4.3 Article

Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Korean Version of the Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM)

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2021/5591911

关键词

-

资金

  1. Institute of Korean Medicine Education and Evaluation
  2. Wonkwang University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study translated DREEM into Korean and evaluated its reliability and validity through psychometric analysis. The Korean version showed good overall model fit but low convergent and discriminant validity indices, suggesting the need for further research on factor structures in the Korean context.
Internationally, Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM) is being used to evaluate and compare students' awareness regarding medical education environment. This study aimed to adapt DREEM into Korean, to evaluate the reliability and validity, and to compare its structure to the original DREEM structure. The DREEM was translated using 6 steps which were suggested in cross-cultural adaptation protocols: translation, synthesis, back translation, expert committee review, pilot test, and psychometric study (N = 451). We performed confirmatory factor analysis including basic analysis. For evaluating the original model's goodness of fit with the acquired dataset, model fit indices and construct validity were discussed. The Korean version was completed upon through cross-cultural adaptation protocols. Statistical analysis with 451 data sets showed that the root mean square error of approximation = 0.06, goodness-of-fit index = 0.75, and Tucker-Lewis index = 0.73. Almost construct reliabilities were all over 0.707. Except for just one pair, all squares of correlation coefficients were greater than the corresponding average variance extracted. In conclusion, we developed the Korean version of DREEM. Although the original 5-factor structure was acceptable, low convergent and discriminant validity indices suggested that further studies for the Korean environment are necessary for the respecified or modified factor structures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据