Adaptation and validation of the Argentine version of an instrument to assess continuing professional development activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Canadian researchers developed a self-administered questionnaire to ask participants of continuing professional development (CPD) activities about their intention to translate the knowledge acquired in the classroom into clinical practice. The questionnaire may facilitate quality improvement processes in such CPD activities. OBJECTIVE: To translate, cross-culturally adapt and validate the original English REACTION questionnaire (A theoRy-basEd instrument to assess the impACT of continuing professional development activities on professional behavIOr chaNge) for its use in Argentina. POPULATION AND METHODS: The 12 questionnaire items were translated and cross-culturally adapted using a five-step process. The construct validity was assessed using an exploratory factor analysis, whereas reliability, with Cronbach's coefficient and the G coefficient. RESULTS: The final questionnaire version was administered to a sample of 133 physicians who attended 9 CPD activities at a teaching hospital in the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires (average age: 38 years; 23.3 %, men; 76 %, family physicians). The exploratory factor analysis showed 3 factors (social influence, confidence in one's abilities, and ethical judgment). Cronbach's coefficient was 0.82 and the G coefficient, 0.72. CONCLUSIONS: The Argentine version of the REACTION questionnaire was adapted and validated to assess the impact of CPD centered on clinical skills training on physicians' intention to implement it in their practice.
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 | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".