We thank Forenc et al1 for their interest in our study titled Construct Validity of an Instrument for Assessment of Reflective Writing-Based Portfolios of Medical Students.2 In their Letter to Editor, their main critique concerned the extent to which the nonanonymity of reflective portfolios and the lack of reflection prompts to students may have affected the G-theory analysis. In their view, these two aspects will have reduced the percentage variance of the object of measurement (students) and thus influenced the variance attributed to the study facets. In addition, they draw attention that the study instrument might not be replicable for clinical students, due to increased complexity of the learning environment. We address their concerns in turn.
展开▼
机译：我们感谢Forenc et Al1对我们的研究符合我们的研究，以构建仪器的有效性，以评估对基于反思写作的医学生体的医学投资组合.2在他们到编辑的信中，他们的主要批评有涉及反思投资组合的不可互化的程度和缺乏对学生的反思提示可能影响了G-理论分析。在他们看来，这两个方面将减少测量对象（学生）的百分比方差，从而影响了归因于研究方面的方差。此外，由于学习环境的复杂性增加，他们引起了注意力，临床学生可能无法复制。我们反过来解决了他们的担忧。
展开▼
