Clinical Learning Environment, Supervision and Teacher Evaluation Scale: Psychometric Evaluation of the Persian Version Publisher Pubmed



Hakimi H ; Shamsi A ; Farahani MA ; Dorri S
Source: BMC Medical Education Published:2025

Abstract

Background: Clinical education is pivotal in nursing education programs, with students’ feedback being crucial for enhancing educational quality. Hence, a reliable tool is essential to assess students’ perspectives. This study aimed to validate the Clinical Learning Environment, Supervision, and Nurse Teacher (CLES + T) scale from the viewpoint of students. Methods: This methodological study was conducted between November 2016 and December 2018. The CLES + T underwent forward translation from English to Persian and back-translation to English. To ensure qualitative face validity, the questionnaire was reviewed by 10 nursing faculty professors in Iran. Quantitative face validity was determined by calculating the item impact index with the target group. Content validity was evaluated using the Content Validity Ratio (CVR) and Content Validity Index (CVI). Construct validity was established by administering the questionnaire to 427 nursing students, followed by confirmatory factor analysis. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Results: The findings show that the value of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and composite reliability for research constructs is above 0.7. Therefore, the research constructs have a very favorable fit. Regarding structural validity, items 2, 3, and 13 were removed from the final questionnaire due to factor loadings below 0.4. Also, for two constructs, supervisory relationship and pedagogical atmosphere, a value lower than 0.5 was calculated, which is due to not obtaining a high AVE value. The value of the coefficient of determination for all the endogenous structures of the model are in the acceptable range, which indicates a very favorable fit of the structural model of the research. Conclusions: The Persian version of the CLES + T tool exhibited appropriate validity and reliability, making it a valuable instrument for students to evaluate clinical mentors, supervisors, and the clinical environment. © The Author(s) 2025.