Background: Midwifery laboratories are essential for developing clinical competencies, yet service quality and resource adequacy are frequently assessed separately. Objectives: This study aimed to develop and internally evaluate an integrated instrument for assessing midwifery laboratory quality. Methods: Five experts validated the instrument, and 446 midwifery students with laboratory experience completed a 44 item questionnaire. Psychometric evaluation included content validity, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), preliminary confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), Rasch analysis, and internal consistency testing. Results: The average scale content validity index was 0.982. EFA identified six factors explaining 56.96% of total variance, with the first factor contributing 44.02%. Preliminary CFA demonstrated X²/df = 2.240, RMSEA = 0.053, SRMR = 0.041, GFI = 0.991, CFI = 0.898, and TLI = 0.886. Rasch person reliability was 0.969, whereas item reliability was 0.641. Cronbach alpha reached 0.970, with corrected item total correlations ranging from 0.561 to 0.739. Conclusions: The instrument demonstrated promising internal psychometric properties for evaluating midwifery laboratory quality. However, independent external validation and comprehensive ordinal and Rasch diagnostics remain necessary before broader implementation.
چکیده به فارسی
زمینه: آزمایشگاههای مامایی برای توسعه شایستگیهای بالینی ضروری هستند، اما کیفیت خدمات و کفایت منابع اغلب به طور جداگانه ارزیابی میشوند. اهداف: این مطالعه با هدف تدوین و ارزیابی درونی یک ابزار یکپارچه برای ارزیابی کیفیت آزمایشگاههای مامایی انجام شد. روشها: ابزار توسط پنج نفر از خبرگان اعتبارسنجی شد و ۴۴۶ دانشجوی مامایی با تجربه آزمایشگاهی به پرسشنامهای ۴۴ مادهای پاسخ دادند. ارزیابی ویژگیهای روانسنجی شامل روایی محتوا، تحلیل عاملی اکتشافی (EFA)، تحلیل عاملی تأییدی مقدماتی (CFA)، تحلیل Rasch و آزمون پایایی درونی بود. نتایج: شاخص روایی محتوا برای مقیاس به طور میانگین ۰.۹۸۲ بود. تحلیل عاملی اکتشافی شش عامل را شناسایی کرد که ۵۶.۹۶٪ از واریانس کل را تبیین کردند و عامل اول ۴۴.۰۲٪ سهم داشت. تحلیل عاملی تأییدی مقدماتی شاخصهای X²/df = ۲.۲۴۰، RMSEA = ۰.۰۵۳، SRMR = ۰.۰۴۱، GFI = ۰.۹۹۱، CFI = ۰.۸۹۸ و TLI = ۰.۸۸۶ را نشان داد. پایایی فردی Rasch برابر با ۰.۹۶۹ و پایایی ماده Rasch برابر با ۰.۶۴۱ بود. آلفای کرونباخ به ۰.۹۷۰ رسید و همبستگی کل-ماده تصحیحشده بین ۰.۵۶۱ تا ۰.۷۳۹ بود. نتیجهگیری: ابزار مذکور ویژگیهای روانسنجی درونی امیدوارکنندهای برای ارزیابی کیفیت آزمایشگاههای مامایی نشان داد. با این حال، اعتبارسنجی خارجی مستقل و تشخیصهای جامع ترتیبی و Rasch پیش از اجرای گستردهتر ضروری است.
ترجمهی خودکار برای آشنایی سریع؛ برای نقل و ارجاع، متن اصلی ملاک است.
Arifuddin, H., Nur, A. F., Yulianti, N. D., Novitasari, D. D., Destrikasari, C., Anjani, W., Yuniartis, P., Sari, M. H., Nasution, S. R., & Arifuddin, A. (2026). Development of an Instrument to Assess Service Quality and Resource Adequacy in Midwifery Laboratories. Healthy Tadulako Journal (Jurnal Kesehatan Tadulako), 12(4). https://doi.org/10.22487/nbm9ep81
با احترام و بدون توهین، تحقیر، برچسبزنی یا حملهی شخصی با دیگران گفتگو کنید.
از نوشتن هرگونه اطلاعات هویتی یا قابلشناسایی مراجعان، بیماران یا اشخاص ثالث، از جمله نام، شمارهی تماس، تصویر، نشانی، محل کار یا جزئیات منحصربهفرد پرونده خودداری کنید.
اگر دربارهی یک تجربهی بالینی سؤال میکنید، اطلاعات را تا حد ممکن بینام و کلی بیان کنید تا امکان شناسایی فرد وجود نداشته باشد.
این بخش برای یادگیری و گفتوگوی علمی است و جایگزین ارزیابی، تشخیص، مشاوره یا رواندرمانی شخصی نیست.
در شرایط بحران یا خطر آسیب به خود یا دیگران، به این بخش اتکا نکنید و برای دریافت کمک فوری با اورژانس اجتماعی ۱۲۳ یا صدای مشاور بهزیستی ۱۴۸۰ تماس بگیرید.
انتشار تبلیغات، معرفی خدمات شخصی، شمارهی تلفن، شناسهی شبکههای اجتماعی، پیوند تبلیغاتی یا درخواست جذب مراجع در این بخش مجاز نیست.
در بیان ادعاهای علمی، بهویژه دربارهی اثربخشی درمانها، تشخیص یا یافتههای پژوهشی، تا حد امکان نام منبع معتبر، مقاله یا راهنمای علمی را ذکر کنید.
از ارائهی تشخیص قطعی، تجویز درمان یا دارو و توصیههای بالینی شخصی به سایر کاربران خودداری کنید.
پاسخهایی که کارشناسان فکر بنیان میدهند با برچسب «پاسخ فکر بنیان» یا «کارشناس فکر بنیان» نمایش داده میشوند و سایر نوشتهها بیانگر نظر کاربران هستند.
گزارش نوشتهی نامناسب: اگر نوشتهای حاوی نقض محرمانگی، محتوای آسیبزا، توهین، تبلیغ یا تخلف از این قوانین است، گزینهی «گزارش» را انتخاب کنید تا تیم سایت بررسی کند.
ABSTRACT Introduction Anxiety is central to the psychotherapy process, yet psychotherapists routinely infer a client's anxiety intensity from observable behaviour rather than from formal measurement, with no widely accepted framework to organise which observable markers indicate which levels of anxiety. This exploratory study examined how therapists make such classifications. Method Ninety‐one mental health professionals were randomly assigned to classify 41 text‐described behavioural and physiological markers using either a 5‐level or a simplified 3‐level category system, both derived from an integrated model of state anxiety in psychotherapy. Results Response distributions departed significantly from uniformity for nearly all markers in both formats, and the rank ordering of markers by intensity was highly consistent across formats, suggesting that therapists may share broad intuitions about relative marker intensity. Which markers elicited agreement, however, was far less reproducible, depending substantially on the response format. Convergence also depended on where the agreement criterion was set, declining from 90.2% to 51.2% of markers in the 3‐level format and from 63.4% to 22.0% in the 5‐level format as the criterion rose from > 0.50 to > 0.70. The 3‐level format yielded more classifiable markers at every criterion, although this advantage was not consistent across indices, whereas the 5‐level format elicited fewer ‘Insufficient to Determine’ responses. Markers placed at the highest intensity levels were classified most consistently. Discussion These findings offer preliminary groundwork for research on marker operationalisation, contextualised rating tasks and the development of training materials for psychotherapy process research.
Student engagement positively influences academic achievement, yet instruments suited to the Indonesian cultural context remain limited. This study aimed to develop a valid, reliable, and user-friendly student engagement scale for high school students. Using a quantitative descriptive design, the study involved 295 male and female students aged 15–18 years recruited through convenience sampling. The scale comprised three dimensions: behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement. The results showed that the scale demonstrated a good model fit based on the goodness-of-fit indices (χ2/df = 1.60; CFI = 0.966; TLI = 0.962; SRMR = 0.074; RMSEA = 0.045) and good reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.844 for emotional engagement, 0.753 for behavioral engagement, and 0.782 for cognitive engagement. The developed scale can be used by teachers, counselors, and educational researchers to identify students’ levels of engagement and inform the development of programs to improve student engagement.
Teacher assessment literacy has received increasing attention, yet evidence remains fragmented across studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized 18 studies comprising 21 independent samples using the ALI, CALI, and TALQ instruments. The pooled mean score was 16.48 (95% CI [14.86, 18.10]) on a 35-point scale, indicating low assessment literacy, with substantial between-study heterogeneity (I² = 99.21%). Publication year, geographical region, instrument type, teacher status, teaching level, and subject specialization were not significant moderators. This review provides the first quantitative benchmark of teacher assessment literacy across the ALI, CALI, and TALQ instruments and highlights the need to strengthen assessment literacy through pre-service education, continuous professional development, and context-responsive educational policies.
The validity of assessment instruments is a crucial aspect in ensuring the quality of learning evaluations in Islamic Religious Education (PAI). However, there are still evaluation instruments that are developed without considering the alignment of indicators, constructs, and measurement objectives, which may result in inaccurate data. This study aims to examine the concepts, types, testing procedures, and methods for determining the validity of assessment instruments through a literature review. The method used is library research with a descriptive qualitative approach. Data were obtained from various books, scientific journals, and relevant documents, and then analyzed descriptively. The results of the study indicate that the validity of an instrument encompasses logical validity and empirical validity, which complement each other in ensuring the accuracy of measurements. Validity testing was conducted systematically through construct definition, development of a test blueprint, expert validation, instrument pilot testing, and statistical analysis. A valid instrument is capable of producing data that is accurate, credible, and supports sound educational decision-making.
This study examined teachers’ readiness and perceived effectiveness in implementing Makabansa and Araling Panlipunan under the revised K to 10 (MATATAG) Framework across 33 public schools in the Schools Division of Parañaque City during School Year 2025–2026. Specifically, it sought to determine whether teacher readiness significantly predicted perceived effectiveness and to identify which readiness domains most strongly influenced outcomes. Employing a quantitative-correlational design, the study utilized stratified random sampling to ensure proportional representation across grade levels and supervisory contexts. The study involved 271 public school respondents, composed of 227 teachers handling learners in Key Stages 1–3 and 44 immediate coordinators, namely head teachers and master teachers. Data were collected through validated researcher-made survey instruments measuring readiness and perceived effectiveness and were analyzed using descriptive statistics, correlation, and regression techniques. Findings revealed that both teachers and coordinators demonstrated very high levels of readiness and effectiveness. Correlation analysis confirmed a significant positive relationship between readiness and effectiveness, while regression analysis demonstrated that readiness significantly predicted effectiveness. Teacher readiness explained 22.4% of the variance in perceived effectiveness (R² = .224, β = .473, p < .001), while coordinator readiness explained 53.9% (R² = .539, β = .734, p < .001). As a practical output, the study developed a Teacher Readiness Toolkit for Makabansa and Araling Panlipunan.