Validation of an instrument to assess research competencies in physicians: a psychometric study using the Rasch model and expert focus group

O’Besso Monsalve D.B.; Espinoza Rojas R.M.; Costa Chavez M.S.; Rojas Cama L.F. · Anales de la Facultad de Medicina (2025) · DOI: 10.15381/anales.v86i1.29479

Resumen

Introduction. The validation of research instruments is essential to ensure the validity and reliability of the results, which in turn supports the quality of studies. Objective. To conduct a psychometric analysis of the theoretical dimension of the “Test to Assess Research Competencies” (PECI) and propose an improved version of this dimension. Methods. We performed a secondary data analysis using information from a previous study that applied this instrument to appointed and contracted physicians in hospitals in Lima, Peru. We applied item response theory and the Rasch model to the theoretical dimension of the questionnaire. Additionally, we held three sessions with experts in biomedical scientific research to gather suggestions and recommendations for improving the items in this dimension, which were incorporated into a proposed final version. Results. In the evaluation of the data obtained from the previous study, the average difficulty index was 0.611, and the discrimination index was 0.294. All infit and outfit values were within the range of 0.7 to 1.3. No Q3 value was ≥ 0.5. The PECI, in its knowledge dimension, did not meet the unidimensionality assumption. We gathered feedback from five experts and developed a proposal to improve the theoretical dimension. Nine out of the ten items required changes in their wording, and one was completely reformulated. Conclusion. This study presents an improved version of the theoretical dimension of the PECI instrument. We demonstrated that instruments used in published studies could be further refined in terms of their validity and reliability.

Instituciones: Universidad de Piura