MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406408913 · doi:10.3352/jeehp.2025.22.5

Reliability and construct validation of the Blended Learning Usability Evaluation–Questionnaire with interprofessional clinicians in Canada: a methodological study

2025· article· en· W4406408913 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Anish Arora, Jeff Myers, Tavis Apramian, Kulamakan Kulasegaram, Daryl Bainbridge, Hsien Seow

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsJuravinski Cancer CentreThe Wilson CentreMcGill UniversityMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersHealth CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsCronbach's alphaUsabilityConstruct validityLikert scaleCredibilityPsychologyAsynchronous communicationConstruct (python library)Reliability (semiconductor)Computer sciencePsychometricsClinical psychologyHuman–computer interactionDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To generate Cronbach's alpha and further mixed methods construct validity evidence for the Blended Learning Usability Evaluation-Questionnaire (BLUE-Q). METHODS: Forty interprofessional clinicians completed the BLUE-Q after finishing a 3-month long blended learning professional development program in Ontario, Canada. Reliability was assessed with Cronbach's α for each of the 3 sections of the BLUE-Q and for all quantitative items together. Construct validity was evaluated through the Grand-Guillaume-Perrenoud et al. framework, which consists of 3 elements: congruence, convergence, and credibility. To compare quantitative and qualitative results, descriptive statistics, including means and standard deviations for each Likert scale item of the BLUE-Q were calculated. RESULTS: Cronbach's α was 0.95 for the pedagogical usability section, 0.85 for the synchronous modality section, 0.93 for the asynchronous modality section, and 0.96 for all quantitative items together. Mean ratings (with standard deviations) were 4.77 (0.506) for pedagogy, 4.64 (0.654) for synchronous learning, and 4.75 (0.536) for asynchronous learning. Of the 239 qualitative comments received, 178 were identified as substantive, of which 88% were considered congruent and 79% were considered convergent with the high means. Among all congruent responses, 69% were considered confirming statements and 31% were considered clarifying statements, suggesting appropriate credibility. Analysis of the clarifying statements assisted in identifying 5 categories of suggestions for program improvement. CONCLUSION: The BLUE-Q demonstrates high reliability and appropriate construct validity in the context of a blended learning program with interprofessional clinicians, making it a valuable tool for comprehensive program evaluation, quality improvement, and evaluative research in health professions education.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.067
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.114
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.328
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0670.114
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.154
GPT teacher head0.578
Teacher spread0.423 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Educational Evaluation for Health ProfessionsSame topicInterprofessional Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207