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.
Zhou Yinghua
,
Gong Jiayi
,
Zhu Aiyong
,
Zhu Yiming
. Reliability and validity of the mandarin version of the medical curiosity scale[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Education, 2026
, 46(2)
: 136
-140
.
DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115259-20250212-00140
[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.
