Skip to main content

Table 1 The psychometric properties of the prescribing readiness of medical students (PROMS)

From: Development and validation of an instrument to assess the prescribing readiness of medical students in Malaysia

  

Test (n = 119)

Retest (n = 119)

Wilcoxon Sign Rank test

Spearman’s rho correlation‡

Corrected item-total correlation

Cronbach’s α if item is deleted

Cronbach alpha

Domain

Item

Mean (SD)

Median

Mean (SD)

Median

Mean rank

p-value ‡

Undergraduate learning opportunities

1. Lectures on the basic pharmacology of drugs

2.93 (0.41)

3.00

2.92 (0.42)

3.00

14.08

0.847

0.233

0.234

0.751

0.736

12.00

2. Lectures on the use of drugs in clinical practice

2.53 (0.59)

3.00

2.53 (0.62)

3.00

21.66

0.982

0.416

0.235

0.759

19.45

3. Small group tutorials about drugs and prescribing

2.05 (0.64)

2.00

2.12 (0.67)

2.00

20.08

0.338

0.409

0.591

0.664

22.67

4. Problem based learning about drugs and prescribing

2.13 (0.67)

2.00

2.13 (0.67)

2.00

25.92

0.912

0.312

0.602

0.658

25.08

5. Workshops on prescribing issues

1.87 (0.66)

2.00

1.98 (0.69)

2.00

24.08

0.094

0.366

0.664

0.639

25.58

6. Electronic learning opportunities

1.98 (0.77)

2.00

2.10 (0.76)

2.00

28.75

0.169

0.268

0.513

0.690

30.03

Hands-on clinical skills practice

7. Write up a hospital drug cardex

1.56 (0.68)

1.00

1.63 (0.72)

2.00

19.50

0.252

0.431

0.336

0.474

0.542

22.17

8. A teaching session on calculating drug doses

1.58 (0.66)

2.00

1.67 (0.64)

2.00

19.96

0.087

0.523

0.373

0.458

20.02

9. Set up a drug infusion pump

1.28 (0.50)

1.00

1.55 (0.79)

1.00

19.50

<0.001*

0.549

0.206

0.537

18.92

10. Prepare and give a parenteral drug injection

2.51 (1.15)

2.00

2.49 (1.10)

2.00

29.88

0.857

0.528

0.282

0.540

27.30

11. Set up and give a bag of intravenous fluid

1.93 (0.90)

2.00

1.95 (0.90)

2.00

17.56

0.769

0.660

0.410

0.414

18.42

Information gathering behaviour

12. Web based resources

2.97 (1.24)

3.00

2.81 (1.05)

3.00

32.95

0.158

0.495

0.353

0.563

0.610

34.35

13. Online medical school resources

3.08 (1.14)

3.00

3.23 (1.12)

3.00

31.74

0.141

0.506

0.539

0.458

33.89

14. Your own textbook

3.42 (1.27)

4.00

3.49 (1.23)

4.00

27.30

0.608

0.589

0.370

0.554

30.64

15. Your own BNF or equivalent

1.96 (1.11)

1.00

1.93 (1.14)

1.00

21.77

0.773

0.536

0.289

0.593

25.75

16. Library resources

1.43 (0.81)

1.00

1.42 (0 .77)

1.00

17.30

0.930

0.438

0.296

0.590

15.79

Factors affecting prescribing skills acquisition

17. No lecture or formal teaching on prescribing drugs

3.17 (1.12)

3.00

3.21 (0.91)

3.00

30.14

0.923

0.341

   

34.05

18. Amount of knowledge on drugs needed to be learnt is too much during each clinical posting

3.08 (1.02)

3.00

2.87 (0 .99)

3.00

36.54

0.065

0.333

   

31.59

19. Will not be questioned on prescribing drugs in the final examination

2.09 (0.86)

2.00

2.03 (0 .80)

2.00

23.08

0.473

0.571

   

22.90

20. Many clinical teachers do not explain about their rationale for their choice of drugs prescribed

2.75 (0.95)

3.00

2.80 (0.84)

3.00

29.28

0.454

0.507

   

32.56

21. Not enough of reinforcement of pharmacology knowledge in the clinical years

3.13 (0.95)

3.00

3.15 (0.84)

3.00

28.50

0.804

0.506

   

31.55

22. Not necessary for me to know how to prescribe drugs before graduation

1.99 (0.93)

2.00

1.97 (0.91)

2.00

24.68

0.750

0.544

   

24.30

23. Lack of consensus among clinical teachers on drug prescribing

2.61 (0.79)

3.00

2.73 (0.77)

3.00

25.64

0.140

0.422

   

27.08

24. Preclinical learning on pharmacology didn’t have enough clinical relevance

3.34 (1.11)

3.00

3.33 (1.02)

3.00

34.23

0.880

0.593

   

36.92

25. No actual practice, experience or emphasis on prescribing in clinical years

3.48 (0.95)

3.00

3.42 (0.94)

3.00

32.71

0.431

0.576

   

31.17

26. Limited exposure to information that can help in making rational drug choice

3.03 (1.00)

3.00

2.89 (0.89)

3.00

36.26

0.096

0.540

   

27.00

  1. *Statistically significant at p < 0.05
  2. ‡All Spearman’s rho correlation values were statistically significant at p < 0.05