RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Although learning environment (LE) is an important component of medical training, there are few instruments to investigate LE in Latin American and Brazilian medical schools. Therefore, this study aims to translate, adapt transculturally, and validate the Medical School Learning Environment Scale (MSLES) and the Johns Hopkins Learning Environment Scale (JHLES) to the Brazilian Portuguese language. METHOD: This study was carried out between June 2016 and October 2017. Both scales have been translated and cross-culturally adapted to Brazilian Portuguese Language and then back translated and approved by the original authors. A principal components analysis (PCA) was performed for both the MSLES and the JHLES. Test-retest reliability was assessed by comparing the first administration of the MSLES and the JHLES with a second administration 45 days later. Validity was assessed by comparing the MSLES and the JHLES with 2 overall LE perception questions; a sociodemographic questionnaire; and the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21). RESULTS: A total of 248 out of 334 (74.2%) first- to third-year medical students from a Brazilian public university were included. Principal component analysis generated 4 factors for MSLES and 7 factors for JHLES. Both showed good reliability for the total scale (MSLES α = .809; JHLES α = .901), as well as for each subdomain. Concurrent and convergent validity were observed by the strong correlations found between both scale totals (r = 0.749), as well as with both general LE questions: recommend the school to a friend (MSLES: r = 0.321; JHLES: r = 0.457) and overall LE rating (MSLES: r = 0.505; JHLES: r = 0.579). The 45-day test-retest comparison resulted in a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.697 for the JHLES and 0.757 for the MSLES. CONCLUSIONS: Reliability and validity have been demonstrated for both the MSLES and the JHLES. Thus, both represent feasible options for measuring LE in Brazilian medical students.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To compare instruments available for evaluating attitudes and knowledge about geriatrics and gerontology. METHODS: This cross-sectional study investigated 83 third-year Brazilian medical students (with exposure to geriatrics and gerontology) and 75 incoming students (with no exposure to this content). We used the University of California at Los Angeles Geriatrics Attitudes Scale, Palmore's Facts on Aging Quiz, modified Maxwell-Sullivan Attitude Survey, Aging Semantic Differential Scale and an instrument assessing their cognitive knowledge in geriatrics. RESULTS: The instruments investigated had moderate-to-high correlations when evaluating similar constructs, had satisfactory or borderline internal consistency for the most part (Cronbach's α: 0.62-0.94) and were capable of discriminating between students exposed or not to practical and theoretical content. CONCLUSION: Our findings reinforce previous studies that these scales are capable of differentiating students who have or have not had exposure/intervention and, in general, seem to be assessing different constructs.
