Safe Learning Environment Perception Scale (SLEPS): A Validity and Reliability Study

Yıl 2019, , 444 - 460, 15.10.2019

Sayed Masood Haidari , Fazilet Karakuş

https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.550393

Cited By: 1

Öz

The purpose of this study was to develop and cross-validate a measurement scale on students’ perception of a psychologically safe learning environment in the Turkish context. Primarily, the scale items underwent two rounds of expert review. Then, a series of item elimination or revisions were performed to improve their relevance to the content domain and their comprehensibility for the target group according to the CVI and modified kappa statistics. The results yielded a strong content validity and clarity of the items. Then, the exploratory factor analysis and parallel analysis were performed based on the data from 556 secondary school students (grade 5-8), which suggested a three-factor solution. The KMO was 0.942 > 0.50 with significant Bartlett test values, x2(496) = 8295.592, p < 0.001 and the explained total variance was 50.622 %. Each item had a factor loading of > 0.58 with > 0.40 common correlations. To validate this structure, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted based on the data from a different group of students (N = 339). The goodness of fit indices, factor loadings, and the t statistics supported a good-fitting measurement model, x2(N = 339) = 925.29, df = 461, p < 0.001; x2/df = 2, NFI = 0.94, NNFI = 0.97, CFI = 0.97, SRMR = 0.069, RMSEA = 0.055. The convergent and discriminant validity were also supported. In general, the SLEPS has potential applicability both at the lower and upper secondary schools (public and private) and at the educational centers for the gifted.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Psychological safety, Emotional safety, Classroom environment, Relationships, Validity, Reliability

Safe Learning Environment Perception Scale (SLEPS): A Validity and Reliability Study

Öz

The purpose of this study was to develop and
cross-validate a measurement scale on students’ perception of a psychologically
safe learning environment in the Turkish context. Primarily, the scale items
underwent two rounds of expert review. Then, a series of item elimination or
revisions were performed to improve their relevance to the content domain and
their comprehensibility for the target group according to the CVI and modified
kappa statistics. The results yielded a strong content validity and clarity of
the items. Then, the exploratory factor analysis and parallel analysis were
performed based on the data from 556 secondary school students (grade 5-8),
which suggested a three-factor solution. The KMO was 0.942 > 0.50 with
significant Bartlett test values, x²(496) = 8295.592, p < 0.001 and the explained
total variance was 50.622 %. Each item had a factor loading of > 0.58
with > 0.40 common correlations. To validate this structure, confirmatory
factor analysis was conducted based on the data from a different group of
students (N = 339). The goodness of fit indices, factor loadings, and
the t statistics supported a good-fitting measurement model, x²(N = 339) = 925.29, df
= 461, p < 0.001; x²/df
= 2, NFI = 0.94, NNFI = 0.97, CFI
= 0.97, SRMR = 0.069, RMSEA = 0.055. The convergent and discriminant validity
were also supported. In general, the SLEPS has potential applicability both at
the lower and upper secondary schools (public and private) and at the
educational centers for the gifted.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Psychological safety, Emotional safety, Classroom environment, Relationships, Validity

Kaynakça

• Aldrich, J. O. & Cunningham, J. B. (2016). Using IBM® SPSS Statistics (2nd ed.). USA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
• Beamon, G. W. (1993). Is Your Classroom “Safe” for Thinking? Introducing an Observation Instrument to Assess Classroom Climate and Teacher Questioning Strategies. Research in Middle Level Education, 17(1), 91-110.
• Beamon, G. W. (2001). Making Classroom “Safe” for Adolescent Learning. Paper Presented at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Dallas, Texas.
• Boostrom, R. (1998). ‘Safe spaces’: reflections on an educational metaphor. Curriculum Studies, 30(4), 397-408).
• Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research (2nd ed). USA: The Guilford Press.
• Capern, T. & Hammond, L. (2014). Establishing Positive Relationships with Secondary Gifted Students and Students with Emotional/Behavioural Disorders: Giving These Diverse Learners What They Need. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39, 46-67. doi:10.14221/ajte.2014v39n4.5
• Çokluk, Ö. & Koçak, D. (2016) Using Horn’s Parallel Analysis Method in Exploratory Factor Analysis for Determining the Number of Factors. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 16, 537-551. doi:10.12738/estp.2016.2.0328
• Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (3rd ed.). Oriental Press, Dubai: SAGE Publication.
• Foldy, E. R., Rivard, P. and Buckley, T. R. (2009). Power, Safety, and Learning in Racially Diverse Groups. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(1), 25–41.
• Frisby, B. N., Berger, E., Burchett, M., Herovic, E. & Strawser, M. G. (2014). Participation Apprehensive Students: The Influence of Face Support and Instructor– Student Rapport on Classroom Participation. Communication Education, 63, 105 - 123. doi:10.1080/03634523.2014.881516
• Gayle, B. M., Cortez, D. & Preiss, R. W. (2013). Safe Spaces, Difficult Dialogues, and Critical Thinking. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 7(2). doi:10.20429/ijsotl.2013.070205
• Gillen, A., Wright, A. & Spink, L. (2011). Student perceptions of a positive climate for learning: a case study. Educational Psychology in Practice, 27, 65 - 82. doi:10.1080/02667363.2011.549355
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.). USA: Pearson Education Limited.
• Holley, L. C. & Steiner, S. (2005) Safe Space: Student Perspectives on Classroom Environment, Journal of Social Work Education, 41(1), 49-64.
• Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
• Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling (4th ed). USA: The Guilford Press.
• Lynn, M.R. (1986). Determination and Quantification of Content Validity. Nursing Research, 35, 382–385.
• Patil, H. V., Singh, S. N., Mishra, S. & Donavan, D. T. (2007). Parallel Analysis Engine to Aid in Determining Number of Factors to Retain [Computer software], Available from http://ires.ku.edu/~smishra/parallelengine.htm
• Patil, H. V., Singh, S. N., Mishra, S. & Donavan, D. T. (2008). Efficient theory development and factor retention criteria: Abandon the ‘eigenvalue greater than one’ criterion. Journal of Business Research, 61, 162-170. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.05.008
• Pilot, D. F. and Beck, C. T. (2006). The Content Validity Index: Are You Sure You Know What’s Being Reported? Critique and Recommendations. Research in Nursing and Health, 29, 489-497. doi:10.1002/nur.20147
• Pilot, D. F., Beck, C. T. and Owen, S. V. (2007). Focus on Research Methods: Is the CVI an Acceptable Indicator of Content Validity? Appraisal and Recommendations. Research in Nursing and Health, 30, 459-467. doi:10.1002/nur.20199
• Pituch, K. A. & Stevens, J. P. (2016). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Science (6th ed). New York: Routledge.
• Raghallaigh, M. N. & Cunniffe, R. (2013). Creating a safe climate for active learning and student engagement: an example from an introductory social work module. Teaching in Higher Education, 18, 93-105. doi:10.1080/13562517.2012.694103
• Seçer, I. (2013). SPSS ve LISREL ile Pratik Veri Analizi: Analiz ve Raporlaştırma [Practical Data Analysis with SPSS and LISREL: Analysing and Reporting]. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
• Steven, J. P. (2009). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences (5th ed). USA: Routledge.
• Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics (6th Edition). USA: Pearson Education, Inc.
• Turner, S. & Braine, M. (2015). Unravelling the ‘Safe’ concept in teaching: what can we learn from teachers’ understanding?. Pastoral Care in Education, 33(1), 47-62.
• Walts, C. F., Strickland, O. L., & Lenz, E. R. (2010). Measurement in Nursing and Health Research (4th ed). New York: Springer Publishing Company, LLC.
• Wanless, S. B. (2016). The Role of Psychological Safety in Human Development. Research in Human Development, 13, 6-14. doi:10.1080/15427609.2016.1141283
• Williams, B., Onsman, A., and Brown, T. (2010). Exploratory factor analysis: A five-step guide for novices. Journal of Emergency Primary Health Care (JEPHC), 8(3), 1-13.
• Zamanzadeh, V., Ghahramanian, A., Rassouli, M. Abbaszadeh, A. Alavi-Majid, H. and Nikanfar, A. R. (2015). Design and Implementation Content Validity Study: Development of an instrument for measuring Patient-Centered Communication. Journal of Caring Sciences, 4, 165-178. doi:10.15171/jcs.2015.017