Braunack-Mayer A. Should medical students act as surrogate patients for each other? Med Educ. 2001;35:681–6.
Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Wearn AM, Rees CE, Bradley P, Vnuk AK. Understanding student concerns about peer physical examination using an activity theory framework. Med Educ. 2008;42:1218–26.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Bindless L. The use of patients in health care education: the need for ethical justification. J Med Ethics. 1998;24:314–9.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Koehler N, McMenamin C. The need for a peer physical examination policy within Australian medical schools. Med Teach. 2014;36:430–3.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Rees CE, Bradley P, McLachlan JC. Exploring medical students' attitudes towards peer physical examination. Med Teach. 2004;26:86–8.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Chen J, Yip A, Lam C, Patil N. Does medical student willingness to practise peer physical examination translate into action? Med Teach. 2011;33:e528–40.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Rees CE, Wearn A, Vnuk A, Sato T. Medical students’ attitudes towards peer physical examination: findings from an international cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2009;4:103–21.
Article
Google Scholar
Consorti F, Mancuso R, Piccolo A, Consorti G, Zurlo J. Evaluation of the acceptability of peer physical examination (PPE) in medical and osteopathic students: a cross sectional survey. BMC Med Educ. 2013;13:111.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Wearn A, Rees CE, Bhoopatkar H, Bradley P, Lam C, McLachlan J, Patil N, Sato T, Vnuk A. What not to Touch': medical students from six schools report on peer physical examination in clinical skills and anatomy learning. Focus Health Prof Educ. 2008;10:24–5.
Google Scholar
Wearn A, Bhoopatkar H, Mathew T, Stewart L. Exploration of the attitudes of nursing students to peer physical examination and physical examination of patients. Nurse Educ Today. 2013;33:884–8.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
O'Neill P, Larcombe C, Duffy K, Dorman T. Medical students' willingness and reactions to learning basic skills through examining fellow students. Med Teach. 1998;20:433-437.
Chang E, Power D. Are medical students comfortable with practicing physical examinations on each other? Acad Med. 2000;75:384–9.
Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Rees CE, Bradley P, Collett T, McLachlan J. "over my dead body?": the influence of demographics on students' willingness to participate in peer physical examination. Med Teach. 2005;27:599–605.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Baillie L, Curzio J. A survey of first year student nurses' experiences of learning blood pressure measurement. Nurse Educ Pract. 2009;9:61–71.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Tolsgaard MG, Rasmussen MB, Bjorck S, Gustafsson A, Ringsted CV. Medical students' perception of dyad practice. Perspectives in Medical Education. 2014;3:500–7.
Article
Google Scholar
Barnette J, Kreitter C, Schuldt S. Student attitudes towards same-gender versus mixed-gender partnering in practicing physical examination skills. Eval Health Prof. 2000;23:360–70.
Article
Google Scholar
Redford D, Klein T. Informed consent in the nursing skills laboratory: an exploratory study. Nursing Education. 2003;42:131–3.
Google Scholar
Wearn A, Bhoopatkar H. Evaluation of consent for peer physical examination: students reflect on their clinical skills learning experience. Med Educ. 2006;40:957–64.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Pols J, Boendermaker P, Muntinghe H. Incidence of and sequels to medical problems discovered in medical students during study-related activities. Med Educ. 2003;37:889–94.
Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Hilton P, Barrett D. An investigation into students' performance of invasive and non-invasive procedures on each other in classroom settings. Nurse Educ Pract 2009;9:45-52.
Wismeijer AA, Sijtsma K, van Assen MA, Vingerhoets AJ. A comparative study of the dimensionality of the self-concealment scale using principal components analysis and Mokken scale analysis. J Pers Assess. 2008;90:323–34.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. www.R-project.org/. Accessed June 20 2016.
Revelle W. psych; Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych. Accessed June 20 2016.
New V d ALA. Developments in Mokken scale analysis in R. J Stat Softw. 2012;48:1–27.
Google Scholar
Stochl J, Jones PB, Croudace TJ. Mokken scale analysis of mental health and well-being questionnaire item responses: a non-parametric IRT method in empirical research for applied health researchers. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:1–16.
Article
Google Scholar
Mokken RJ. A theory and procedure of scale analysis: with applications in political research, vol. 1: Walter de Gruyter; 1971.
Book
Google Scholar
Sijtsma K, Meijer RR, van der Ark LA. Mokken scale analysis as time goes by: an update for scaling practitioners. Pers Individ Dif. 2011;50:31–7.
Article
Google Scholar
Sijtsma K, Van der Ark LA. A tutorial on how to do a Mokken scale analysis on your test and questionnaire data. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 2017;70:137–58.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Kuijpers RE, Van der Ark LA, Croon MA. Standard errors and confidence intervals for scalability coefficients in Mokken scale analysis using marginal models. Sociol Methodol. 2013;43:42–69.
Article
Google Scholar
Straat JH, van der Ark LA, Sijtsma K. Using conditional association to identify locally independent item sets. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 2016;12:117.
Article
Google Scholar
Sijtsma K, Molenaar IW. Reliability of test scores in nonparametric item response theory. Psychometrika. 1987;52:79–97.
Article
Google Scholar
Revelle W, Zinbarg RE. Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the glb: comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika. 2009;74:145–54.
Article
Google Scholar
Zinbarg RE, Revelle W, Yovel I, Li W. Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and McDonald’s ω H: their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika. 2005;70:123–33.
Article
Google Scholar
Zinbarg RE, Yovel I, Revelle W, RP MD. Estimating generalizability to a latent variable common to all of a scale's indicators: a comparison of estimators for ωh. Appl Psychol Meas. 2006;30:121–44.
Article
Google Scholar
Green SB, Yang Y. Commentary on coefficient alpha: a cautionary tale. Psychometrika. 2009;74:121–35.
Article
Google Scholar
Hermsen LA, Leone SS, Smalbrugge M, Knol DL, van der Horst HE, Dekker J. Exploring the aggregation of four functional measures in a population of older adults with joint pain and comorbidity. BMC Geriatr. 2013;13:119.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Reise SP. The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behav Res. 2012;47:667–96.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Ligtvoet R, Van der Ark LA, te Marvelde JM, Sijtsma K. Investigating an invariant item ordering for polytomously scored items. Educ Psychol Meas. 2010;70:575–98.
Article
Google Scholar
Vaughan B, Grace S. Perception of peer physical examination in two Australian osteopathy programs. Chiropr Man Therap. 2016;24:21.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Rees CE, Wearn AM, Vnuk AK, Bradley PA. Don’t want to show fellow students my naughty bits: medical students’ anxieties about peer examination of intimate body regions at six schools across UK, Australasia and far-East Asia. Med Teach. 2009;31:921–7.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Rees CE. The influence of gender on student willingness to engage in peer physical examination: the practical implications of feminist theory of body image. Med Educ. 2007;41:801–7.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Outram S, Nair BR. Peer physical examination: time to revisit. Med J Aust. 2008;189:274–6.
PubMed
Google Scholar
Grace S, Innes E, Patton N, Stockhausen L. Ethical experiential learning in medical, nursing and allied health education: a narrative review. Nurse Educ Today. 2017;51:23–33.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar