Supplementary Files
How to Cite
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to establish construct validity and reliability of a newly developed tool for assessment of professionalism in undergraduate medical students.
Method: The study was carried out after establishing feasibility and obtaining ethical approval from Aga Khan University and Rawalpindi Medical University. Data was collected from 3rd-year and 4th-year undergraduate medical students at the end of 2-week rotations. The tool was initially administered to year 4 MBBS students (pilot test); the data obtained was analysed by principal component factor analysis and reliability analysis to estimate the construct validity and reliability. A total of 391 Year 3 medical students were assessed using the 16-item PAT. The principal component analysis (PCA) and reliability analysis were conducted, thus further establishing the validity and reliability of the tool.
Result: Four factors were obtained on exploratory PCA. Nine items loaded on Factor 1 and merged the items on the proposed P-SS2 and P-SS3 subscales of “Ethics and personal characteristics” into one (SS1). SS2 was validated as all three items loaded on this subscale were related to “Effective communication and doctor-patient relationship.” SS3 and SS4 separated the four items included in the P-SS4 of ‘Supports Community Needs and Others’ into SS3 of “Respects and Supports Others” and into SS4 with items related to “collegiality: Responsive to Community Needs and Other Health Professionals.” The 16-item PAT had an overall reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of 0.856. The Reliability of the new Subscales obtained after PCA for SS1 was 0.767, for SS2 was 0.726, for SS3 was 0.568 and for SS4 was 0.380.
Conclusion: The final tool developed for assessment of professionalism had 16 items on a 7-point Likert-like scale, across 4 Subscales. It can be used as a reliable and valid tool for assessment and feedback of professionalism for undergraduate medical students.
References
Frohna JG, Padmore JS. Assessment of professionalism in the graduate medical education environment. J Grad Med Educ. 2021 Apr;13(2 Suppl):81–5. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-20-00845.1.
Liljeholm Bång M, Lindberg O, Rantatalo O, Lilliehorn S. The mismatch between teaching and assessing professionalism: a practice architecture analysis of three professional programmes. Stud Contin Educ. 2024;47(1):228–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2024.2333247
Arnold LJAm. Assessing professional behaviour: yesterday, today, and tomorrow. 2002;77(6):502-15.
Sadeq A, Guraya SS, Fahey B, Clarke E, Bensaaud A, Doyle F, Kearney GP, Gough F, Harbinson M, Guraya SY, Harkin DW. Medical professionalism education: a systematic review of interventions, outcomes, and sustainability. Front Med (Lausanne). 2025 Mar 3;12:1522411. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2025.1522411.
Egener BE, Mason DJ, McDonald WJ, Okun S, Gaines ME, Fleming DA, Rosof BM, Gullen D, Andresen ML. The Charter on Professionalism for Health Care Organizations. Acad Med. 2017 Aug;92(8):1091-1099. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001561.
Council GM. General Medical Council. Tomorrow’ s Doctors The duties of a doctor registered with the General Medical Council. 2009; 1:1-108.
Kirk LM. Professionalism in medicine: Definitions and considerations for teaching. Proc Baylor Univ Med Cent 2007; 20(1):p.13-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2007.
Modified from: NEJM Knowledge+ Team . Exploring the ACGME core competencies: Professionalism (Part 7 or 7). January 12, 2017.
Thaxton RE, Jones WS, Hafferty FW, April CW, April MD. Self vs. other focus: predicting professionalism remediation of emergency medicine residents. West. J Emerg Med 2018;19:35–40. https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2017.11.35242
Ehsan A, Raza AJPJoMS. Roller Coaster Ride of Teaching Faculty under Pakistan Medical Commission. 2022;38(4Part-II):780. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.38.4.6021
Fargen KM, Drolet BC, Philibert I. Unprofessional behaviours among tomorrow's physicians: review of the literature with a focus on risk factors, temporal trends, and future directions. Acad Med 2016;91:858–64. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001133
Regan L, Hexom B, Nazario S, Chinai SA, Visconti A, Sullivan C. Remediation methods for milestones related to interpersonal and communication skills and professionalism. J Grad Med Educ 2016;8:18–23. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-15-00060.1
Smith R. Medical professionalism: A key to a better health system and more satisfied doctors - BMJ Thebmjopinion 2018.
Hodges B, Paul R, Ginsburg S, Teacher tOCGMJM. Assessment of professionalism: From where have we come, to where are we going? An update from the Ottawa Consensus Group on the assessment of professionalism. 2019;41(3):249-55.
Wang X, Shih J, Kuo F-J, Ho M-JJBme. A scoping review of medical professionalism research published in the Chinese language. 2016;16(1):1-10.
Fong W, Kwan YH, Yoon S, Phang JK, Thumboo J, Leung YY, et al. Assessment of medical professionalism: preliminary results of a qualitative study. 2020;20:1-12.
Lu LJTJoSP. " Cultural fit": individual and societal discrepancies in values, beliefs, and subjective well-being. 2006;146(2):203-21.
Al-Rumayyan, A, Van Mook, WNKA, Magzoub, ME, Al-Eraky, MM, Ferwana, et al. Medical professionalism frameworks across non-Western cultures: a narrative overview. Med Teach. (2017) 39:S8–S14. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2016.1254740
Al-Eraky MM, Marei HFJAiHPE. Professionalism in medical education. 2015;1(1).
Wang, CX, Pavlova, A, Boggiss, AL, O’Callaghan, A, and Consedine, NS. Predictors of medical students’ compassion and related constructs: a systematic review. Teach Learn Med. New York, NY: Oxford Academic. (2022) 35:502–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2022.2103816
Menezes, P, Guraya, SY, and Guraya, SS. A systematic review of educational interventions and their impact on empathy and compassion of undergraduate medical students. Front Med.. (2021) 8:758377. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed. 2021.758377
Leung, K.C., and Peisah, C. A mixed-methods systematic review of group reflective practice in medical students. Healthcare (Basel). (2023) 11:1798. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11121798
Lerchenfeldt, S, Mi, M, and Eng, M. The utilisation of peer feedback during collaborative learning in undergraduate medical education: a systematic review. BMC Med Educ. (2019) 19:321–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1755-z
Ong, YT, Kow, CS, Teo, YH, Tan, LHE, Abdurrahman, ABHM, Quek, NWS, et al. Nurturing professionalism in medical schools. A systematic scoping review of training curricula between 1990–2019. Med Teach. (2020) 42:636–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1724921.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 Khola Noreen, Rukhsana Zuberi, Kashif Ali, Lubna Meraj