The sample sizes vary dramatically across sections (n=407 for preparedness, n=376 for confidence, n=324 for attitudes, n=328 for interprofessional roles). Why were these incomplete responses included at all if “each section was analyzed if completed in full”? This suggests inconsistent inclusion criteria. More importantly, the decreasing n suggests systematic non-response to later sections, likely indicating respondent fatigue or disengagement, which introduces significant bias that you fail to address.
You state the questionnaire was distributed to 1602 students (100% of eligible students), with 518 responses (32.3%) and 407 valid (25.4%). However, on page 3, you report that “teachers were requested to provide the number of students to whom the questionnaire had been distributed”; this means the 1602 figure is an estimate, not an actual count. How can you claim a 25.4% response rate when you don’t actually know how many students received the questionnaire? This is a fundamental methodological flaw.