Background: In the Iranian context, no 360-degree evaluation tool has been developed to assess the performance of prehospital medical emergency students in clinical settings. This article describes the development of a 360-degree evaluation tool and presents its first psychometric evaluation. Methods: There were 2 steps in this study: step 1 involved developing the instrument (i.e., generating the items) and step 2 constituted the psychometric evaluation of the instrument. We performed exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and also evaluated the instrument’s face, content, and convergent validity and reliability. Results: The instrument contains 55 items across 6 domains, including leadership, management, and teamwork (19 items), consciousness and responsiveness (14 items), clinical and interpersonal communication skills (8 items), integrity (7 items), knowledge and accountability (4 items), and loyalty and transparency (3 items). The instrument was confirmed to be a valid measure, as the 6 domains had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and in combination explained 60.1% of the variance (Bartlett’s test of sphericity [1,485]=19,867.99, P<0.01). Furthermore, this study provided evidence for the instrument’s convergent validity and internal consistency (α=0.98), suggesting its suitability for assessing student performance. Conclusion We found good evidence for the validity and reliability of the instrument. Our instrument can be used to make future evaluations of student performance in the clinical setting more structured, transparent, informative, and comparable.

Background: In the Iranian context, no 360-degree evaluation tool has been developed to assess the performance of prehospital medical emergency students in clinical settings. This article describes the development of a 360-degree evaluation tool and presents its first psychometric evaluation. Methods: There were 2 steps in this study: step 1 involved developing the instrument (i.e., generating the items) and step 2 constituted the psychometric evaluation of the instrument. We performed exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and also evaluated the instrument’s face, content, and convergent validity and reliability. Results: The instrument contains 55 items across 6 domains, including leadership, management, and teamwork (19 items), consciousness and responsiveness (14 items), clinical and interpersonal communication skills (8 items), integrity (7 items), knowledge and accountability (4 items), and loyalty and transparency (3 items). The instrument was confirmed to be a valid measure, as the 6 domains had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and in combination explained 60.1% of the variance (Bartlett’s test of sphericity [1,485]=19,867.99, P<0.01). Furthermore, this study provided evidence for the instrument’s convergent validity and internal consistency (α=0.98), suggesting its suitability for assessing student performance. Conclusion We found good evidence for the validity and reliability of the instrument. Our instrument can be used to make future evaluations of student performance in the clinical setting more structured, transparent, informative, and comparable.

Background: In the Iranian context, no 360-degree evaluation tool has been developed to assess the performance of prehospital medical emergency students in clinical settings. This article describes the development of a 360-degree evaluation tool and presents its first psychometric evaluation. Methods: There were 2 steps in this study: step 1 involved developing the instrument (i.e., generating the items) and step 2 constituted the psychometric evaluation of the instrument. We performed exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and also evaluated the instrument’s face, content, and convergent validity and reliability. Results: The instrument contains 55 items across 6 domains, including leadership, management, and teamwork (19 items), consciousness and responsiveness (14 items), clinical and interpersonal communication skills (8 items), integrity (7 items), knowledge and accountability (4 items), and loyalty and transparency (3 items). The instrument was confirmed to be a valid measure, as the 6 domains had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and in combination explained 60.1% of the variance (Bartlett’s test of sphericity [1,485]=19,867.99, P<0.01). Furthermore, this study provided evidence for the instrument’s convergent validity and internal consistency (α=0.98), suggesting its suitability for assessing student performance. Conclusion We found good evidence for the validity and reliability of the instrument. Our instrument can be used to make future evaluations of student performance in the clinical setting more structured, transparent, informative, and comparable.

Background: In the Iranian context, no 360-degree evaluation tool has been developed to assess the performance of prehospital medical emergency students in clinical settings. This article describes the development of a 360-degree evaluation tool and presents its first psychometric evaluation. Methods: There were 2 steps in this study: step 1 involved developing the instrument (i.e., generating the items) and step 2 constituted the psychometric evaluation of the instrument. We performed exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and also evaluated the instrument’s face, content, and convergent validity and reliability. Results: The instrument contains 55 items across 6 domains, including leadership, management, and teamwork (19 items), consciousness and responsiveness (14 items), clinical and interpersonal communication skills (8 items), integrity (7 items), knowledge and accountability (4 items), and loyalty and transparency (3 items). The instrument was confirmed to be a valid measure, as the 6 domains had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and in combination explained 60.1% of the variance (Bartlett’s test of sphericity [1,485]=19,867.99, P<0.01). Furthermore, this study provided evidence for the instrument’s convergent validity and internal consistency (α=0.98), suggesting its suitability for assessing student performance. Conclusion We found good evidence for the validity and reliability of the instrument. Our instrument can be used to make future evaluations of student performance in the clinical setting more structured, transparent, informative, and comparable.