Development of clinical teaching competency framework and scale for physician teachers in China
An exploratory sequential mixed methods study
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 15328686 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Qin Chen (0009-0001-3695-2615, International Education School, Southwest Medical University, corresponding author), Fancai Zeng (0000-0002-6411-9567, Preclinical Medicine School, Southwest Medical University) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Volume | 30 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 2599745-2599745 |
| Publication date | 2025-12-09 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Medical Education Online (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1087-2981 • E-ISSN: 1087-2981 |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/10872981.2025.2599745 |
| PMID | 41368904 |
| OpenAlex | W4417185099 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 52 |
Physician teachers (PT) play a vital role in professional health education. However, there is a lack of a theoretical framework to direct PT faculty development in China. Therefore, this study was designed to develop and validate a clinical teaching competency framework and scale (CTCS) for physicians in China. This mixed-methods study began with qualitative interviews and a Delphi process to develop an initial framework and a pretest version of the Clinical Teaching Competency Scale (CTCS). Using convenience and random sampling, 450 physician teachers (PTs) were selected as the prediction sample. A national survey involving 3,179 PTs from seven administrative regions in Mainland China served as the validation sample. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to assess construct validity. Seven dimensions were identified. Namely, intellectual literacy, clinical curriculum teaching competence, clinical practice teaching competence, role modeling, clinical teaching choice ability, clinical teaching emotional ability, and clinical teaching independent development ability. These explained 70.513% of the total variance. The final scale comprised 54 items, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.987. Confirmatory factor analysis showed acceptable fit indices: RMSEA = 0.065, SRMR = 0.038, and GFI, NFI, IFI, TLI, and CFI all > 0.9. Construct reliability (CR) for each dimension exceeded 0.9, and average variance extracted (AVE) ranged from 0.672 to 0.832, indicating strong reliability and validity. A pyramid model with seven domains and 54 items was developed using a mixed-methods approach. This framework can guide the training of physician teachersand ultimately support health and well-being. The CTCS demonstrates acceptable reliability and validity, making it a valuable tool for assessing the clinical teaching competence of physician teachers
Confirmatory factor analysis · Construct (python library · Cronbach's alpha · Curriculum · Delphi method · Exploratory factor analysis · Faculty Development · Likert scale · Reliability (semiconductor · Scale (ratio · Innovations in Medical Education · Nursing education and management · Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Delphi methodology in healthcare research
A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to enhance teaching effectiveness
Fostering the clinician as teacher
Medical competence as a multilayered construct
Curriculum renewal towards critically conscious graduates
Bringing social accountability education into hospital‐based clinical practice
Integrating the social determinants of health into curriculum
Competency domains of educators in medical, nursing, and health sciences education
Research design
Allied Health Professions Accreditation Standards for Work Integrated Learning
Perception of clinical teachers about their roles and current practice at affiliated hospitals of medical universities in China
Constructing psychometric measurement of a past supervised experience scale with educational roles to investigate the relationship between being instructed, being supported, and being supervised for attending physicians in teaching hospitals – a questionnaire survey
Social Cognitive Theory
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |