Fig. 1
Bar chart. Distribution of chosen score categories by residents on the 5‑point Likert-scale of the RoMAT for each question
Table 1
Exploratory factor analysis of the RoMAT with oblique rotated factor loadingsa,b (n = 187)
|
Factor 1c |
Factor 2c |
Communalities | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
My clinical teacher: | |||
|
Conveys empathy for patients (item 2) |
0.73 |
0.12 |
0.65 |
|
Communicates well with patients and relatives (item 3) |
0.73 |
0.04 |
0.58 |
|
Establishes rapport with learners (item 5) |
0.82 |
0.06 |
0.73 |
|
Has a positive attitude towards learners (item 6) |
0.72 |
0.20 |
0.73 |
|
Is patient (item 8) |
0.94 |
−0.33 |
0.61 |
|
Has a positive interaction with other health care workers (item 9) |
0.67 |
0.20 |
0.65 |
|
Is available for learners (item 12) |
0.62 |
0.22 |
0.60 |
|
Is honest and has integrity (item 13) |
0.71 |
0.16 |
0.67 |
|
Is nice and easy to work with (item 16) |
0.86 |
0.04 |
0.78 |
|
Is professionally competent in difficult clinical situations and able to cope with adversity (item 17) |
0.53 |
0.38 |
0.66 |
|
Has excellent clinical reasoning skills (item 1) |
0.12 |
0.70 |
0.61 |
|
Understands learners’ needs and is committed to the growth of learners (item 4) |
0.36 |
0.51 |
0.61 |
|
Makes learning exciting and stimulating (item 10) |
0.16 |
0.74 |
0.73 |
|
Has self-confidence (item 11) |
0.08 |
0.80 |
0.72 |
|
Has leadership qualities (item 14) |
−0.12 |
0.94 |
0.76 |
|
Is aware of his/her role model status (item 15) |
0.17 |
0.68 |
0.63 |
|
Demonstrates enthusiasm for his/her work (item 7) |
0.44 |
0.46 |
0.65 |
|
Eigenvalue |
6.67 |
4.69 |
– |
|
Variance explained |
39% |
28% |
– |
|
Cronbach’s alpha |
0.94 |
0.93 |
– |
aFactor loadings ≥0.5 are in bold print
bCross loadings are in italic print
cFactor 1 and Factor 2 are titled ‘Caring Attitude’ and ‘Effectiveness’ respectively
Fig. 2
Strip chart, showing the relation between the single role model question and the mean RoMAT score (construct validity). Lower scores indicate better role model behaviour. Evident are the seven outliers
Table 2
Known-groups comparisons of residents
|
‘Caring Attitude’ |
‘Effectiveness’ | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Groups |
Mean (SD) |
p-value |
Mean (SD) |
p-value |
|
Gender |
0.49 * |
0.77 * | ||
|
Male |
1.87 (0.74) |
1.98 (0.85) | ||
|
Female |
1.90 (0.70) |
1.87 (0.69) | ||
|
Year of training a |
0.05b |
0.25b | ||
|
1 |
1.86 (0.78) |
1.83 (0.90) | ||
|
2 |
1.91 (0.64) |
1.84 (0.62) | ||
|
3 |
2.16 (1.00) |
2.03 (1.03) | ||
|
4 |
1.80 (0.53) |
1.88 (0.55) | ||
|
5 |
1.98 (0.45) |
2.10 (0.58) | ||
|
6 |
1.44 (0.32) |
1.91 (0.69) | ||
|
Not in training |
1.53 (0.45) |
1.65 (0.56) | ||
|
Experience c,d |
0.83e |
0.03e | ||
*Mann-Whitney U test used for statistical analysis
aTwo residents were excluded due to missing data regarding this question
bKruskal-Wallis test used for statistical analysis
cExperience as a resident prior to current function in months
dAnalyzed as continuous variable
eSpearman Rank correlation test used for statistical analysis