Reliability and construct validation of the Blended Learning Usability Evaluation–Questionnaire with interprofessional clinicians in Canada: a methodological study

Résumé fourni par la source

PURPOSE: To generate Cronbach's alpha and further mixed methods construct validity evidence for the Blended Learning Usability Evaluation-Questionnaire (BLUE-Q). METHODS: Forty interprofessional clinicians completed the BLUE-Q after finishing a 3-month long blended learning professional development program in Ontario, Canada. Reliability was assessed with Cronbach's α for each of the 3 sections of the BLUE-Q and for all quantitative items together. Construct validity was evaluated through the Grand-Guillaume-Perrenoud et al. framework, which consists of 3 elements: congruence, convergence, and credibility. To compare quantitative and qualitative results, descriptive statistics, including means and standard deviations for each Likert scale item of the BLUE-Q were calculated. RESULTS: Cronbach's α was 0.95 for the pedagogical usability section, 0.85 for the synchronous modality section, 0.93 for the asynchronous modality section, and 0.96 for all quantitative items together. Mean ratings (with standard deviations) were 4.77 (0.506) for pedagogy, 4.64 (0.654) for synchronous learning, and 4.75 (0.536) for asynchronous learning. Of the 239 qualitative comments received, 178 were identified as substantive, of which 88% were considered congruent and 79% were considered convergent with the high means. Among all congruent responses, 69% were considered confirming statements and 31% were considered clarifying statements, suggesting appropriate credibility. Analysis of the clarifying statements assisted in identifying 5 categories of suggestions for program improvement. CONCLUSION: The BLUE-Q demonstrates high reliability and appropriate construct validity in the context of a blended learning program with interprofessional clinicians, making it a valuable tool for comprehensive program evaluation, quality improvement, and evaluative research in health professions education.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.