Validation of the Polish version of the DREEM questionnaire – a confirmatory factor analysis

Abstract

Aim The aim of our study was to translate and adapt the Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM) questionnaire developed by Roff et al. to the cultural conditions in Poland and also to validate it. Studying the learning environment is beneficial because it can identify students’ perceptions of their environment and support the staff in reflecting on, planning for and combining proper teaching approaches to improve it. Methods The DREEM questionnaire was completed by students of all years (first–fifth) in the faculties of dental medicine at the Medical University of Lublin and the Medical University of Gdańsk. The total surveyed population consisted of 650 students. Validity was separated into four phases: (1) translation validity, (2) confirmatory factor analysis, (3) concurrent validity and (4) criterion-related validity. Results Our study confirmed the original structure of the DREEM tool (GFI = 0.955, AGFI = 0.951, NFI = 0.931, TLI = 0.962, CFI = 0.964, RNI = 0.964, IFI = 0.964, RFI = 0.928, PNFI = 0.885, SRMR = 0.062, RMSEA = 0.043, 90% CI = 0.041–0.046) and obtained very good reliability rates, with Cronbach’s alpha > 0.7 for all scales. Only Subscale V achieved a lower Cronbach’s alpha of > 0.5. The study was conducted using the test–retest method, which is why the intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability were also calculated; individual items showed both medium and good correspondence. Conclusions Our study provided good evidence for the reliability and validity of the Polish version of the DREEM. In conclusion, the Polish-language version of the DREEM questionnaire is a reliable and valid instrument for analysing the learning environment for dental students and its factor structure is supported by the data.

Validation of the Polish version of the Johns Hopkins Learning Environment Scale–a confirmatory factor analysis

“…The aim of the project was to validate DREEM and JHLES. The validation of the DREEM questionnaire has already been published 25 . The aim of the project was also to validate a more modern questionnaire that is becoming increasingly popular.…”

“…Before starting the survey, each collaborator briefly clarified the aims of the study and the method by which the data will be processed, particularly emphasizing aspects of voluntary participation and anonymity. Sociodemographic data such as age, gender, academic year and origin were also collected 25 .…”

“…Students were informed that 35 days later they would have both the JHLES and DREEM retested. Both questtionnaires were validated simultaneously 25 .…”

“…To compare both the test and the retest data, students were asked to encode their surveys; surveys were pseudoanonymized, and the students were able to obtain a number from the random number generator. Surveys that had not been encoded or had no matching test/retest surveys were excluded from study 25 .…”

“…Sample size selection was based on the generally accepted rule of thumb that there must be at least 5–15 cases per estimated parameter in the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) 25 .…”