Background: Research indicates that the quality of supervision strongly influences the learning of medical students in clinical practice. Clinical teachers need feedback to improve their supervisory skills. The available instruments either lack a clear theoretical framework or are not suitable for providing feedback to individual teachers. We developed an evaluation instrument based on the 'cognitive apprenticeship model'.
Aim: The aim was to estimate the content validity of the developed instrument.
Method: Item relevance was rated on a five-point scale (1 = highly irrelevant, 5 = highly relevant) by three groups of stakeholders in undergraduate clinical teaching: educationalists (N = 12), doctors (N = 16) and students (N = 12). Additionally, stakeholders commented on content, wording and omission of items.
Results: The items were generally rated as very relevant (Mean = 4.3, SD = 0.38, response = 95%) and any differences between the stakeholder groups were small. The results led to elimination of 4 items, rewording of 13 items and addition of 1 item.
Discussion: The cognitive apprenticeship model appears to offer a useful framework for the development of an evaluation instrument aimed at providing feedback to individual clinical teachers on the quality of student supervision. Further studies in larger populations will have to establish the instrument's statistical validity and generalizability.