Validation of the Blended Learning Usability Evaluation–Questionnaire (BLUE-Q) through an innovative Bayesian questionnaire validation approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The primary aim of this study is to validate the Blended Learning Usability Evaluation–Questionnaire (BLUE-Q) for use in the field of health professions education through a Bayesian approach. As Bayesian questionnaire validation remains elusive, a secondary aim of this article is to serve as a simplified tutorial for engaging in such validation practices in health professions education. METHODS: A total of 10 health education-based experts in blended learning were recruited to participate in a 30-minute interviewer-administered survey. On a 5-point Likert scale, experts rated how well they perceived each item of the BLUE-Q to reflect its underlying usability domain (i.e., effectiveness, efficiency, satisfaction, accessibility, organization, and learner experience). Ratings were descriptively analyzed and converted into beta prior distributions. Participants were also given the option to provide qualitative comments for each item. RESULTS: After reviewing the computed expert prior distributions, 31 quantitative items were identified as having a probability of “low endorsement” and were thus removed from the questionnaire. Additionally, qualitative comments were used to revise the phrasing and order of items to ensure clarity and logical flow. The BLUE-Q’s final version comprises 23 Likert-scale items and 6 open-ended items. CONCLUSION: Questionnaire validation can generally be a complex, time-consuming, and costly process, inhibiting many from engaging in proper validation practices. In this study, we demonstrate that a Bayesian questionnaire validation approach can be a simple, resource-efficient, yet rigorous solution to validating a tool for content and item-domain correlation through the elicitation of domain expert endorsement ratings.
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 | 0.176 | 0.285 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".