BMC medical education · 2025
Validity and reliability study of the dental students of attitudes towards online learning scale.
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kaşali̇ Kamber, Özkal Emi̇noğlu Didem, Demi̇rer Üstündağ Şifa
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The shift to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for reliable tools to evaluate students' attitudes. This study aimed to adapt the "Medical School Students' Attitudes Towards Online Learning Scale" for dental students and assess its validity and reliability.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study with 181 dental students was conducted. Data were analyzed for mean, standard deviation, count, and percentage. Validity analyses included the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett's Sphericity test for factor analysis suitability. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) assessed construct validity. Reliability was evaluated through Cronbach's Alpha, item-total correlations, and split-half reliability. Model fit indices (χ²/df, RMSEA, CFI, TLI, SRMR) were used to ensure acceptable goodness-of-fit values. Analyses were conducted using SPSS 20.0 and JAMOVI 2.5.3, with p < 0.05.
RESULTS: The first-order CFA model aligned with the original structure (χ²/df = 2.336, RMSEA = 0.080, SRMR = 0.069, CFI = 0.893). Cronbach's alpha was 0.938 for the entire scale and ranged from 0.876 to 0.930 for subdimensions. Item reliability analyses showed alpha values from 0.933 to 0.939, while split-half reliability coefficients ranged from 0.865 to 0.930. Hotelling's T² test revealed significant differences in item means (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The adapted scale exhibited strong psychometric properties, making it a reliable tool for assessing dental students' attitudes towards online learning.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study with 181 dental students was conducted. Data were analyzed for mean, standard deviation, count, and percentage. Validity analyses included the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett's Sphericity test for factor analysis suitability. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) assessed construct validity. Reliability was evaluated through Cronbach's Alpha, item-total correlations, and split-half reliability. Model fit indices (χ²/df, RMSEA, CFI, TLI, SRMR) were used to ensure acceptable goodness-of-fit values. Analyses were conducted using SPSS 20.0 and JAMOVI 2.5.3, with p < 0.05.
RESULTS: The first-order CFA model aligned with the original structure (χ²/df = 2.336, RMSEA = 0.080, SRMR = 0.069, CFI = 0.893). Cronbach's alpha was 0.938 for the entire scale and ranged from 0.876 to 0.930 for subdimensions. Item reliability analyses showed alpha values from 0.933 to 0.939, while split-half reliability coefficients ranged from 0.865 to 0.930. Hotelling's T² test revealed significant differences in item means (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The adapted scale exhibited strong psychometric properties, making it a reliable tool for assessing dental students' attitudes towards online learning.