Exploring the validity and reliability of a questionnaire for evaluating virtual patient design with a special emphasis on fostering clinical reasoning

Background: The design of Virtual Patients (VPs) is essential. So far there are no validated evaluation instruments for VP design published. Summary of work: We examined three sources of validity evidence of an instrument to be filled out by students aimed at measuring the quality of VPs with a special emphasis on fostering clinical reasoning: (1) Content was examined based on theory of clinical reasoning and an international VP expert team. (2) Response process was explored in think aloud pilot studies with students and content analysis of free text questions accompanying each item of the instrument. (3) Internal structure was assessed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using 2547 student evaluations and reliability was examined utilizing generalizability analysis. Summary of results: Content analysis was supported by theory underlying Gruppen and Frohna’s clinical reasoning model on which the instrument is based and an international VP expert team. The pilot study and analysis of free text comments supported the validity of the instrument. The CFA indicated that a three factor model comprising 6 items showed a good fit with the data. Alpha coefficients per factor were 0,74 - 0,82. The findings of the generalizability studies indicated that 40-200 student responses are needed in order to obtain reliable data on one VP. Conclusions: The described instrument has the potential to provide faculty with reliable and valid information about VP design. Take-home messages: We present a short instrument which can be of help in evaluating the design of VPs.

Exploring the validity and reliability of a questionnaire for evaluating virtual patient design with a special emphasis on fostering clinical reasoning

Background: Virtual patients (VPs) are increasingly used to train clinical reasoning. So far, no validated evaluation instruments for VP design are available. Aims: We examined the validity of an instrument for assessing the perception of VP design by learners. Methods: Three sources of validity evidence were examined: (i) Content was examined based on theory of clinical reasoning and an international VP expert team. (ii) The response process was explored in think-aloud pilot studies with medical students and in content analyses of free text questions accompanying each item of the instrument. (iii) Internal structure was assessed by exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and inter-rater reliability by generalizability analysis. Results: Content analysis was reasonably supported by the theoretical foundation and the VP expert team. The think-aloud studies and analysis of free text comments supported the validity of the instrument. In the EFA, using 2547 student evaluations of a total of 78 VPs, a three-factor model showed a reasonable fit with the data. At least 200 student responses are needed to obtain a reliable evaluation of a VP on all three factors. Conclusion: The instrument has the potential to provide valid information about VP design, provided that many responses per VP are available.