Psychometric Properties Evaluation of Persian Version of the Maastricht Clinical Teaching Questionnaire

Abdolghader Assarroudi, Roghayeh Zardosht


Background: Students are a significant source of data for the evaluation of clinical instructors’ performance. This study was undertaken with the aim of adaptation and validation of the Persian version of the Maastricht Clinical Teaching Questionnaire (MCTQ). The main objective of the researchers in this study was to evaluation the psychometric properties of the Persian version of the Maastricht Clinical Training Questionnaire (P-MCTQ) in Iran, considering cultural and social differences.

Materials and Methods: This methodological study was conducted from 2019 to 2021 at four teaching hospitals affiliated with Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences, Iran. Qualitative and quantitative face and content validity, and construct validity methods were used for the validity evaluation. Stability and internal consistency methods were used, respectively, for the reliability evaluation of the questionnaire. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) stage, 264 students studying in the fields of nursing, midwifery, anesthesiology, operating room, emergency medicine, and laboratory sciences completed the P‑MCTQ.

Results: The value of scale-content validity index (0.92) is indicative of the overall content validity of the questionnaire. EFA extracted a single‑factor structure that could explain the overall variance of the clinical education structure at about 76.61%. The alfa and intraclass correlation values were equal to 0.98 and 0.82, respectively, indicating the excellent internal consistency and high overall stability of the questionnaire. Conclusions: The P‑MCTQ is a valid and reliable tool for the evaluation of the teaching performance of clinical instructors.


Factor analysis, statistical, psychometrics, validation study

Full Text:



Zardosht R, Moonaghi HK, Razavi ME, Ahmady S. Educational concern of surgical technology students in the operating room: A grounded theory study. J Educ Health Promot. 2020;9:58. doi: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_348_19.

Aliakbarzadeh Arani Z, Salmani S, Farghadanai Z. The relationship between clinical education status and academic motivation in students of Qom University of Medical Sciences. Res Med Educ 2019;11:3 12.

Roshanaei G. Relationship between clinical education stressors and coping strategies in paramedic students of Hamadan University of Medical Sciences. J Med Educ Dev 2019;14. doi: 10.18502/jmed.v14i3.2029.

Tazakori Z, Mehri S, Mobaraki N, Dadashi L, Ahmadi Y, Shokri F, et al. Factors affecting on quality of clinical education from perspectives of operating room students. J Health Care 2015;17:128 36.

Bahrami Babaheidary T, Sadati L, Golchini E, Mahmudi E. Assessment of clinical education in the Alborz University of medical sciences from surgical technology and anesthesiology students’ point of view. Alborz Univ Med J 2012;1:143 50.

Kalyani MN, Jamshidi N, Molazem Z, Torabizadeh C, Sharif F. How do nursing students experience the clinical learning environment and respond to their experiences? A qualitative study. BMJ Open 2019;9:e028052.

Zardosht R, Moonaghi HK, Razavi ME, Ahmady S. The challenges of clinical education in a baccalaureate surgical technology students in Iran: A qualitative study. Electron Physician 2018;10:6406 16.

Bokaie M, Salimi T. A new method for clinical assessment of medical students: Computer Adaptive Test (CAT). J Med Educ Dev 2012;7:93 5.

Walsh T, Jairath N, Paterson MA, Grandjean C. Quality and safety education for nurses clinical evaluation tool. J Nurs Educ 2010;49:517 22.

Kikukawa M, Stalmeijer RE, Emura S, Roff S, Scherpbier AJ. An instrument for evaluating clinical teaching in Japan: Content validity and cultural sensitivity. BMC Med Educ 2014;14:179. doi: 10.1186/1472 6920 14 179.

Mollahadi M. Importance of clinical educating in nursery. Educ Strateg Med Sci 2010;2:153 9.

Boerboom TB, Mainhard T, Dolmans DH, Scherpbier AJ, Van Beukelen P, Jaarsma AC. Evaluating clinical teachers with the Maastricht clinical teaching questionnaire: How much ‘teacher’is in student ratings? Med. Teach. 2012;34:320 6.

Stalmeijer RE, Dolmans DH, Wolfhagen IH, Muijtjens AM, Scherpbier AJ. The Maastricht Clinical Teaching Questionnaire (MCTQ) as a valid and reliable instrument for the evaluation of clinical teachers. Acad Med 2010;85:1732 8.

Al Ansari A, Tabbara KS. Evaluating the reliability and validity of the Maastricht clinical teaching questionnaire in Bahrain. Oman Med J 2019;34:427 33.

Rodino AM, Wolcott MD. Assessing preceptor use of cognitive apprenticeship: Is the Maastricht Clinical Teaching Questionnaire (MCTQ) a useful approach? Teach Learn Med 2019;31:506 18.

Ladenheim R, Giannasi S, Durante E. Evaluation of residents as teachers using the Maastricht Clinical Teaching Questionnaire. Investigation en education medical 2021;10:25 34.

Arkan B, Ordin Y, Yılmaz D. Undergraduate nursing students’ experience related to their clinical learning environment and factors affecting to their clinical learning process. Nurse Educ Pract 2018;29:127 32.

Ghorbanian N, Abdollahzadeh Mahlani F, Kazemi Haki B. Effective factors on clinical education quality anesthesiology and operating room students view. Educ Strategy Med Sc 2014;6:235 9.

Kermansaravi F, Navvabi Rigi SD, Shahsavani A. Nursing students view points about stressful factors in clinical education. Res Med Educ 2011;3:29 35.

Zardosht R, Karimi Moonaghi H. Clinical instructor criteria in operating room: Qualitative content analysis. J Sabzevar Univ Med Sci 2021;28:156 63.

Zelt S, Recker J, Schmiedel T, Vom Brocke J. Development and validation of an instrument to measure and manage organizational process variety. PloS One 2018;13:e0206198.

Polit DF, Yang F. Measurement and the Measurement of Change: A Primer for the Health Professions. Wolters Kluwer Health; 2015.

Zamanzadeh V, Ghahramanian A, Rassouli M, Abbaszadeh A, Alavi Majd H, Nikanfar A R. Design and implementation content validity study: Development of an instrument for measuring patient centered communication. J Caring Sci 2015;4:165.

Assarroudi A, Heshmati Nabavi F, Ebadi A. Motivation for cardiopulmonary resuscitation: Scale development and psychometric analysis. Int Emerg Nurs 2019;45:43 9.

Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health 2007;30:459 67.

Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychol 1975;28:563 75.

Hahs Vaughn DL. Applied Multivariate Statistical Concepts. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, New York; 2016.

Williams B, Onsman A, Brown T. Exploratory factor analysis: A five step guide for novices. Australas J Paramedicine 2010;8. doi: 10.33151/ajp. 8.3.93.

Thompson B. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Appl Psychol Meas 2007;31:245 8.

Knekta E, Runyon C, Eddy S. One size doesn’t fit all: Using factor analysis to gather validity evidence when using surveys in your research. CBE—Life Sci Educ 2019;18:rm1.

Matsunaga M. How to factor analyze your data right: Do’s, don’ts, and how to’s. Int J Psychol Res 2010;3:97 110.

Peterson RA. A meta analysis of variance accounted for and factor loadings in exploratory factor analysis. Mark Lett 2000;11:261 75.

Pesudovs K, Burr JM, Harley C, Elliott DB. The development, assessment, and selection of questionnaires. Optom Vis Sci 2007;84:663 74.

Ebadi A, Taghizadeh Z, Montazeri A, Shahvari Z, Tavousi M, Bagherzadeh R. Translation, development and psychometric properties of health related measures Part 2: Construct validity, reliability and responsiveness. Payesh (Health Monitor) 2017;16:445 55.

Khine MS. Application of Structural Equation Modeling in Educational Research and Practice. Springer; Rotterdam 2013.

Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60:34 42.

Cicchetti DV. Methodological commentary the precision of reliability and validity estimates re visited: Distinguishing between clinical and statistical significance of sample size requirements. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2001;23:695 700.

Morin, AJS, Myers ND, Lee S. Modern factor analytic techniques: Bifactor models, exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM), and bifactor-ESEM. Handbook of Sport Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Tokyo 2020. p. 1044 73.

Englund C, Olofsson AD, Price L. The influence of sociocultural and structural contexts in academic change and development in higher education. Higher Educ 2018;76:1051 69.

Zardosht R, Karimi Moonaghi H. Just trust me: The essential demand of operating room students. J-fmej 2018;8:3 5.

Morse CR, Mathisen DJ. Educational challenges of the operating room. Thorac Surg Clin 2019;29:269 77.

Van Patten RR, Bartone AS. The impact of mentorship, preceptors, and debriefing on the quality of program experiences. Nurse Educ Pract 2019;35:63 8.


  • There are currently no refbacks.