Teresa A Bates1, Patricia C Clark2. 1. Byrdine F. Lewis College of Nursing and Health Professions, Georgia State University, United States of America. Electronic address: tbates@gsu.edu. 2. Byrdine F. Lewis College of Nursing and Health Professions, Georgia State University, United States of America.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Instruments developed to measure simulation learning outcomes need evidence of their reliability and validity for rigorous research. The purpose of this paper is to report psychometric properties of the English version of the Simulation Learning Effectiveness Inventory. METHODS: Psychometric properties of the English version of the Simulation Learning Effectiveness Inventory, which included internal consistency reliability and construct validity with factor analysis, were examined in a sample of 132 undergraduate nursing students. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha coefficients were >0.70 for all subscales. There was evidence of convergent, discriminant, and known-group validity. The factor analysis resulted in some items being associated with different subscales than in the original Chinese version. CONCLUSIONS: The English version of the Simulation Learning Effectiveness Inventory has evidence of reliability and validity. Additional psychometric studies may result in changes in some of the subscales.
BACKGROUND: Instruments developed to measure simulation learning outcomes need evidence of their reliability and validity for rigorous research. The purpose of this paper is to report psychometric properties of the English version of the Simulation Learning Effectiveness Inventory. METHODS: Psychometric properties of the English version of the Simulation Learning Effectiveness Inventory, which included internal consistency reliability and construct validity with factor analysis, were examined in a sample of 132 undergraduate nursing students. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha coefficients were >0.70 for all subscales. There was evidence of convergent, discriminant, and known-group validity. The factor analysis resulted in some items being associated with different subscales than in the original Chinese version. CONCLUSIONS: The English version of the Simulation Learning Effectiveness Inventory has evidence of reliability and validity. Additional psychometric studies may result in changes in some of the subscales.