Psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the clinical learning environment comparison survey

Aim To translate The Clinical Learning Environment Comparison Survey (CLECS) into Norwegian and to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Norwegian version. Design A cross‐sectional survey including a longitudinal component. Methods The CLECS was translated into Norwegian following the World He...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Nursing open 2021-05, Vol.8 (3), p.1254-1261
Main Authors: Olaussen, Camilla, Jelsness‐Jørgensen, Lars‐Petter, Tvedt, Christine Raaen, Hofoss, Dag, Aase, Ingunn, Steindal, Simen A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
clinical education
Clinical medicine
Communication
Critical thinking
Holism
Interpreters
Interviews
Learning
learning needs
Nursing education
psychometrics
Quantitative psychology
Simulation
Students
Teachers
Teaching
translation
Translations
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Aim To translate The Clinical Learning Environment Comparison Survey (CLECS) into Norwegian and to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Norwegian version. Design A cross‐sectional survey including a longitudinal component. Methods The CLECS was translated into Norwegian following the World Health Organization guidelines, including forward translation, expert panel, back‐translation, pre‐testing and cognitive interviewing. Nursing students at a Norwegian university college were invited to participate in the study (psychometrical testing) based on informed consent. Reliability and validity of the translated version of CLECS were investigated using a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), Cronbach's alpha and test–retest analysis. Results A total of 122 nursing students completed the questionnaire and Cronbach alphas for the CLECS subscales ranged from 0.69 to 0.89. CFA goodness‐of‐fit indices (χ2/df = 1.409, CFI = 0.915, RMSEA = 0.058) showed acceptable model fit. Test–retest ICC ranged from 0.55 to 0.75, except for two subscales with values below 0.5
ISSN:2054-1058
2054-1058
DOI:10.1002/nop2.742