医学教育评估

医学好奇心量表的汉化及其信度和效度分析

  • 周英华 ,
  • 龚家仪 ,
  • 朱爱勇 ,
  • 祝一鸣
展开
  • 1上海健康医学院护理与健康管理学院,上海 201318;
    2复旦大学外国语言文学学院,上海 200433;
    3上海交通大学医学院附属第九人民医院外科,上海 201999

收稿日期: 2025-02-12

  网络出版日期: 2026-01-30

Reliability and validity of the mandarin version of the medical curiosity scale

  • Zhou Yinghua ,
  • Gong Jiayi ,
  • Zhu Aiyong ,
  • Zhu Yiming
Expand
  • 1School of Nursing and Health Management, Shanghai University of Medicine & Health Sciences, Shanghai 201318, China;
    2College of Foreign Languages and Literatures, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China;
    3Department of Surgery, Ninth People′s Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 201999, China

Received date: 2025-02-12

  Online published: 2026-01-30

摘要

目的 汉化医学好奇心量表(Medical Curiosity Scale,MCS),并检验其信度和效度。方法 严格按照量表引入原则,采用Brislin翻译模型对英文版MCS进行翻译与回译,邀请5位专家进行咨询,并于2023年9-10月采用目的抽样法选取30名医学生开展认知性访谈,完成量表的跨文化调适,形成中文版MCS测试版。2024年3月至4月,采用目的抽样法选取上海健康医学院的584名医学生作为调查对象进行问卷调查,检验其信度和效度。结果 中文版MCS包含2个维度,共10个条目。中文版MCS条目水平的内容效度指数为0.800~1.000,量表水平的内容效度指数为0.940。探索性因子分析共提取2个公因子,累计方差贡献率为63.9%。量表总的克隆巴赫系数为0.918,2个维度的克隆巴赫系数为0.911和0.932。量表的重测信度为0.819(P<0.01),2个维度的重测信度分别为0.816和0.823。结论 中文版MCS具有良好的信度和效度,适合中国文化背景下医学生好奇心水平评估。

关键词: 医学; 好奇心; 量表; 信度; 效度

本文引用格式

周英华 , 龚家仪 , 朱爱勇 , 祝一鸣 . 医学好奇心量表的汉化及其信度和效度分析[J]. 中华医学教育杂志, 2026 , 46(2) : 136 -140 . DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115259-20250212-00140

Abstract

Objective To translate the medical curiosity scale(MCS) into mandarin and test its reliability and validity. Methods The MCS was translated and back translated according to the Brislin translation model. and the Chinese version of the MCS was formed after the cultural adjustment, by consulting five experts and selecting 30 medical students for cognitive interviews via purposive sampling between September and October 2023. From March to April 2024, 584 medical students from Shanghai University of Medicine & Health Sciences were selected as the subjects of questionnaire survey by convenient purposive method to test its reliability and validity. Results The Mandarin Version of MCS contains two dimensions with 10 items. The item content validity index (I-CVI) was 0.8-1.0, and the scale content validity index (S-CVI) was 0.940. Two common factors were extracted from the exploratory factor analysis, and the cumulative variance contribution rate was 63.9%. The Cronbach′s coefficient of the scale was 0.918, and The Cronbach′s coefficient of the 2 dimensions was 0.911 and 0.932. The retest reliability of the scale was 0.819 (P<0.01), and the two dimensions were 0.816 and 0.823, respectively. Conclusions The Mandarin version of MCS has good reliability and validity and is suitable for the assessment of the curiosity level of medical students under Chinese cultural background.

参考文献

[1] Berlyne DE. A theory of human curiosity[J]. British Journal of Psychology, 1954, 45(3): 180-191. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1954.tb01243.x.
[2] Pan Y, Chen X, Wei Q, et al. Effects of applying micro-film case-based learning model in pediatrics education[J]. BMC Medical Education, 2020, 20: 500. DOI: 10.1186/s12909-020-02421-w.
[3] Franklin GL. What must a medical student learn?[J]. Postgraduate medical journal. 2025,101(1193):272-273. DOI: 10.1093/postmj/qgae158.
[4] Besche HC, King RW, Shafer KM, et al. Effective and engaging active learning in the medical school classroom: Lessons from case-based collaborative learning[J]. Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development, 2025, 12: 23821205251317149. DOI: 10.1177/23821205251317149.
[5] Burke AE, Benson B, Englander R, et al. Domain of competence: practice-based learning and improvement[J]. Academic Pediatrics, 2014, 14(2 Suppl): S38-S54. DOI: 10.1016/j.acap.2013.11.018.
[6] Bugaj TJ, Schwarz TA, Terhoeven V, et al. Measuring an understudied factor in medical education-development and validation of the medical curiosity scale[J]. Medical Education Online, 2023, 28(1):2198117.DOI: 10.1080/10872981.2023.2198117.
[7] Jones L, Lee P, Phillips M, et al. An adaptation of Brislińs translation model for cross-cultural research[J]. Nursing Research, 2001, 50(5): 300-304. DOI: 10.1097/00006199-200109000-00009.
[8] Kamp K, Wyatt G, Dudley-Brown S, et al. Using cognitive interviewing to improve questionnaires: an exemplar study focusing on individual and condition-specific factors[J]. Applied Nursing Research, 2018, 43: 121-125. DOI: 10.1016/j.apnr.2018.06.007.
[9] Ding J, Yu Y, Kong QMP. Psychometric evaluation of the student nurse stressor-14 scale for undergraduate nursing interns[J]. BMC Nursing, 2023, 22(1): 1-10. DOI: 10.1186/s12912-023-01631-z.
[10] 梁永春, 周海琴, 朱雪芬, 等. 肺移植特异性生活质量量表的汉化及信效度检验[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2022, 57(6): 689-696. DOI: 10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769.2022.06.007.
[11] Ho CM, Yeh CC, Wang JY, et al. Curiosity in online video concept learning and short-term outcomes in blended medical education[J]. Frontiers in Medicine, 2021, 8: 772956. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.772956.
文章导航

/