BMC Medical Education (Dec 2021)

How can learning effects be measured in Balint groups? Validation of a Balint group questionnaire in China

  • Kurt Fritzsche,
  • Lili Shi,
  • Johanna Löhlein,
  • Jing Wei,
  • Yue Sha,
  • Yongbiao Xie,
  • Yanling He,
  • Volker Tschuschke,
  • Guido Flatten,
  • Yibo Wang,
  • Chen Jin,
  • Rainer Leonhart

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-03030-x
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 21, no. 1
pp. 1 – 11

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Balint groups aim to reflect doctor-patient relationships on the basis of personal cases. This study reports the validation of a questionnaire aimed at the identification of learning processes among Balint group participants in China. Methods This multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted during Balint group sessions in Beijing, Guangzhou and Shanghai. A heterogeneous sample of different professional groups was intended to adequately capture the reality of Balint work in China. After a Balint group session, the participants were asked to complete the Mandarin version of the Balint group session questionnaire (BGQ-C) and the group questionnaire (GQ), an internationally validated instrument to assess central dimensions of therapeutic relationships during group processes. Results Questionnaires from n = 806 participants from 55 Chinese Balint groups, predominantly comprising individuals with a medical background, were analyzed. Most participants were female (74.6%), and the average age was 34.2 years old (SD = 9.4). The results indicated good to very good reliability (Cronbach’s α = .70 to .86; retest rs = .430 to .697). The verification of the construct validity of the BGQ-C showed satisfying convergent (rs = .465 to .574) and discriminant validity (rs = -.117 to -.209). The model was tested with a confirmatory factor analysis of a three-factor model (standardized root mean square residual = .025; comparative fit index = .977; Tucker-Lewis index = .971). The 3 empirically identified scales resulted in good model fit with the theoretical dimensions of Balint work postulated in the literature: “reflection of transference dynamics in the doctor-patient relationship”, “emotional and cognitive learning” and “case mirroring in the dynamic of the group”. Due to the high correlations between the factors, a single-factor model was possible. A group comparison between the German and Chinese samples showed different loadings across cultures. Conclusions The BGQ-C is a quick-to-complete, item-based measuring instrument that allows the relevant dimensions of Balint group work to be recorded. This study suggests good psychometric properties of the Chinese version. Nevertheless, it must be assumed that the composition of constructs in the two countries is different.

Keywords