Page 76 - Medical students’ self-regulated learning in clinical contexts

74
to record re ec ons and analy cal ideas as they arose. We used the three phases described by Zimmerman as sensi zing concepts, meaning they provided star ng points for building our analysis.35 Students from the same university and/or enrolled in the same year were re-analyzed a er satura on had been reached. This was done to study whether salient di erences between, groups of, students emerged within our purposive sample.
We discussed all our interpreta ons within the en re research group, 6 mes in total, both during the coding process and during wri ng-up. The research group consisted of a heterogeneous group of researchers, which helped us look at our data from di erent perspec ves. Two authors (JB and JvdB) are recently graduated as MD’s and are PhD-students in medical educa on. All other authors have signi cant experiences in medical educa on and have di erent backgrounds. These backgrounds include elderly care medicine (EH), obstetrics/gynecology (PT), psychology and psychometrics (CvdV) and veterinary medicine (AJ). Data analysis was supported by the use of MaxQDA V11 (Verbi GmbH, Berlin Germany).
Ethics
When approached, students were informed about the voluntary nature of this study and were assured that the data would be processed anonymously. Students were not told beforehand they would be rewarded for par cipa ng. The study was approved by the ethical review board of the Netherlands Associa on for Medical Educa on (NVMO).
Side note: all the names used in the results are c onal.