Strides in Development of Medical Education

Document Type : Original Article


1 MSc Student of Educational Research, Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Shahid Bahonar University, Kerman, IR Iran

2 PhD in Educational Management, Associate Professor, Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Shahid Bahonar University, Kerman, IR Iran

3 PhD in Educational Management, Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Shahid Bahonar University, Kerman, IR Iran


Background and Objectives The aim of the present study was to introduce a valid and reliable scale for the assessment of exam preparation strategies among students at Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Iran during the academic year 2015 - 2016. Methods In this descriptive exploratory research, a 25-item scale was developed based on a Likert scale in accordance with the literature.Face validity of the scale was confirmed, based on the comments of educational sciences experts. Three reliability indices, composite reliability, construct reliability, and internal consistency, were calculated. In addition to confirmatory factor analysis, convergent and divergent validities were determined. Results The results of exploratory factor analysis indicated 2 underlying constructs: 1) deep exam preparation strategies, including 12 items (coefficient, 0.60 - 0.80; specificity, 12.4); and 2) shallow exam preparation strategies, including 13 items (coefficient, 0.61 - 0.76; specificity, 2.15). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.94 for the first underlying construct and 0.92 for the second construct. In addition, the convergent validity coefficients ranged from 0.50 to 0.57, thus confirming the validity of the constructs. Moreover, the average variance extracted (AVE) of the constructs was higher than the squared correlation of the constructs; therefore, the divergent validity of the scale was confirmed. Conclusions The present scale for exam preparation strategies consisted of 2 constructs (deep and shallow approaches) and 25 items (deep approach, 12 items; shallow approach, 13 items). According to the analyses, the reliability and validity of the scale were confirmed. Therefore, this scale can be applied by instructors and students to evaluate exam preparation strategies.


  1. Soltanalgharaei KH. Relationship of study skills and exam preparation method in master students. Educ Strateg Med Sci. 2014;7(1):51–6.
  2. Azizian M, Abedi M. An investigation of the changing pattern of reading errors in students 2nd to 5th grades of primary schools. Stud Educ Psychol. 2007;8(1):101–14.
  3. Hasan AR, Zahra K. Students’ familiarity with reading methods: A literature review. Ketab-e Mah-e Kolliyat. 2009;12(11):70–3.
  4. Ghanbari S, Ardalan MR, Karimi I. Effect of the Challenges of Student earnings Evaluation on Deliberate Practice Study Approach. Educ Strategy Med Sci. 2015;8(2):105–13.
  5. Mehdinezhad V, Esmaeeli R. Students’ approaches to learning superficial, strategic and deep. Educ Strategy Med Sci. 2015;8(2):83–9.
  6. Gettinger M, Seibert JK. Contributions of study skills to academic competence. School Psychol Rev. 2002;31(3):350.
  7. Chen ML. Influence of grade level on perceptual learning style preferences and language learning strategies of Taiwanese English as a foreign language learners. Learn Individ Differ. 2009;19(2):304–8. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2009.02.004.
  8. Heller ML, Cassady JC. Predicting Community College and University Student Success. J College Student Retent Res Theory Pract. 2016;18(4):431–56. doi: 10.1177/1521025115611130.
  9. Tsai CY, Li YY, Cheng YY. The Relationships Among Adult Affective Factors, Engagement in Science, and Scientific Competencies. Adult Educ Q. 2016;67(1):30–47. doi: 10.1177/0741713616673148.
  10. Thibodeaux J, Deutsch A, Kitsantas A, Winsler A. First-Year College Students’ Time Use. J Adv Acad. 2016;28(1):5–27. doi:10.1177/1932202x16676860.
  11. Yip MCW. Differences in Learning and Study Strategies between High and Low Achieving University Students: A Hong Kong study. Educ Psychol. 2007;27(5):597–606. doi: 10.1080/01443410701309126.
  12. Abd KMS, Seyf AA, Karimi Y, Biabangard E. Making and normalization of the academic motivation scale in the male high school students in Mashhad and the effect of instruction of the study skills on the motivation. Stud Educ Psychol. 2008;18(1):5–20.
  13. Bergey BW, Deacon SH, Parrila RK. Metacognitive Reading and Study Strategies and Academic Achievement of University StudentsWith and Without a History of Reading Difficulties. J Learn Disabil.

2017;50(1):81–94. doi: 10.1177/0022219415597020. [PubMed: 26229067].

  1. Chevalier TM, Parrila R, Ritchie KC, Deacon SH. The Role of Metacognitive Reading Strategies, Metacognitive Study and Learning Strategies, and Behavioral Study and Learning Strategies in Predicting Academic Success in Students With and Without a History of Reading Difficulties. J Learn Disabil. 2017;50(1):34–48. doi: 10.1177/0022219415588850. [PubMed: 26025926].
  2. Tuan NM. Learning Approaches in Relation with Demographic Factors. VNU J Sci Educ Res. 2015;31(2):27–39.
  3. Biggs J. Individual differences in study processes and the Quality of Learning Outcomes. High Educ. 1979;8(4):381–94. doi:10.1007/bf01680526.
  4. Biggs J. Aligning teaching and assessing to course objective. Teaching and learning in higher education: new trends and innovations. University of Aveiro; 2003. Available from:


  1. Fathabadi J, Saif A. Investigating the effects of type of assessment (essay and multiple-choice) on students’approaches to studying and exam preparation strategies between students with high and low academic achievement. J Educ Psychol. 2008;14(4):21–46.
  2. Shakurnia A, Ghaforian Borojerdnia M, Elhampour H. Approaches to study and learning of students in Ahvaz JundiShapur University of Medical Sciences. Jundishapur Sci Med J. 2013;(0):1021.
  3. Yosefiafrashteh M, Siami L, Rezaie A. Investigate the relationship between classroom assessment practices and preferences survey students with their learning approaches. Educ Measure.2014; 5(17): 125–48.
  4. Sarmad Z, Hejazi E, Bazargan A. In behavioral science research methods.Tehran: Agah Pub; 2015.
  5. Bazargan A, Dadras M, Yosefiafrashteh M. Developing, establishing the reliability and validating a measurement tool for measuring quality academic services to students. J Res Plan High Educ. 2014;1(72):73–97.
  6. Raykov T, Marcoulides GA. A first course in structural equation modeling. Routledge; 2012.
  7. Haghshenas L, Abedi MR, Baghban I. Standardization, validity and reliability Job Strong interest among high school students, vocational, work and pre-university students in Isfahan. Counsel Res Dev.


  1. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structur Equation Model Multidisciplinar J. 1999;6(1):1–55. doi:


  1. Hooman HA. Multivariate data analysis in behavioral preceding studies. Tehran: Parsa Pub; 2002.
  2. Hooman HA. Structural equation modeling using LISREL software. Tehran: Samt Pub; 2011.
  3. Kabiri M. A Comparison between Alpha Coefficient and Structural Equation Modeling Methods to Estimation of Reliabilityà. J Psychol.2010;14(1):39–61.
  4. Bollen K, Lennox R. Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin. 1991;110(2):305–14.doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.110.2.305.
  5. Papanastasiou EC. Factor structure of the attitudes toward research scale. Statistics Educ Res J. 2005;4(1):16–26.
  6. Tenenhaus M, Vinzi VE. PLS regression, PLS path modeling and generalized Procrustean analysis: a combined approach for multiblock analysis. J Chemometrics. 2005;19(3):145–53. doi: 10.1002/cem.917