Abstract Background: Virtual @entity1 (VPs) are increasingly used to train clinical reasoning. So far, no validated evaluation instruments for @entity3548 design are available. Aims: We examined the validity of an instrument for assessing the perception of @entity3548 design by learners. Methods: Three sources of validity evidence were examined: (i) Content was examined based on theory of clinical reasoning and an international @entity3548 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 @entity3548 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 @entity3548 on all three factors. Conclusion: The instrument has the potential to provide valid information about @entity3548 design, provided that many responses per @entity3548 are available.

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

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['patients'] @entity3548 :: ('MESH:C538659', 'Disease') :: ['VP']
@entity1 :: (9606,Species) :: ['patient']
