Investigation of the Research Competence of Applicants Enrolling into Doctoral Programs in Healthcare Professions: A Cross-Sectional Study

Vitaliy Koikov, Gulmira Derbissalina, A Umbetzhanova, Kassym Laura Talgatkyzy, Natalya Zemlyanskaya, Gulzhan Alibekova

Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 2026

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.2147/amep.s625502
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

Purpose: Successful doctoral training requires well-developed research competence; however, evidence regarding the preparedness of prospective applicants to doctoral programmes in healthcare professions remains limited. This study aimed to assess research competence among prospective applicants to doctoral programmes in healthcare professions in Kazakhstan. Patients and Methods: A nationwide multicentre cross-sectional study was conducted among prospective applicants to doctoral programmes in healthcare professions in Kazakhstan. Of 539 eligible participants, 500 completed the adapted Research Competence Questionnaire and were included in the final analysis. Descriptive analyses were performed using SPSS version 27.0. The psychometric evaluation of the adapted questionnaire included assessment of internal consistency, sampling adequacy, and construct validity using exploratory factor analysis in R version 4.6.1. Differences in research competence between master’s students and residents were assessed using Welch’s t -test. Results: The mean overall research competence score was 84.37 ± 19.43. Participants demonstrated higher competence in the Knowledge domain (34.07 ± 8.83) than in the Skills (30.32 ± 7.96) and Attitude (19.98 ± 5.28) domains. Master’s students demonstrated significantly higher overall research competence than residents (88.63 ± 15.61 vs 82.72 ± 20.87; p = 0.003), with significantly higher Knowledge and Skills scores, whereas no significant difference was observed in the Attitude domain. The adapted questionnaire demonstrated excellent internal consistency and supported the original three-domain structure. Conclusion: Prospective applicants to doctoral programmes in healthcare professions demonstrated satisfactory overall research competence according to the original scoring system; however, important gaps remained in practical research competencies required for independent scientific work. These findings suggest that strengthening applied research training during postgraduate education may better prepare future doctoral candidates for independent research. Keywords: research competence, doctoral education, postgraduate medical education, research skills, psychometrics