ArticleBMC psychology2026
Development of the online course learning adjustment scale for undergraduate.
Article in BMC psychology, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOnline learning differs substantially from traditional classroom learning in terms of instructional supervision, interaction, environmental distraction, and demands for self-regulation. However, instruments specifically designed to assess undergraduates' adjustment to online course learning remain limited. This study aimed to develop and validate the Online Course Learning Adjustment Scale for Undergraduates.
methodsAn initial pool of 29 items was generated through a literature review, semi-structured interviews with 20 undergraduates, and evaluations by experts and graduate students in psychology and education. The initial questionnaire was administered to 217 undergraduates for item analysis and exploratory factor analysis. An independent sample of 532 undergraduates was then used for confirmatory factor analysis, criterion-related validity analysis, and reliability testing.
resultsItem analysis indicated that all initial items had adequate discriminatory power. Exploratory factor analysis resulted in a 22-item scale comprising four factors: online learning ability, online learning behavior, online learning attention, and online learning attitude. The four factors explained 57.83% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the four-factor model provided a good fit to the data and performed better than the alternative three-factor model (χ²/df = 2.288, RMSEA = 0.049, CFI = 0.948, TLI = 0.941, and SRMR = 0.047). The total scale demonstrated good internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.894) and split-half reliability (0.763). The total score and four subscale scores were positively correlated with academic performance (r = 0.157-0.378, all p < 0.01), supporting criterion-related validity.
conclusionThe Online Course Learning Adjustment Scale for Undergraduates demonstrates satisfactory factorial validity, criterion-related validity, and reliability. It may serve as a useful instrument for assessing undergraduates' adjustment to online course learning and identifying areas in which students require additional educational support.
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.