E- Öğrenme Memnuniyet Ölçeği’nin Türkçe Geçerlilik ve Güvenilirlik Çalışması

Abstract

Amaç: E-öğrenme eğitiminin COVID-19 pandemisi ile birlikte tüm dünyada yaygın olarak kullanılması ve internet teknolojisindeki ilerlemeler nedeniyle, öğrenci memnuniyetini kolayca ölçmek için doğrulanmış bir ölçüm aracına ihtiyaç olduğu görülmüştür. Bu çalışma e-Öğrenme Memnuniyeti Ölçeği'nin (e-ÖMÖ) Türkçe geçerlik ve güvenirliğini incelemek amacıyla yapıldı. Gereç Yöntem Metodolojik türdeki araştırma Kasım 2022- Şubat 2023 tarihleri arasında Atatürk Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi, Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Eczacılık Fakültesi, Diş Hekimliği Fakültesinden toplam 537 öğrencileri ile yürütüldü. Ölçeğin kapsam geçerliliğini belirlemek amacıyla maddeler uzman görüşüne sunuldu. Ölçeğin yapı geçerliği açımlayıcı faktör analizi ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile test edildi. Çalışmada ölçeğin kararlılığını test etmek amacıyla eşdeğer (paralel) formlar güvenilirliği yöntemi kullanıldı. Bulgular Açımlayıcı faktör analizi sonuçlarına göre Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin değeri 0.94, Bartlett testi χ2 126.773; p < 0.001 olarak belirlendi. Faktör yük değerlerinin “Content” alt boyutu için .825-.354 aralığında, “Interface” alt boyutu için .859-.571 aralığında ve “Communication” alt boyutu için .802-.654 aralığında olduğu saptandı. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizinde test edilen ölçekli modelin uyum indeksleri χ 2 /df = 4.332, TLI = .915, RMSEA = .079, SRMR = .0481, AGFI = .857, GFI = .896, IFI = .931 CFI = .930 olarak belirlendi. Taslak ölçeğin yapısı 3 faktör ve 17 madde ile doğrulandı. Cronbach alfa değerleri ölçeğin alt boyutları için 0.86-0.86-0.83, toplam ölçek için 0.93 olarak bulundu. Sonuç Bu ölçeğin, Sağlık bilimleri öğrencilerinin e-öğrenme memnuniyet düzeylerini belirlemede geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu saptandı.

Keywords

• E- Öğrenme
• memnuniyet
• geçerlilik
• güvebilirlik

The Validity and Reliability Study of the Turkish Version of the E-Learning Satisfaction Scale

Abstract

Objective: Because of the widespread use of e-learning education worldwide with the COVID-19 pandemic and advancements in internet technology, it has been observed that there is a need for a validated measurement tool to easily measure student satisfaction. The present research was performed to examine the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the e-Learning Satisfaction Scale (e-LSS). Methods The present research is a cross-sectional, methodological study. A university in the Eastern Anatolia Region of Turkey. A total of 537 health science students participated in the study. The current study was performed with students studying in the fields of health sciences at Atatürk University between November 2022 and February 2023. To determine the scale’s content validity, the items were submitted to expert opinion. The construct validity of the scale was tested using exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. In the study, the equivalent (parallel) forms reliability method was employed to test the scale’s stability. Results In accordance with the results of exploratory factor analysis, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value was 0.94, Bartlett’s test value was χ2 126.773, and the p-value was < 0.001. Factor loading values were found to be in the range of .825-.354 for the “Content” subscale, between .859-.571 for the “Interface” subscale, and between .802-.654 for the “Communication” subscale. The fit indices of the scaled model tested in confirmatory factor analysis were identified as χ 2 /df = 4.332, TLI = .915, RMSEA = .079, SRMR = .0481, AGFI = .857, GFI = .896, IFI = .931, and CFI = .930. The structure of the draft scale was confirmed with 3 factors and 17 items. Cronbach's alpha values were 0.86-0.86-0.83 for the subscales and 0.93 for the overall scale. Conclusions It was revealed that this scale was a valid and reliable measurement tool in determining the e-learning satisfaction levels of health science students.

Keywords

• E-Learning
• Satisfaction
• Validity and Reliability

References

1. Beavers, A. S., Lounsbury, J. W., Richards, J. K., Huck, S. W., Skolits, G. J., & Esquivel, S. L. (2013). Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 18(6), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.7275/qv2q-rk76
2. Bergmann, J., Krewer, C., Müller, F., & Jahn, K. (2022). The Scale for Retropulsion: Internal consistency, reliability and construct validity. Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 65(2), 101537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2021.101537
3. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
4. Byrne, B. M. (2011). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge.
5. Cantoni, V., Cellario, M., & Porta, M. (2004). Perspectives and challenges in e-learning: Towards natural interaction paradigms. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 15(5), 333–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvlc.2003.10.002
6. Clark, D. A., & Bowles, R. P. (2018). Model fit and item factor analysis: Overfactoring, underfactoring, and a program to guide interpretation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 53(4), 544–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2018.1461058
7. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları (2. bs.). Pegem Akademi.
8. Duffecy, J., Grekin, R., Hinkel, H., Gallivan, N., Nelson, G., & O'Hara, M. W. (2019). A group-based online intervention to prevent postpartum depression (Sunnyside): Feasibility randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mental Health, 6(5), e10778. https://doi.org/10.2196/10778

9. Forman, D., Nyatanga, L., & Rich, T. (2002). E-learning and educational diversity. Nurse Education Today, 22(1), 76–82. https://doi.org/10.1054/nedt.2001.0740
10. Geçer, A. K., & Topal, A. D. (2015). Development of satisfaction scale for e-course: Reliability and validity study. Theory and Practice in Education, 11(4), 1272–1287.
11. Hwang, S., & Kim, H. K. (2022). Development and validation of the e-learning satisfaction scale (eLSS). Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 17(4), 403–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2022.02.004
12. Lara, J. A., Aljawarneh, S., & Pamplona, S. (2020). Special issue on the current trends in e-learning assessment. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 32(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-019-09235-w
13. Lee, D. H., & Hwang, S. G. (2005). A study on education satisfaction of e-learning. Journal of the Korean Institute of Intelligent Systems, 15(2), 245–250. https://doi.org/10.5391/JKIIS.2005.15.2.245
14. Maatuk, A. M., Elberkawi, E. K., Aljawarneh, S., Rashaideh, H., & Alharbi, H. (2022). The COVID-19 pandemic and e-learning: Challenges and opportunities from the perspective of students and instructors. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 34(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-021-09274-2
15. Mazanec, P., Ferrell, B., Malloy, P., & Virani, R. (2019). Educating associate degree nursing students in primary palliative care using online e-learning. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 14(1), 58–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2018.10.002
16. Mystakidis, S., Berki, E., & Valtanen, J. P. (2021). Deep and meaningful e-learning with social virtual reality environments in higher education: A systematic literature review. Applied Sciences, 11(5), 2412. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11052412
17. Sinclair, P. M., Kable, A., Levett-Jones, T., & Booth, D. (2016). The effectiveness of internet-based e-learning on clinician behaviour and patient outcomes: A systematic review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 57, 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.01.011
18. Sousa, V. D., & Rojjanasrirat, W. (2011). Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: A clear and user-friendly guideline. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17(2), 268–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x
19. Yaşlıoğlu, M. M. (2017). Factor analysis and validity in social sciences: Application of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 46(2), 74–85.