Keywords
Professionalism
Medical ethics
Medical students
Validation study
How to Cite
Copyright © | All rights reserved.
The journal holds the exclusive copyright for the publication of this article under the terms of Brazilian law 9610/98.
Partial reproduction
The use of parts of the texts, figures and questionnaire of the article is free, being mandatory the citation of the authors and journal.
Total reproduction
It is expressly prohibited and must be authorized by the journal.
Abstract
Objective: Develop an instrument to assess professionalism among medical students. Methods: A Committee of Experts, composed of the authors and nine invited representatives from the Medical Association of Minas Gerais, Medical Syndicate, Society of Medical Students of Minas Gerais, physicians, and medical teachers, worked on adapting an assessment instrument for professionalism among medical students based on an instrument already validated for physicians. Five items were deemed inappropriate for the target population and were replaced with related topics based on the Brazilian Medical Student Code of Ethics. Subsequently, the pre-final version was administered to clinical cycle students for validity and reliability assessment. Results: The pre-final version of the instrument consisted of 37 items and demonstrated good validity (semantic, idiomatic, experiential, and conceptual) and acceptable reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.755). Conclusion: An appropriate instrument has been developed for assessing attitudes related to professionalism among medical students. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first Brazilian instrument for professionalism assessment among medical students. It has applications in teaching professionalism, in formative assessments, in future research on the subject, and as a tool for individual reflection.
References
ALTIRKAWI K. Teaching professionalism in medicine: what, why and how? Sudanese Journal of Paediatrics, 2014; 14(1): 31-8.
BEATON DE, et al. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2000; 25(24): 3186-91.
BIRDEN H, et al. Defining professionalism in medical education: a systematic review. Medical Teacher, 2014; 36(1): 47-61.
BISPO JÚNIOR JP. Social desirability bias in qualitative health research. Revista de Saúde Pública, 2022; 56: 101.
BLACKALL GF, et al. Professionalism in medical education: the development and validation of a survey instrument to assess attitudes toward professionalism. Medical Teacher, 2007; 29(2-3): 58-62.
COLARES MFA, et al. Construção de um instrumento para avaliação das atitudes de estudantes de medicina frente a aspectos relevantes da prática médica. Revista Brasileira de Educação Médica, 2002; 26(3): 194-203.
COSTA ARL e HAUCK FILHO N. Menos desejabilidade social é mais desejável: Neutralização de
instrumentos avaliativos de personalidade. Interação em Psicologia, 2017; 21(3): 239-49.
DELL AMORE FILHO E, et al. Ações para a retomada do ensino da humanização nas escolas de medicina. Revista Brasileira de Educação Médica, 2018; 42(4): 14-28.
GOLDIE J. Assessment of professionalism: a consolidation of current thinking. Medical Teacher, 2013; 35(2): 952-6.
HODGES BD, et al. Assessment of professionalism: recommendations from the Ottawa 2010 Conference. Medical Teacher, 2011; 33(5): 354-63.
KIRK LM. Professionalism in medicine: definitions and considerations for teaching. Proceedings (Baylor University Medical Center), 2007; 20(1): 13-6.
KRUMPAL I. Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review. Quality and Quantity, 2013; 47(4): 2025-47.
LUCENA MR, et al. Tradução e adaptação transcultural de instrumento para avaliação do profissionalismo entre médicos. Revista Brasileira de Educação Médica, 2023; 47(1): 5.
MARTINS E SILVA J. Educação médica e profissionalismo. Acta Médica Portuguesa, 2013; 26(4): 420-7.
MUELLER PS. Teaching and assessing professionalism in medical learners and practicing physicians. Rambam Maimonides Medical Journal, 2015; 6(2): 0011.
PAPADAKIS MA, et al. Disciplinary action by medical boards and prior behavior in medical school. New England Journal of Medicine, 2005; 353(25): 2673-82.
ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF CANADA. CanMEDS History. Disponível em: https ://www.royalcollege.ca/en/canmeds/about-canmeds/history-canmeds.html. Acessado em: 19 de março de 2024.
SOUSA VD e ROJJANASRIRAT W. Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: a clear and user-friendly guideline. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 2011; 17(2): 268-74.
TAVAKOL M e DENNICK R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2011; 2: 53-55.
ZIEGLER M. “F*** You, I Won’t Do What You Told Me!” – Response biases as threats to psychological assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 2015; 31(3): 153-158.