Volume 21, Issue 1 (Paramedical Sciences and Military Health- Spring- 2026)
Paramedical Sciences and Military Health 2026, 21(1): 47-56 |
Back to browse issues page
Zahra Jahanbakhsh1 
, Mahdi Ghorbani *2 , Mahboobeh Afzali3 , Mohammad Hasan Kazemi Glougah4 , Rahim Shamsadini5
, Mahdi Ghorbani *2 , Mahboobeh Afzali3 , Mohammad Hasan Kazemi Glougah4 , Rahim Shamsadini5
1- Infectious Diseases Research Center, AJA University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. & Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, AJA University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
2- Cancer Epidemiology Research Center, AJA University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. & Department of Laboratory Sciences, Faculty of Paramedicine, AJA University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. ,m.ghorbani@ajaums.ac.ir
3- Trauma and Surgery Research Center, AJA University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. & Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Paramedicine, AJA University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
4- Department of Community Medicine, School of Medicine, AJA University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
5- Trauma and Surgery Research Center, AJA University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. & Department of Anesthesiolog, Faculty of Paramedicine, AJA University of Medical Sciences Tehran, Iran
2- Cancer Epidemiology Research Center, AJA University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. & Department of Laboratory Sciences, Faculty of Paramedicine, AJA University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. ,
3- Trauma and Surgery Research Center, AJA University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. & Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Paramedicine, AJA University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
4- Department of Community Medicine, School of Medicine, AJA University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
5- Trauma and Surgery Research Center, AJA University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. & Department of Anesthesiolog, Faculty of Paramedicine, AJA University of Medical Sciences Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (439 Views)
Introduction:Basic science courses constitute the foundation of anesthesia technology education, and their alignment with students' educational and professional requirements plays an essential role in curriculum quality. This study aimed to develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of an instrument for assessing the content of basic science courses and it evaluated these courses from the perspective of faculty members at AJA University of Medical Sciences.
Materials and Methods:This applied study employed a sequential exploratory mixed-methods design with an instrument development approach. In the qualitative phase, the initial questionnaire items were generated through a literature review and they refined during expert consultation sessions. In the quantitative phase, face validity, content validity, and expert judgment-based conceptual validity were assessed using a panel of ten experts and internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha. Subsequently, the final 13-item questionnaire was distributed through convenience sampling to 29 faculty members in basic sciences and anesthesia. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, including mean, standard deviation, frequency, and percentage using SPSS software version 26.
Results:All questionnaire items achieved an Impact Score greater than 1.5, with CVR values ranging from 0.80 to 1.00 and CVI values ranging from 0.93 to 1.00. The mean expert agreement was 89.23%, Fleiss' Kappa coefficient was 0.73, and Cronbach's alpha for the overall instrument was 0.837, indicating acceptable psychometric properties. Descriptive findings showed that item mean scores ranged from 3.31 to 4.69. Based on the observed descriptive results, the "Necessity and Objectives" dimension obtained the highest mean score; whereas, the "Adequacy and Up-to-dateness" dimension received the lowest. Faculty members also recommended updating selected topics and strengthening the alignment of course content with the professional competencies required in anesthesia education.
Conclusion:From the perspective of participating faculty members, the basic science curriculum in the undergraduate anesthesia program was generally evaluated favorably; although, some topics may benefit from targeted revision and updating. The developed instrument demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties within the study sample. Given the limited sample size and the single-center nature of the study, further multicenter studies with larger samples are recommended to confirm the instrument's psychometric characteristics and provide a more comprehensive evaluation of the curriculum.
Materials and Methods:This applied study employed a sequential exploratory mixed-methods design with an instrument development approach. In the qualitative phase, the initial questionnaire items were generated through a literature review and they refined during expert consultation sessions. In the quantitative phase, face validity, content validity, and expert judgment-based conceptual validity were assessed using a panel of ten experts and internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha. Subsequently, the final 13-item questionnaire was distributed through convenience sampling to 29 faculty members in basic sciences and anesthesia. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, including mean, standard deviation, frequency, and percentage using SPSS software version 26.
Results:All questionnaire items achieved an Impact Score greater than 1.5, with CVR values ranging from 0.80 to 1.00 and CVI values ranging from 0.93 to 1.00. The mean expert agreement was 89.23%, Fleiss' Kappa coefficient was 0.73, and Cronbach's alpha for the overall instrument was 0.837, indicating acceptable psychometric properties. Descriptive findings showed that item mean scores ranged from 3.31 to 4.69. Based on the observed descriptive results, the "Necessity and Objectives" dimension obtained the highest mean score; whereas, the "Adequacy and Up-to-dateness" dimension received the lowest. Faculty members also recommended updating selected topics and strengthening the alignment of course content with the professional competencies required in anesthesia education.
Conclusion:From the perspective of participating faculty members, the basic science curriculum in the undergraduate anesthesia program was generally evaluated favorably; although, some topics may benefit from targeted revision and updating. The developed instrument demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties within the study sample. Given the limited sample size and the single-center nature of the study, further multicenter studies with larger samples are recommended to confirm the instrument's psychometric characteristics and provide a more comprehensive evaluation of the curriculum.
Keywords: Anesthesia Technology, Basic Sciences, Curriculum Evaluation, Instrument Development, Validity, Reliability
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
full articles
Received: 2025/12/14 | Accepted: 2026/02/25 | Published: 2026/03/29
Received: 2025/12/14 | Accepted: 2026/02/25 | Published: 2026/03/29
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |