Development of a Simple 12-Item Theory-Based Instrument to Assess the Impact of Continuing Professional Development on Clinical Behavioral Intentions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Decision-makers in organizations providing continuing professional development (CPD) have identified the need for routine assessment of its impact on practice. We sought to develop a theory-based instrument for evaluating the impact of CPD activities on health professionals' clinical behavioral intentions. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Our multipronged study had four phases. 1) We systematically reviewed the literature for instruments that used socio-cognitive theories to assess healthcare professionals' clinically-oriented behavioral intentions and/or behaviors; we extracted items relating to the theoretical constructs of an integrated model of healthcare professionals' behaviors and removed duplicates. 2) A committee of researchers and CPD decision-makers selected a pool of items relevant to CPD. 3) An international group of experts (n = 70) reached consensus on the most relevant items using electronic Delphi surveys. 4) We created a preliminary instrument with the items found most relevant and assessed its factorial validity, internal consistency and reliability (weighted kappa) over a two-week period among 138 physicians attending a CPD activity. Out of 72 potentially relevant instruments, 47 were analyzed. Of the 1218 items extracted from these, 16% were discarded as improperly phrased and 70% discarded as duplicates. Mapping the remaining items onto the constructs of the integrated model of healthcare professionals' behaviors yielded a minimum of 18 and a maximum of 275 items per construct. The partnership committee retained 61 items covering all seven constructs. Two iterations of the Delphi process produced consensus on a provisional 40-item questionnaire. Exploratory factorial analysis following test-retest resulted in a 12-item questionnaire. Cronbach's coefficients for the constructs varied from 0.77 to 0.85. CONCLUSION: A 12-item theory-based instrument for assessing the impact of CPD activities on health professionals' clinical behavioral intentions showed adequate validity and reliability. Further studies could assess its responsiveness to behavior change following CPD activities and its capacity to predict health professionals' clinical performance.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".