This study explored the dimensionality and measurement invariance of a multidimensional measure for evaluating teachers’ perceptions of the quality of their relationships with principals at the dyadic level. Participants were 630 teachers (85.9% female) from 220 primary and 204 secondary schools across the Netherlands. Teachers completed the 10-item Principal–Teacher Relationship Scale (PTRS) for their principals. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) provided evidence for a two-factor model, including a relational Closeness and Conflict dimension. Additionally, multigroup CFA results indicated strong invariance of the PTRS across school type, teacher gender, and teaching experience. Last, secondary school teachers and highly experienced teachers reported lower levels of Closeness and higher levels of Conflict in the relationship with their principal compared to primary school teachers and colleagues with less experience. Accordingly, the PTRS can be considered a valid and reliable measure that adds to the methodological repertoire of educational leadership research by focusing on both positive and negative aspects of dyadic principal–teacher relationships.
Teaching history requires clear, detailed and subject specific language. History teachers teaching in a second language are confronted with students' second language limitations, which likely have an aggravating impact on their application of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). We analysed and compared 12 Dutch spoken and 12 English spoken paired history lessons in junior grades 7 and 9. Contrary to our expectation, we found a strong similarity of the teachers’ PCK application in both grades 7 and 9, irrespective of the used language. The PCK application in both grades and languages was of average quality, while the PCK used in grade 9 was more advanced.
Rational prescribing is essential for the quality of health care. However, many final-year medical students and junior doctors lack prescribing competence to perform this task. The availability of a list of medicines that a junior doctor working in Europe should be able to independently prescribe safely and effectively without supervision could support and harmonize teaching and training in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CPT) in Europe. Therefore, our aim was to achieve consensus on such a list of medicines that are widely accessible in Europe. For this, we used a modified Delphi study method consisting of three parts. In part one, we created an initial list based on a literature search. In part two, a group of 64 coordinators in CPT education, selected via the Network of Teachers in Pharmacotherapy of the European Association for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, evaluated the accessibility of each medicine in his or her country, and provided a diverse group of experts willing to participate in the Delphi part. In part three, 463 experts from 24 European countries were invited to participate in a 2-round Delphi study. In total, 187 experts (40%) from 24 countries completed both rounds and evaluated 416 medicines, 98 of which were included in the final list. The top three Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical code groups were (1) cardiovascular system (n = 23), (2) anti-infective (n = 21), and (3) musculoskeletal system (n = 11). This European List of Key Medicines for Medical Education could be a starting point for country-specific lists and could be used for the training and assessment of CPT.
