Validation of a Psychometric Instrument to Assess Motivation in Veterinary Bachelor Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are indications that motivation correlates with better performance for those studying veterinary medicine. To assess objectively whether motivation profiles influence both veterinary students' attitudes towards educational interventions and their academic success and whether changes in curriculum can affect students' motivation, there is need for an instrument that can provide a valid measurement of the strength of motivation for the study of veterinary medicine. Our objectives were to design and validate a questionnaire that can be used as a psychometric scale to capture the motivation profiles of veterinary students. Question items were obtained from semi-structured interviews with students and from a review of the relevant literature. Each item was scored on a 5-point scale. The preliminary instrument was trialed on a cohort of 450 students. Responses were subjected to reliability and principal component analysis. A 14-item scale was designed, within which two factors explained 53.4% of the variance among the items. The scale had good face, content, and construct validities as well as a good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=.88).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".