Translation and First Pilot Validation Study of the “Undergraduate Nursing Student Academic Satisfaction Scale” Questionnaire to the Spanish Context
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Design and Participants
2.2. Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process
2.3. Applicability and Feasibility
2.4. Statistical Analysis
2.5. Ethical Considerations
3. Results
3.1. Translation and Adaptation Phase
3.2. Item Creation Process and Content Validity
3.3. Results of the Pilot Study
3.4. Internal Consistency and Reliability
3.5. Internal Validity of the Scale
3.6. Hypothesis Contrast Analysis
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gloria-Barraza, C.; Ortiz-Moreira, L. Factores relacionados a la calidad de vida y satisfacción en estudiantes de enfermería. Cienc. Enfermería 2012, 18, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reig, A.; Cabrero, J.; Ferrer, R.I.; Richart, M. La Calidad de Vida y el Estado de Salud de los Estudiantes Universitarios; Universidad de Alicante: Alicante, Spain, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Pecina-Leyva, R. Satisfacción académica del estudiante de enfermería en una Universidad Pública en México. Available online: https://www.ctes.org.mx/index.php/ctes/article/view/639 (accessed on 6 January 2021).
- Asadizaker, M.; Saeedi, A.S.; Abedi, H.; Saki, A. Development of a psychometric scale to measure student nurse satisfaction with their first practical clinical education. Acta Med. Mediterr. 2015, 31, 1337–1344. [Google Scholar]
- Levett-Jones, T.; McCoy, M.; Lapkin, S.; Noble, D.; Hoffman, K.; Dempsey, J.; Arthur, C.; Roche, J. The development and psychometric testing of the satisfaction with simulation experience scale. Nurse Educ. Today 2011, 31, 705–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Negrao, R.C.; Amado, J.C.; Carneiro, M.F.; Mazzo, A. Satisfacción de los estudiantes con las experiencias clínicas simuladas: Validación de escala de evaluación. Rev. Lat.-Am. Enferm. 2014, 22, 709–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- López-Medina, I.M.; Sánchez-Criado, V. Percepción del estrés en estudiantes de enfermería en las prácticas clínicas. Enfermería Clínica 2005, 15, 307–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magnano, P.; Lodi, E.; Boerchi, D. The role of non-intellective competences and performance in college satisfaction. Interchange 2020, 51, 253–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartley, M.T. Examining the relationships between resilience, mental health, and academic persistence in undergraduate college students. J. Am. Coll. Health 2011, 59, 596–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Espeland, V.; Indrehuz, O. Evaluation of students’ satisfaction with nursing education in Norway. J. Adv. Nur. 2003, 42, 226–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- D’Souza, M.S.; Nalry, S.; Parahoo, K.; Venkatesaperumal, R. Perception of and satisfaction with the clinical learning environment among nursing students. Nurse Educ. Today 2015, 35, 833–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antohe, I.; Riklikiene, O.; Tichelaar, E.; Saarikoski, M. Clinical education and training of student nurses in four moderately new European Union countries: Assessment of students’ satisfaction with the learning environment. Nurse Educ. Pract. 2016, 17, 139–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Admi, H.; Moshe-Eilon, Y.; Sharon, D.; Mann, M. Nursing students’ stress and satisfaction in clinical practice along different stages: A cross-sectional study. Nurse Educ. Today 2018, 68, 86–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lepiani, I.L.; Dueñas, M.; Meadialdea, M.J.; Bocchino, A. Satisfacción de estudiantes de enfermería con el proceso formativo adaptado al Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior. Enfermería Docente 2013, 101, 22–28. [Google Scholar]
- Lodi, E.; Boerchi, D.; Magnano, P.; Patrizi, P. College satisfaction scale (CSS): Evaluation of contextual satisfaction in relation to college student life satisfaction and academic performance. BPA Appl. Psychol. Bull. 2017, 65, 51–64. [Google Scholar]
- Baykal, U.; Sokmen, S.; Korkmaz, S.; Akgun, E. Determining student satisfaction in a nursing college. Nurse Educ. Today 2005, 25, 255–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dennison, S.; El-Masri, M.M. Development and psychometric assessment of the undergraduate nursing student academic satisfaction scale (UNSASS). J. Nurs. Meas. 2012, 20, 75–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chen, H.C.; Lo, H.S. Development and psychometric testing of the nursing student satisfaction scale for the associate nursing programs. J. Nurs. Educ. Pract. 2012, 2, 25–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Domingues, C.; Devos, E.L.; Tomaschewski, J.G.; Silva, R.; Pinho, D. Predictive and associated factors with nursing students’ satisfaction. Acta Paul. Enferm. 2015, 28, 566–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mokkink, L.B.; Terwee, C.B.; Patrick, D.L.; Alonso, J.; Stratford, P.W.; Knol, D.L.; Bouter, L.M.; de Vet, H.C.W. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: An international Delphi study. Qual. Life Res. 2010, 19, 539–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Souza, V.D.; Rojjanasrirat, W. Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: A clear and user-friendly guideline. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 2011, 17, 268–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramada, J.M.; Serra, C.; Declós, G.L. Adaptación cultural y validación de cuestionarios de salud: Revisión y recomendaciones metodológicas. Salud Publica Mex. 2013, 55, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romero-Martín, M.; Gómez-Salgado, J.; De la Fuente-Ginés, M.; Macías-Seda, J.; García-Díaz, A.; Ponce-Blandón, J.A. Assessment of reliability and validity of the Spanish version of the nursing students’ perception of instructor caring (S-NSPIC). PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0212803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Carretero-Dios, H.; Pérez, C. Normas para el desarrollo y revisión de estudios instrumentales: Consideraciones sobre la selección de tests en la investigación psicológica. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 2007, 7, 863–882. [Google Scholar]
- Polit, D.; Tatano-Beck, C. The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res. Nurs. Health 2006, 29, 489–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lozano, L.M.; Turbani, J.V. Psicometría; Meneses, J., Ed.; Editorial UOC: Barcelona, Spain, 2013; pp. 141–197. [Google Scholar]
- Merino-Soto, C. Percepción de la claridad de los ítems: Comparación del juicio de estudiantes y jueces-expertos. Rev. Latinoam. Cienc. Soc. Niñez Juv. 2016, 14, 1469–1477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bójorquez-Molina, J.; López-Aranda, L.; Hernández-Flores, M.E.; Jiménez-López, E. Utilización del alfa de Cronbach para validar la confiabilidad de un instrumento de medición de satisfacción del estudiante en el uso de Software Minitab. In Proceedings of the Innovation in Engineering, Technology and Education for Competitiveness and Prosperity, 11th Latin American and Caribbean Conference for Engineering and Technology, Cancún, México, 14–16 August 2013. [Google Scholar]
- McCoach, D.B.; Gable, R.K.; Madura, J.P. Evidence based on the internal structure of the instrument: Factor analysis. In Instrument Development in the Affective Domain; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elossua, P.; Zumbo, B.D. Coeficientes de fiabilidad para escalas de respuesta categórica ordenada. Psicothema 2008, 20, 896–901. [Google Scholar]
- Zumbo, B.D.; Gadermann, A.M.; Zeisser, C. Ordinal versions of coefficients alpha and theta for Likert rating scales. J. Mod. Appl. Stat. Methods 2007, 6, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salamonson, Y.; Metcalfe, L.; Alexandrou, E.; Cotton, A.; McNally, S.; Murphy, J.; Frost, S. Measuring final-year nursing students’ satisfaction with the vivaassessment. Nurse Educ. Pract. 2015, 16, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milton-Wildey, K.; Kenny, P.; Parmenter, G.; Hall, J. Educational preparation for clinical nursing: The satisfaction of students and new graduates from two Australian universities. Nurse Educ. Today 2014, 34, 648–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiménez-González, A.; Terriquez-Carrillo, B.; Robles-Cepeda, F.J. Evaluación de la satisfacción académica de los estudiantes de la Universidad Autónoma de Nayarit. Rev. Fuentes 2011, 3, 46–56. [Google Scholar]
Variable | Type | Operational Definition |
---|---|---|
Age | Discreet and quantitative | Years old |
Gender | Dichotomous, nominal, and qualitative | Man, Woman |
Teaching Unit | Nominal and qualitative | Virgen del Rocío, Virgen de Valme, Virgen Macarena |
Satisfaction (Scale total) | Quantitative | 48–240 |
Satisfaction (In-Class Teaching subscale) | Quantitative | 16–80 |
Satisfaction (Clinical Teaching subscale) | Quantitative | 15–75 |
Satisfaction (Program Design and Delivery subscale) | Quantitative | 12–60 |
Satisfaction (Support & Resources subscale) | Quantitative | 5–25 |
No. | Item | Content Validity Index |
---|---|---|
4 | Faculty members make an effort to understand difficulties I might be having with my course work | 0.85 |
15 | Faculty members create a good overall impression | 0.85 |
28 | Clinical instructors provide enough opportunities for independent practice in the lab and clinical sites | 1 |
31 | Faculty members behave professionally | 0.85 |
44 | The secretaries are caring and helpful | 0.85 |
45 | The secretaries behave professionally | 1 |
Descriptive Parameter | In-Class Teaching Subscale | Clinical Teaching Subscale | Program Design and Delivery Subscale | Support & Resources Subscale | Total Satisfaction |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | 3.54 | 3.92 | 3.63 | 4.19 | 3.75 |
Standard Deviation | 0.22 | 0.19 | 0.27 | 0.08 | 0.30 |
Percentages | 70.8% | 78.4% | 72.6% | 83.8% | 75.0% |
Items | Mean | SD | Items | Mean | SD |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
“In-Class Teaching” subscale | 3.54 | 0.22 | “Clinical Teaching” subscale | 3.92 | 0.19 |
| 3.81 | 1.03 |
| 4.00 | 0.84 |
| 3.69 | 0.82 |
| 4.00 | 1.02 |
| 3.72 | 0.81 |
| 3.75 | 0.95 |
| 3.44 | 0.98 |
| 4.09 | 0.86 |
| 3.75 | 0.80 |
| 4.00 | 1.05 |
| 3.56 | 0.95 |
| 3.78 | 1.07 |
| 3.66 | 0.90 |
| 3.72 | 1.08 |
| 3.34 | 0.90 |
| 4.13 | 0.87 |
| 3.19 | 1.15 |
| 3.91 | 1.03 |
| 3.09 | 1.30 |
| 3.97 | 0.86 |
| 3.59 | 0.80 |
| 3.84 | 0.88 |
| 3.34 | 1.07 |
| 3.81 | 1.00 |
| 3.69 | 0.78 |
| 3.69 | 0.97 |
| 3.44 | 1.05 |
| 3.78 | 0.97 |
| 3.91 | 0.73 |
| 4.44 | 0.62 |
| 3.47 | 0.92 | |||
“Program Design and Delivery” subscale | 3.63 | 0.27 | “Support & Resources” subscale | 4.19 | 0.98 |
| 3.69 | 1.03 |
| 4.06 | 0.98 |
| 3.59 | 0.95 |
| 4.22 | 0.75 |
| 3.56 | 0.95 |
| 4.13 | 1.00 |
| 3.72 | 0.81 |
| 4.25 | 0.67 |
| 3.28 | 0.89 |
| 4.31 | 0.69 |
| 3.72 | 0.92 | |||
| 3.72 | 0.89 | |||
| 3.38 | 1.07 | |||
| 3.09 | 1.23 | |||
| 3.88 | 0.90 | |||
| 4.06 | 0.84 | |||
| 3.88 | 0.94 | |||
Total ESAEE Scale | 3.75 | 0.30 |
“In-Class Teaching” Subscale (Items 1–16) (Cronbach’s α = 0.94) | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Factor 4 |
3. Faculty members make every effort to assist students when asked | 0.729 | |||
14. Faculty members take the time to listen/discuss issues that may impact my academic performance | 0.725 | 0.498 | ||
1. I can freely express my academic and other concerns to faculty members | 0.718 | |||
2. Faculty members are easily approachable | 0.706 | |||
9. I receive detailed feedback from faculty members on my work and written assignments | 0.699 | |||
16. I am generally given enough time to understand the things I have to learn | 0.683 | |||
13. Faculty members demonstrate a high level of knowledge in their subject area | 0.654 | 0.442 | ||
4. Faculty members make an effort to understand difficulties I might be having with my course work | 0.637 | 0.485 | ||
11. Faculty members are good role models and motivate me to do my best | 0.633 | |||
7. Faculty are fair and unbiased in their treatment of individual students | 0.632 | |||
8. Faculty members provide adequate feedback about students’ progress in a course | 0.624 | 0.464 | ||
15. Faculty members create a good overall impression | 0.617 | 0.421 | ||
12. The administration shows concern for students as individuals | 0.604 | 0.520 | ||
6. I can freely express my academic and other concerns to the administration | 0.596 | |||
5. Faculty members are usually available after class and during office hours | 0.589 | |||
10. Channels for expressing students’ complaints are readily available | 0.588 | |||
“Clinical Teaching” subscale (items 17–31) (Cronbach’s α = 0.94) | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Factor 4 |
20. Clinical instructors give me sufficient guidance before I perform technical skills | 0.881 | |||
28. Clinical instructors provide enough opportunities for independent practice in the lab and clinical sites | 0.808 | |||
30. Instructions are consistent among different clinical and lab instructors | 0.799 | |||
23. Clinical instructors facilitate my ability to critically assess my client’s needs | 0.785 | |||
25. Clinical instructors give me verbal and written feedback concerning my clinical experience | 0.784 | |||
18. Clinical instructors provide feedback at appropriate times, and do not embarrass me in front of others (classmates, staff, patients and family members) | 0.781 | |||
24. Clinical instructors assign me to patients that are appropriate for my level of competence | 0.775 | |||
27. Clinical instructors are available when needed | 0.735 | |||
19. Clinical instructors are open to discussions and difference in opinions | 0.728 | |||
22. Clinical instructors give me clear ideas of what is expected from me during a clinical rotation | 0.718 | |||
29. Clinical instructors encourage me to link theory to practice | 0.713 | |||
26. Clinical instructors demonstrate a high level of knowledge and clinical expertise | 0.676 | |||
21. Clinical instructors view my mistakes as part of my learning | 0.637 | |||
17. Clinical instructors are approachable and make students feel comfortable about asking questions | 0.430 | 0.543 | ||
31. Faculty members behave professionally | 0.450 | |||
“Program Design and Delivery” subscale (items 32–43) (Cronbach’s α = 0.92) | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Factor 4 |
34. Most courses in this program are beneficial and contribute to my overall professional development | 0.868 | |||
32. This program provides a variety of good and relevant courses | 0.787 | |||
40. As a result of my courses, I feel confident about dealing with clinical nursing problems | 0.705 | |||
36. I usually have a clear idea of what is expected of me in this program | 0.701 | |||
39. There is a commitment to academic excellence in this program | 0.675 | |||
41. Going to class helps me better understand the material | 0.677 | |||
38. The program enhances my problem solving or critical thinking skills | 0.406 | 0.650 | ||
35. The quality of instruction I receive in my classes is good and helpful | 0.632 | |||
33. The program enhances my analytical skills | 0.538 | 0.613 | ||
42. I am able to experience intellectual growth in the program | 0.553 | 0.671 | ||
37. The program is designed to facilitate team work among students | 0.588 | |||
43. Overall, the program requirements are reasonable and achievable | 0.471 | 0.553 | ||
“Support & Resources” subscale (items 44–48) (Cronbach’s α = 0.92) | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Factor 4 |
46. Support at the clinical and computer labs is readily available | 0.875 | |||
47. Computer and clinical labs are well equipped, adequately staffed, and are readily accessible to meet | 0.760 | |||
48. The facilities (class rooms, clinical and computer labs) facilitate my learning | 0.746 | |||
45. The secretaries behave professionally | 0.406 | 0.648 | ||
44. The secretaries are caring and helpful | 0.598 | |||
Eigen Value | ||||
% of variability | 43.835 | 11.732 | 8.675 | 3.070 |
% of cumulative variability | 43.835 | 55.567 | 64.242 | 67.312 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Guerra-Martín, M.D.; Cano-Orihuela, A.; Martos-García, R.; Ponce-Blandón, J.A. Translation and First Pilot Validation Study of the “Undergraduate Nursing Student Academic Satisfaction Scale” Questionnaire to the Spanish Context. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 423. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020423
Guerra-Martín MD, Cano-Orihuela A, Martos-García R, Ponce-Blandón JA. Translation and First Pilot Validation Study of the “Undergraduate Nursing Student Academic Satisfaction Scale” Questionnaire to the Spanish Context. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(2):423. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020423
Chicago/Turabian StyleGuerra-Martín, María Dolores, Alejandro Cano-Orihuela, Raúl Martos-García, and José Antonio Ponce-Blandón. 2021. "Translation and First Pilot Validation Study of the “Undergraduate Nursing Student Academic Satisfaction Scale” Questionnaire to the Spanish Context" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 2: 423. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020423