Evaluating the Quality of Health Professions Learning Environments: Development and Validation of the Health Education Learning Environment Survey (HELES)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The learning environment can be broadly conceptualized as the physical, social, and psychological context in which learning and socialization takes place. While there is now an expectation that health professions education programs should monitor the quality of their learning environment, existing measures have been criticized for lacking a theoretical foundation and sufficient validity evidence. Guided by Moos's learning environment framework, this study developed and preliminarily validated a global measure of the learning environment. Three pilot tests, conducted on 1,040 undergraduate medical students, refined the measure into the 35-item Health Education Learning Environment Survey (HELES), which consists of six subscales: peer relationships, faculty relationships, work-life balance, clinical skills development, expectations, and educational setting and resources. A final validation study conducted on another sample of 347 medical students confirmed its factor structure and examined its reliability and relation of the HELES to the Medical School Learning Environment Survey (MSLES). Subscale reliabilities ranged from .78 to .89. The HELES correlated with the MSLES at .79. These results indicate that the HELES can provide a valid and reliable assessment of the learning environment of medical students and, as such, can be used to inform accreditation and program planning in health professions programs.
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 | 0.058 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".