012. https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/discovering-statistics-using-r/book236067
Dziuban CD, Shirkey EC. When Is a Correlation Matrix Appropriate for Factor Analysis? Some Decision Rules. Psychological Bulletin. 1974, 81, 358-61. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036316
Costello AB, Osborne JW. Best Practices in Exploratory Factor Analysis: Four Recommendations for Getting the Most From Your Analysis. Practical Assessment. 2005, 10(7). https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868
Olsson U. Maximum Likelihood Estimation of the Polychoric Correlation Coefficient. Psychometrika. 1979, 44(4), 443-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296207
Holgado-Tello FP, Chacón-Moscoso S, Barbero-García I, Vila-Abad E. Polychoric versus Pearson correlations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of ordinal variables. Quality & Quantity. 2010, 44, 153-66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-008-9190-y
Cattell RB. The Scree Test for the Number of Factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 1996, 1, 245-76. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10
Brown TA. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. Second ed. New York: Guilford Publications; 2015. 462 p.
Cheng-Hsien L. Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods. 2016, 48(3), 936-49. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7
Rosseel, Y. lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 2012, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. In: Group TF, editor. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 1999. p. 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Babin B, Hair J, Andersen R, Black W. Multivariate Data Analysis. 8th ed: Cengage Learning; 2018.
Taber KS. The Use of Cronbach’s AlphaWhen Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Res Sci Educ. 2018, 48, 1273-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
Chalmers RP. mirt: A Multidimensional Item Response Theory Package for the R Environment. Journal of Statistical Software. 2012, 48(6), 1-29. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i06
Samejima F. Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika. 1969, 34(51), 1-97. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.1968.tb00153.x
Rodriguez A, Reise SP, Haviland MG. Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychol Methods. 2016, 21(2), 137-50. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000045
Carifio J, Perla R. Resolving the 50-year debate around using and misusing Likert scales. Med Educ. 2008, 42(12), 1150-2. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03172.x
Norman G. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the "laws" of statistics. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2010, 15(5), 625-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y
Eichstaedt KE, Kovatch K, Maroof DA. A less conservative method to adjust for familywise error rate in neuropsychological research: the Holm's sequential Bonferroni procedure. NeuroRehabilitation. 2013, 32(3), 693-6. https://doi.org/10.3233/NRE-130893
Dunn OJ. Multiple Comparisons among Means. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 2012, 56(293), 52-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1961.10482090
Reise SP, Bonifay WE, Haviland MG. Scoring and modeling psychological measures in the presence of multidimensionality. Journal of Personality Assessment. 2013, 95, 129-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.725437
Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de la República. Anales de la Facultad de Medicina Montevideo 2013 http://www.anfamed.edu.uy
Weston TJ, Laursen SL. The Undergraduate Research Student Self-Assessment (URSSA): Validation for Use in Program Evaluation. Life Science Education. 2015, 14, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-11-0206
Lopatto D. Survey of Undergraduate Research Experiences (SURE):First Findings. Cell Biology Education. 2004, 3, 270-7. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.04-07-0045
Waaijer CJF, Ommering BWC, van der Wurff LJ, van Leeuwen TN, Dekker FW, Education NSIGoS. Scientific activity by medical students: the relationship between academic publishing during medical school and publication careers after graduation. Perspect Med Educ. 2019, 8(4), 223-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-0524-3
Al-Busaidi IS, Al-Shaqsi SZ, Al-Alawi AK, Al-Sinani S, Al-Kashmiri A. Characteristics, Trends, and Factors Associated With Publication Among Residents of Oman Medical Specialty Board Programs. J Grad Med Educ. 2019, 11(4 Suppl), 104-9. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-19-00259
Al-Busaidi IS, Tarr GP. Dissemination of results from medical student public health research training and factors associated with publication. Postgrad Med J. 2018, 94(1112), 330-4. https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2017-135361
Al-Busaidi IS, Wells CI, Wilkinson TJ. Publication in a medical student journal predicts short- and long-term academic success: a matched-cohort study. BMC Med Educ. 2019, 19(1), 271. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1704-x
Dyrbye LN, Davidson LW, Cook DA. Publications and presentations resulting from required research by students at Mayo Medical School, 1976-2003. Acad Med. 2008, 83(6), 604-10. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181723108
Dyrbye LN, Lindor KD, LaRusso NF, Cook DA. Research productivity of graduates from 3 physician-scientist training programs. Am J Med. 2008, 121(12), 1107-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.08.015
Copyright (c) 2025 Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The works published in this magazine are subject to the following terms:
1. The Publications Service of the University of Murcia (the publisher) preserves the economic rights (copyright) of the published works and favors and allows them to be reused under the use license indicated in point 2.
2. The works are published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivative 4.0 license.
3. Self-archiving conditions. Authors are allowed and encouraged to disseminate electronically the pre-print versions (version before being evaluated and sent to the journal) and / or post-print (version evaluated and accepted for publication) of their works before publication , since it favors its circulation and earlier diffusion and with it a possible increase in its citation and reach among the academic community.
