Measurement of uncertainty tolerance revisited

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionUncertainty tolerance (UT) is attracting increasing attention in medical education due to the numerous challenges associated with uncertainty in professional life. Inconsistencies in analysing the relationship between UT and moderators may arise from inadequate measurement methods. Most instruments were formulated before the most widely accepted framework was published. Our aim was to investigate the validity of an UT scale using an actual framework to corroborate with better and accurate instruments.MethodsA total of 1052 students were invited. Various psychometric methods were used to explore validity of the TAMSAD scale in light of actual framework. Classic exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were performed. Secondly, content item classification was triangulated with exploratory graph analysis (EGA), and the new EFA, CFA, and cognitive diagnostic modelling (CDM) analysis were conducted. The reliability was calculated using Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega.ResultsA total of 694 students (65.9%) responded to the questionnaire. The reliability of the TAMSAD scale was 0.782. The initial EFA revealed no clear interpretable dimensions. The TAMSAD scale items can be classified into sources of uncertainty. The EGA has three dimensions, and the new EFA led to a 17‐item TAMSAD scale with the following three dimensions: ambiguity, complexity, and probability. These dimensions lead to better adjustment fit indices in the new CFA and CDM analyses.ConclusionWe found evidence that the TAMSAD scale can be considered a multidimensional scale, organised in terms of sources of uncertainty.