J Educ Eval Health Prof.  2017;14:15. 10.3352/jeehp.2017.14.15.

Cross-validation of the Student Perceptions of Team-Based Learning Scale in the United States

• Lein DH
• Lowman JD
• Eidson CA
• Yuen HK

• KMID: 2406678
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2017.14.15

Abstract

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to cross-validate the factor structure of the previously developed Student Perceptions of Team-Based Learning (TBL) Scale among students in an entry-level doctor of physical therapy (DPT) program in the United States.
METHODS
Toward the end of the semester in 2 patient/client management courses taught using TBL, 115 DPT students completed the Student Perceptions of TBL Scale, with a response rate of 87%. Principal component analysis (PCA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to replicate and confirm the underlying factor structure of the scale.
RESULTS
Based on the PCA for the validation sample, the original 2-factor structure (preference for TBL and preference for teamwork) of the Student Perceptions of TBL Scale was replicated. The overall goodness-of-fit indices from the CFA suggested that the original 2-factor structure for the 15 items of the scale demonstrated a good model fit (comparative fit index, 0.95; non-normed fit index/Tucker-Lewis index, 0.93; root mean square error of approximation, 0.06; and standardized root mean square residual, 0.07). The 2 factors demonstrated high internal consistency (alpha=0.83 and 0.88, respectively). DPT students taught using TBL viewed the factor of preference for teamwork more favorably than preference for TBL.
CONCLUSION
Our findings provide evidence supporting the replicability of the internal structure of the Student Perceptions of TBL Scale when assessing perceptions of TBL among DPT students in patient/client management courses.

Keyword

Physical therapists; Perception; Educational measurement; Principal component analysis; Statistical factor analysis

MeSH Terms

Educational Measurement
Factor Analysis, Statistical
Humans
Learning*
Passive Cutaneous Anaphylaxis
Physical Therapists
Principal Component Analysis
United States*

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. Confirmatory factor model for the Student Perceptions of TBL Scale. TBL, team-based learning. Chi-square = 125.79; df = 86; P-value = 0.00335; root mean square error of approximation = 0.063.

Reference

References

1. Michaelsen LK, Sweet M. Fundamental principles and practices of team-based learning. In : Michaelsen LK, Parmelee DX, McMahon KK, Levine RE, editors. Team-based learning for health professions education. Sterling (VA): Stylus Publishing;2008; 9–31.

2. Fatmi M, Hartling L, Hillier T, Campbell S, Oswald AE. The effectiveness of team-based learning on learning outcomes in health professions education: BEME guide no. 30. Med Teach. 2013; 35:e1608–e1624. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2013.849802.

3. Lein DH Jr, Lowman JD, Eidson CA, Yuen HK. Evaluation of team-based learning in a doctor of physical therapy curriculum. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2017. Feb. 28. [Epub]. https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2017.14.3.

4. Sisk RJ. Team-based learning: systematic research review. J Nurs Educ. 2011; 50:665–669. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20111017-01.

5. Burgess AW, McGregor DM, Mellis CM. Applying established guidelines to team-based learning programs in medical schools: a systematic review. Acad Med. 2014; 89:678–688. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000162.

6. Mennenga HA. Development and psychometric testing of the team-based learning student assessment instrument. Nurse Educ. 2012; 37:168–172. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0b013e31825a87cc.

7. Reinig BA, Horowitz I, Whittenburg GE. The effect of team-based learning on student attitudes and satisfaction. Decis Sci J Innov Educ. 2011; 9:27–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2010.00289.x.

8. Thompson BM, Levine RE, Kennedy F, Naik AD, Foldes CA, Coverdale JH, Kelly PA, Parmelee D, Richards BF, Haidet P. Evaluating the quality of learning-team processes in medical education: development and validation of a new measure. Acad Med. 2009; 84(10 Suppl):S124–S127. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181b38b7a.

9. Vasan NS, DeFouw DO, Compton S. A survey of student perceptions of team-based learning in anatomy curriculum: favorable views unrelated to grades. Anat Sci Educ. 2009; 2:150–155. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.91.

10. Havyer RD, Nelson DR, Wingo MT, Comfere NI, Halvorsen AJ, McDonald FS, Reed DA. Addressing the Interprofessional Collaboration Competencies of the Association of American Medical Colleges: a systematic review of assessment instruments in undergraduate medical education. Acad Med. 2016; 91:865–888. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001053.

11. Knafl GJ, Grey M. Factor analysis model evaluation through likelihood cross-validation. Stat Methods Med Res. 2007; 16:77–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280206070649.

12. Osborne JW, Fitzpatrick DC. Replication analysis in exploratory factor analysis: what it is and why it makes your analysis better. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2012; 17:1–8.

13. Reise SP, Waller NG, Comrey AL. Factor analysis and scale revision. Psychol Assess. 2000; 12:287–297. https://doi.org/10.1037//1040-3590.12.3.287.

14. Matsunaga M. How to factor-analyze your data right: do’s, don’ts, and how-to’s. Int J Psychol Res. 2010; 3:97–110. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.854.

15. Huitt TW, Killins A, Brooks WS. Team-based learning in the gross anatomy laboratory improves academic performance and students’ attitudes toward teamwork. Anat Sci Educ. 2015; 8:95–103. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1460.

16. McMullen I, Cartledge J, Levine R, Iversen A. Team-based learning for psychiatry residents: a mixed methods study. BMC Med Educ. 2013; 13:124. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-13-124.

17. MacCallum RC, Widaman KF, Zhang S, Hong S. Sample size in factor analysis. Psychol Methods. 1999; 4:84–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84.