ArticleBMC medical education2025
Validity and reliability study of the dental students of attitudes towards online learning scale.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe shift to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for reliable tools to evaluate students' attitudes. This study aimed to adapt the "Medical School Students' Attitudes Towards Online Learning Scale" for dental students and assess its validity and reliability.
methodsA cross-sectional study with 181 dental students was conducted. Data were analyzed for mean, standard deviation, count, and percentage. Validity analyses included the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett's Sphericity test for factor analysis suitability. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) assessed construct validity. Reliability was evaluated through Cronbach's Alpha, item-total correlations, and split-half reliability. Model fit indices (χ²/df, RMSEA, CFI, TLI, SRMR) were used to ensure acceptable goodness-of-fit values. Analyses were conducted using SPSS 20.0 and JAMOVI 2.5.3, with p < 0.05.
resultsThe first-order CFA model aligned with the original structure (χ²/df = 2.336, RMSEA = 0.080, SRMR = 0.069, CFI = 0.893). Cronbach's alpha was 0.938 for the entire scale and ranged from 0.876 to 0.930 for subdimensions. Item reliability analyses showed alpha values from 0.933 to 0.939, while split-half reliability coefficients ranged from 0.865 to 0.930. Hotelling's T² test revealed significant differences in item means (p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe adapted scale exhibited strong psychometric properties, making it a reliable tool for assessing dental students' attitudes towards online learning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.