Examination of the reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the 10-item reflective practice questionnaire

Author Identifier

Shane L. Rogers: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6869-3400

Document Type

Journal Article

Publication Title

Reflective Practice

Publisher

Taylor & Francis

School

School of Arts and Humanities

RAS ID

77153

Funders

JSPS KAKENHI (22K10370)

Comments

Sugawara, D., Iikura, A., Miyamoto, S., Masuyama, A., Nakazawa, K., Hatto, K., ... & Rogers, S. L. (2024). Examination of the reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the 10-item reflective practice questionnaire. Reflective Practice, 26(1), 103-114. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2024.2421596

Abstract

While various self-administered instruments measure reflective practice, the Reflective Practice Questionnaire (RPQ) can be used across multiple professions. We evaluated the Japanese version of the 10-item Reflective Practice Questionnaire (RPQ-10-J). In Study 1, 300 Japanese interpersonal assistance professionals were surveyed, and the RPQ-10-J was found to conform to a single factor via confirmatory factor analysis. We also found evidence of high internal consistency and adequate test-re-test reliability. High internal consistency was replicated in Study 2. In Study 2, 83 and 80 practicing interpersonal assistance professionals were surveyed physically and online, respectively. Additionally, the RPQ-10-J was correlated with the Japanese version of the Rumination-Reflection Questionnaire (RRQ-J). A small positive correlation was found between the RPQ-J-10 and reflection, and a moderate positive correlation with rumination. The results were consistent with other recent research showing that the reflective practice construct measured by the RPQ can be considered as separate from other semi-related constructs of general reflection and rumination. The development of the Japanese version of the RPQ enables future research to compare the extent of reflective practice in English-and Japanese (Japanese-speaking) contexts on a simple scale. Finally, future research directions and cultural differences in reflective practices are discussed.

DOI

10.1080/14623943.2024.2421596

Access Rights

subscription content

Link to Full Text

Share

 
COinS