Da-In Park; Joohee Shim

doi:10.4040/jkan.25125

Articles

Page Path: HOME > J Korean Acad Nurs > Volume 56(1); 2026 > Article

Research Paper
Psychometric testing of the Korean version of the Undergraduate Nursing Student Academic Satisfaction Scale: a methodological study: Da-In Park¹, Joohee Shim²; Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing 2026;56(1):51-66.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.25125
Published online: February 9, 2026

¹Research Institute of Nursing Innovation, College of Nursing, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, South Korea

²College of Nursing, Yeungnam University College, Daegu, South Korea

Corresponding author: Joohee Shim College of Nursing, Yeungnam University College, 170 Hyeonchung-ro, Nam-gu, Daegu 42415, South Korea E-mail: jhshim1027@gmail.com

• Received: September 4, 2025 • Revised: December 17, 2025 • Accepted: December 18, 2025

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NoDerivs License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0) If the original work is properly cited and retained without any modification or reproduction, it can be used and re-distributed in any format and medium.

1,543 Views
167 Download
1 Crossref

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Article Information
References
Appendix

This article has been corrected. See "Corrigendum: Psychometric testing of the Korean version of the Undergraduate Nursing Student Academic Satisfaction Scale: a methodological study" in Volume 56 on page 289.

Abstract

Purpose
This study aimed to translate, cross-culturally adapt, and evaluate the psychometric properties of the Korean version of the Undergraduate Nursing Student Academic Satisfaction Scale (K-UNSASS).
Methods
The K-UNSASS was developed using Brislin’s team-based translation–back-translation approach, with semantic and conceptual equivalence examined. Face validity was assessed, and a pilot test was conducted in November 2022. Content validity was evaluated by an expert panel. Formal data collection was conducted from December 2022 to January 2023. Structural validity was examined using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega coefficients.
Results
A total of 482 full-time nursing students, most of whom were in the fourth year of their nursing program, were included in the psychometric testing. Construct validity supported a four-factor structure accounting for 65.9% of the total variance. After removal of three items with unsatisfactory factor loadings, a 45-item K-UNSASS was established. Confirmatory factor analysis of the 45-item K-UNSASS demonstrated an acceptable model fit, and both Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega coefficients were .97.
Conclusion
The K-UNSASS demonstrates acceptable reliability and validity for assessing academic satisfaction among Korean nursing students. As a culturally relevant instrument, it supports educational improvement through targeted strategies and program evaluation.
Key words: Educational measurement; Nursing students; Personal satisfaction; Psychometrics; Validation study

Introduction

Nursing education represents a comprehensive curriculum designed to cultivate an integrated foundation of theoretical knowledge and clinical competencies [1]. The quality of students’ learning experiences plays a pivotal role in shaping their future capabilities as professional nurses [2]. Within this educational framework, academic satisfaction serves as a critical indicator reflecting the quality standards of nursing programs and has been identified as one of the essential factors for evaluating educational outcomes in nursing education [3].

Academic satisfaction is defined as a psychological state that reflects the confirmation of students’ expectations regarding their academic reality and represents their subjective evaluation of the overall educational experience [4,5], and is a multidimensional construct encompassing teaching, curricula, social interactions, and learning environments [6]. It is closely associated with positive educational outcomes, including students’ academic motivation, self-efficacy, academic achievement, and self-confidence [7]. The level of academic satisfaction significantly influences both academic performance and professional development [5]. Nursing students who report higher academic satisfaction demonstrate multiple positive outcomes. They effectively acquire new knowledge, enhance clinical skills, develop professional attitudes, and maintain optimistic perspectives regarding their future careers [2]. Higher satisfaction correlates with reduced stress levels [8], increased participation in class, greater investment of effort in studies, and improved academic persistence [9,10]. Conversely, low academic satisfaction precipitates adverse outcomes, including academic burnout, poor performance, depression, and anxiety [11,12], potentially leading to program attrition [13]. Therefore, assessing nursing students’ academic satisfaction is essential for identifying and supporting at-risk students in achieving their academic goals [11].

Measuring academic satisfaction is an important initial step in identifying both areas requiring potential improvement and existing strengths to satisfy students’ needs [3]. In higher education, measuring student satisfaction helps understand their overall educational experience and expectations, thereby contributing to program development and enhancement [4,14]. Student satisfaction demonstrates strong associations with academic persistence [15] and has gained increasing attention due to growing demands from both students and healthcare institutions for quality nursing education [4]. Through systematic satisfaction assessments, universities can evaluate program strengths and weaknesses, allocate resources appropriately, and utilize satisfaction data as a quality indicator for educational outcomes [16]. Comprehensive assessments typically encompass multiple dimensions: institutional context, curriculum design, lecture quality, theory-practice integration, evaluation systems, faculty-student and peer interactions, and institutional facilities and support services [17,18]. Additionally, academic satisfaction influences students’ perceived reputation and loyalty [19], thereby serving as a valuable metric for assessing institutional effectiveness and success [5].

Despite the recognized importance of academic satisfaction, existing research presents significant limitations. A comprehensive literature review reveals that studies investigating nursing students’ academic satisfaction have been predominantly narrow in scope, focusing primarily on satisfaction with specific courses [20-22], particular program delivery methods [23], or particular clinical experiences [24]. More critically, existing satisfaction measurement instruments demonstrate substantial methodological limitations. These include insufficient evidence of reliability and validity [25,26], inadequate internal consistency with Cronbach’s α coefficients as low as .27 [27], and suboptimal psychometric properties with reliability coefficients ranging from .36 to .70 [28]. Such limitations compromise the ability to accurately assess and compare academic satisfaction across nursing programs and contexts.

To address these methodological gaps, the Undergraduate Nursing Student Academic Satisfaction Scale (UNSASS) was developed as a comprehensive, nursing-specific instrument with demonstrated validity and reliability [3]. Unlike previous instruments, UNSASS reflects the unique characteristics of nursing education by integrating both theoretical and clinical components across four key domains: in-class teaching, clinical teaching, the program, and academic support and resources.

Since its development, UNSASS has been widely employed in international nursing education research. Several studies have validated translated versions of the scale, confirming its multidimensional structure and internal consistency across diverse cultural contexts, including Spanish [29] and Turkish [30], and Persian populations [31]. Beyond translation and validation studies, UNSASS has been applied in various educational research contexts. El Seesy et al. [32] utilized UNSASS to evaluate nursing students’ satisfaction with their academic programs in a cross-sectional study, providing empirical evidence of the instrument’s utility in assessing satisfaction across different educational dimensions. Furthermore, the instrument has been employed to examine factors influencing nursing students’ perceptions of empowerment, demonstrating a strong correlation between empowerment perception and academic satisfaction [33].

UNSASS has also been referenced in comparative satisfaction research and instrument development studies. In the development of the Nursing Student Satisfaction Scale (NSSS) for Italian nursing students, researchers utilized UNSASS as a comparative framework to distinguish their instrument’s broader conceptualization of satisfaction from UNSASS’s more focused assessment of multidimensional academic satisfaction [34]. Similarly, Rahmatpour et al. [16] referenced UNSASS as a foundational framework in developing the Postgraduate Nursing Student Academic Satisfaction Scale, adapting the undergraduate-focused instrument to address the unique characteristics of graduate-level nursing education.

In South Korea, while several instruments exist to measure satisfaction among nursing students, these tools predominantly focus on specific domains such as major satisfaction [35] or clinical practice satisfaction [36] rather than providing a comprehensive assessment of overall academic satisfaction in nursing education. Current research has actively employed domain-specific instruments; however, validated instruments designed to measure holistic academic satisfaction across the full spectrum of nursing education remain notably absent. To accurately evaluate Korean nursing students’ academic satisfaction across both theoretical and clinical learning contexts, a comprehensive instrument such as UNSASS is needed—one that measures satisfaction across multiple academic dimensions including in-class teaching, clinical instruction, the program, and academic support resources, rather than merely assessing learning environment or overall program satisfaction.

Despite the global utilization of UNSASS and its demonstrated psychometric properties across various cultural contexts [29-31], a validated Korean version remains unavailable. Direct application of the original English version would be inappropriate given substantial cultural and educational system differences between Western and Korean contexts. These cultural and structural factors may fundamentally influence how academic satisfaction is experienced and expressed among Korean nursing students.

Therefore, systematic cultural adaptation and rigorous psychometric validation of UNSASS for the Korean context are essential to ensure the instrument's linguistic equivalence, cultural relevance, and psychometric soundness. A validated Korean version would provide nurse educators and researchers with a reliable tool to comprehensively assess academic satisfaction among Korean nursing students, thereby contributing to enhancing the quality of nursing education in Korea.

Methods

1. Study design

This study used a methodological study design to examine the psychometric properties of the Korean version of the Undergraduate Nursing Student Academic Satisfaction Scale (K-UNSASS).

2. Study participants

In order to fully capture all suggested domains that affect undergraduate nursing program and student satisfaction, including (1) clinical teaching, (2) in-class teaching, (3) the program, and (4) support and resources within the program, the original authors of the UNSASS have advised and recommended conducting the psychometric testing on students who have experienced both didactic and practicum courses offered by their undergraduate nursing programs [3]. Therefore, we intentionally collected the formal data for the psychometric testing of K-UNSASS from December to January, which is the end of the academic year in Korea, and included students who have just finished their third- and fourth-year nursing courses. Therefore, we ensured all of our included participants to have taken both in-class and clinical nursing courses. Furthermore, we also included participants who had finished at least 3 years of their nursing program with at least two semesters of clinical practicum courses, ensuring a thorough assessment of each subscale. Additionally, those who were at least 18 years old and had enrolled in a 4-year baccalaureate nursing program as a full-time student were included. As 4-year baccalaureate nursing degree programs are offered in both technical colleges and universities in Korea, students enrolled in these two school types were included. Finally, those who satisfied the eligibility criteria and provided their voluntary informed consent were included. Data regarding the study participants’ general characteristics were collected using a structured questionnaire. Considering the study purpose, these data only included age, sex, and grade in the respective nursing program.

3. Instruments

The UNSASS—developed by Dennison and El-Masri [3] in 2012—comprehensively assesses nursing programs beyond classroom teaching. The scale’s development followed a rigorous methodological process. Initial item generation based on literature review and expert consultation yielded 99 items, which were refined to 62 items following face validity testing with nursing students [3]. Content validity assessment demonstrated a strong content validity index (CVI) of .83 [3]. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) further reduced the instrument to 48 items grouped into four distinct factors, explaining over 50% of the total variance [3]. The final scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency reliability and a clear multidimensional structure, confirming its robust psychometric properties [3]. Grounded in conceptual framework derived from extensive literature review and input from nursing students and faculty members, the scale focuses on measuring satisfaction levels of undergraduate students enrolled in baccalaureate nursing programs and capturing all integral aspects of their learning experience [3,29]. As a multidimensional questionnaire, it includes four subscales that assess students’ satisfaction with clinical teaching, in-class teaching, the program, and academic support and resources [3]. Each item is scored on a 5-point Likert scale, with total scores ranging from 48 to 240.

4. Study procedure

This study adopted a methodological approach to evaluate the psychometric properties of the K-UNSASS by using two-phase approach: (1) cross-cultural translation following international standards, and (2) psychometric evaluation through EFA, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and assessment of internal consistency.

1) Cross-cultural adaptation

After obtaining the permission to translate the UNSASS from the original authors, the K-UNSASS was developed using Brislin’s team-based, translation–back-translation approach, which is considered the standard method for cross-cultural research [37,38]. Considering the cultural differences between undergraduate nursing programs in Canada, where the original UNSASS was developed, and in Korea, the translators involved in the cross-cultural adaptation had diverse expert backgrounds, thereby providing diverse perspectives for the translation. First, a bilingual nursing scholar translated the UNSASS from English (E1) to Korean (K1). Second, another bilingual scholar back-translated the K1 to English (E2). During the translation and back-translation processes, the two bilingual experts worked independently without consulting with each other; they were blinded to the original UNSASS version. After the translation and back-translation processes were completed, the researchers invited the following individuals to evaluate K1’s conceptual and semantic equivalences: the two aforementioned bilingual experts, another nursing scholar who teaches undergraduate in-class and clinical courses, and two newly graduated nurses. During this process, the invited members could engage in discussions with each other to compare K1 and E1 side by side. Conceptual equivalence is considered to be achieved when the translated instrument has the same cultural relevance as the original’s underlying concept [38]. Semantic equivalence is considered to be achieved when all items in the translated instrument convey the same meaning and yield similar effects and results as those in the original instrument [38]. After minor revisions, all members reached consensus that the translated scale's edited version (K2) had achieved both conceptual and semantic equivalence. Subsequently, an expert panel comprising 10 nursing educators, scholars, and researchers was consulted to assess content validity. The expert panel members were selected carefully based on their expertise in academia, teaching, and instrument development research. A heterogeneous panel of 10 experts voluntarily participated in the Delphi survey. The expert panel rated each item in K2 for its applicability to South Korean culture and for its alignment with the measurement purpose, using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very nonequivalent) to 4 (very equivalent). Additionally, recommendations to resolve translational errors were encouraged; their feedback informed the development of the 48-item K-UNSASS (K3).

2) Face validity

To validate K3’s scientific rigor and applicability, face validity and pilot testing were conducted using a convenience sample of 20 fourth-year nursing students. Participants in the pilot testing were informed in detail about the study’s purpose, as well as its confidential and voluntary nature. After the participants provided their informed consent, they were asked to review each item in K3 and offer feedback on the item’s content, applicability, and clarity, alongside any possible ambiguity or questions. Based on their feedback, some items were revised to minimize ambiguity. For instance, items 23 (“clinical instructors facilitate my ability to critically assess my client’s needs”) and 24 (“clinical instructors assign me to patients that are appropriate for my level of competence”) were revised to better portray South Korean nursing students’ clinical practicum environment. For both items, the subject “clinical instructors” was revised to “clinical instructors (or unit managers).” Revisions based on the pilot testing results enhanced the clarity, scientific rigor, and applicability of the 48-item K-UNSASS (K4) for formal data collection. Finally, K4 was employed for formal data collection and underwent item analyses, structural validity assessment, and reliability testing.

5. Data collection

The data collection process was conducted across two phases—specifically, a pilot test in November 2022 and formal data collection from December 2022 to January 2023. When conducting the psychometric testing of an instrument, it is recommended to include five to ten respondents per item to adequately assess its reliability and validity [37]; hence, the required sample size for performing the psychometric testing of the K-UNSASS was calculated as ranging from 240 to 480. Additionally, sample size recommendations were considered based on the statistical methodology employed. For an EFA and CFA, at least 100 and 200 participants are recommended, respectively [37,39]. To satisfy all aforementioned recommendations, we aimed to collect data from a minimum of 480 participants in their third or fourth years of their nursing programs.

6. Data analysis

All statistical analyses were conducted using the IBM SPSS statistical software ver. 29.0 (IBM Corp.) and AMOS statistical software ver. 23.0 (IBM Corp.). Considering the methodological nature of the study, the general characteristics of the study participants for the structural validity and reliability analyses included age, sex, grade, and school type as recommended by the original author and previous studies that developed a similar tool to measure academic satisfaction of 3-year technical college nursing students [3,29,40]. The normality of the final K-UNSASS variable was tested using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, the normal Q-Q plot, skewness, and kurtosis prior to structural validity testing.

1) Content validity

A 10-member expert panel evaluated the content validity of the K-UNSASS using a 4-point Likert scale. To ensure K2’s validity, CVIs were calculated for both individual item-level content validity index (I-CVI) and the overall scale-level content validity index (S-CVI) using the Delphi method [37,38,41]. Items with I-CVI scores of ≥.70, .70–.78, and <.70 were retained, revised, and excluded, respectively [41]. Moreover, after analyzing I-CVI scores, the scale-level content validity index was calculated using the average method (S-CVI/Ave) and universal agreement method (S-CVI/UA).

2) Structural validity

To test the scale’s structural validity, EFA using the principal component analysis extraction method and varimax with Kaiser normalization rotation was performed, based on a random sample of 240 responses. The best factor solution was determined using the results of a scree plot, eigenvalues, total variance, and interpretability [37]. Maximum likelihood analysis was employed to generate a scree plot for computing the factor number to be extracted. The data’s factorability was established through a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value exceeding .60 and a significant Bartlett’s test of sphericity. A loading score exceeding .40 was utilized as a cutting point, while a cumulative variance contribution rate greater than 60% was considered to indicate acceptable construct validity [37]. The number of factors was determined using the rule of eigenvalue greater than 1.

After determining the number of factors and items for each factor, CFA was performed to verify the model’s goodness of fit using various indices—including chi-square/degrees of freedom (χ²/df), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), and adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI). The CFA was performed based on a sample of 242 responses that are independent from the EFA analysis. The standardized factor loading of each item was examined with cutoff value set as ≥.50, and the average variance extracted (AVE) and construct reliability (CR) values of each extracted factor was examined [37]. As recommended, the acceptable values for AVE and CR were ≥.50 and ≥.70, respectively [37]. The incremental fit indices (IFI) included the normal fit index (NFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and comparative fit index (CFI). The model was considered to exhibit an acceptable fit according to the following criteria: χ²/df <5.00; RMSEA <0.08; GFI ≥0.80; AGFI ≥.80; and NFI, IFI, TLI, and CFI values ≥.80 [37,42,43].

3) Reliability analysis

The internal consistency reliability of the K-UNSASS was assessed using both the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and the McDonald’s omega coefficient, reflecting homogeneity of the overall scale and each subdomain. As the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient may provide false confidence in the consistency of the administration of K-UNSASS, McDonald’s omega coefficient, which ensures more realistic assumptions and minimize chance of inflation and attenuation of internal consistency, were further evaluated [44]. Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega coefficient values exceeding .70 were considered acceptable, indicating satisfactory reliability [37,44]. Additionally, the corrected item-total correlation (CITC) was calculated to assess reliability while controlling for potential bias. The CITC involves subtracting the item score from the total score and, subsequently, performing a correlation analysis between the item and corrected total score [37]. The CITC score of ≥.40 was deemed valid.

4) Descriptive statistics for the final K-UNSASS

After testing the scale’s structural validity and reliability, descriptive statistics were determined using frequencies for categorical variables and means and standard deviations for continuous variables. The participants’ average total and subscale scores on the final K-UNSASS were assessed. Moreover, independent t-tests were performed to compare group means based on participants’ demographic characteristics (i.e., age, sex, and grade). A p-value of <.05 on two-tailed tests was considered statistically significant.

7. Ethical consideration

Before commencing the translation and cultural adaptation processes, relevant authorization, and permission to use the UNSASS questionnaire were obtained from its original authors via e-mail. Additionally, we obtained ethical approval from the institutional review board of Yeungnam University College (IRB No. 2-7008156-AB-M-01-A-2022-009). Study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. All study participants including both nursing students and expert committee members were provided with detailed explanation regarding study purpose, procedures and the anonymity and voluntary nature of the study. Participants were fully informed of their rights including their options to withdraw from the study at any time without consequences. Data were collected after receiving voluntary informed consent. For nursing student participants, we intentionally collected data after the grade finalization period of the fall semester to entirely separate the study from academic evaluations, to absolutely exclude any possibility of potential bias resulting from the relationship between the researchers and study participants, and to ensure a fair and non-coercive environment.

Results

1. Participants’ characteristics

Study participants included 482 full-time nursing students, which satisfied the recommended sample size threshold to assess the 48-item scale’s reliability and validity. The participants’ mean age was 22.9±2.81 years, comprising 141 male (29.6%) and 341 female (70.4%) students. Most participants were in fourth-year students of their nursing programs (n=292; 60.6%), while the remainder were third-year students (n=190; 39.4%) (Table 1). Students enrolled in technical colleges and universities participated in the study at similar rates (n=202; 41.9% and n=280; 58.1%, respectively) (Table 1). Furthermore, the mean age of participants in EFA (22.82±2.89) and CFA (23.12±2.70) groups showed no statistical difference (t=–1.16, p=.250).

2. Content validity

The first translated version of K-UNSASS, K2, was tested for its content validity indices including both the I-CVI and S-CVI, respectively. None of the K2 items exhibited an I-CVI value below .70; hence, all 48 items were retained for construct validation. Content validity evaluation results revealed that the I-CVI scores ranged from .80 to 1, thus satisfying the required criterion. Furthermore, the S-CVI/Ave and S-CVI/UA values were .98 and .90, respectively.

3. Structural validity

1) EFA

The normality testing of the 48-item K-UNSASS (K3) using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, the normal Q-Q plot, skewness, and kurtosis revealed the data to be suitable as the assumptions of equal variance, normality and independence were satisfied. Then, an EFA was performed on the K3. The KMO value was .97, while Bartlett’s test of sphericity yielded a χ² value of 7,061.65 (df=630, p<.001), demonstrating the factorability of the items. Using principal component analysis, four common factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 were extracted, accounting for 65.9% of the total variance (Table 2). The factors extracted from the EFA analyses were as follows: (factor 1) the program, (factor 2) in-class teaching, (factor 3) support and resources within the program, and (factor 4) clinical teaching, respectively. These four factors were in accordance with the original UNSASS. Specifically, 12 items—consistent with the original scale—that captured the subdomain concerning the nursing program were loaded on factor 1, accounting for 20.1% of the total variance. Unlike the original UNSASS, item number 13, with a loading score of .33, was removed from factor 2, leaving 15 items to capture the subdomain of in-class teaching, accounting for 16.6% of the total variance. Factor 3, the support and resources subdomain, was loaded with 5 items consistent with the original scale, accounting for 15.4% of the total variance. Finally, after removing item number 24 and 31 with loading scores of 0.39 and 0.29, respectively, factor 4, the clinical teaching subdomain, was loaded with 13 items, accounting for 13.8% of the total variance (Table 2). After removing original items number 13 (‘Faculty members demonstrate a high level of knowledge in their subject area’), 24 (‘Clinical instructors assign me to patients that are appropriate for my level of competence’), and 31 (‘Faculty members behave professionally’) with loading scores of .33, .39, and .29, respectively, per the EFA, a 45-item K-UNSASS (K4) was established (Appendix 1).

2) CFA

A CFA was conducted to enhance the precision of the results concerning K4’s structural validity. The standardized factor loadings of all four factors were examined to determine the strength of the relationship between each observed variable and its underlying latent construct, and all items fulfilled the ≥.50 cutoff value (Table 3). Furthermore, all four factors exhibited AVE values ranging between .52–.59 and CR ranging between .88–.95 (Table 3). Indices of χ²/df, RMSEA, GFI, AGFI, and CFI were utilized to determine the model’s goodness of fit. The following results were observed: χ²/df=2.37; RMSEA=.05; GFI=.83; AGFI=.81; NFI=.86; IFI=.91; TLI=.90; and CFI=.91, indicating a satisfactory model (TLI=.90) (Table 3).

4. Reliability

Prior to the reliability analyses, the normality of the 45-item K-UNSASS (K4) was further tested and suitable results were found for its equal variance, normality, and independence. The reliability analyses indicated acceptable internal consistency for the 45-item K-UNSASS, with the overall scale exhibiting both a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient value and McDonald’s omega coefficient value of .97 (Table 4). The Cronbach’s alpha values for the four subscales of K4 demonstrated acceptable internal consistency reliability, with values of .93, .93, .93, and .84, respectively (Table 4). Moreover, the McDonald’s omega values for the subscales were .92, .93, .93, and .83, respectively (Table 4). Additionally, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for each item, if deleted, was assessed to ascertain the effect of this deletion on the overall internal consistency. None of the items exhibited higher Cronbach’s alpha values when deleted. Therefore, the final 45 items were demonstrated to exhibit satisfactory internal consistency. All items’ CITC values exceeded .40, indicating acceptable reliability (Table 4).

5. Participants’ K-UNSASS scores

After assessing the structural validity and reliability of the K-UNSASS, descriptive analysis was performed. Our results revealed that male and third-year students exhibited significantly higher academic satisfaction than female and fourth-year students (t=2.08, p=.038; t=1.66, p=.049, respectively) (Table 1). Furthermore, participants’ average score for the final 45-item K-UNSASS was 167.38±29.15; meanwhile, their average scores for the four subscales were as follows: 52.82±11.10, 49.37±9.36, 47.09±8.08, and 18.09±4.05, respectively (Table 5).

Discussion

This study aimed to translate and validate UNSASS, originally developed in Canada, for use among nursing students in South Korea. The translated version, referred to as the K-UNSASS, underwent comprehensive psychometric testing with 482 third- and fourth-year nursing students who had completed both classroom and clinical education. The findings confirmed that the K-UNSASS possesses sound content and construct validity, as well as high internal consistency reliability. These results indicate that the K-UNSASS is a culturally appropriate and psychometrically robust instrument for assessing academic satisfaction in Korean nursing education contexts. More importantly, the validation of this scale contributes to expanding the cross-cultural applicability of the UNSASS framework and provides a standardized tool for evaluating student perceptions of educational quality in diverse nursing education environments.

Our EFA results compare favorably to previous UNSASS validation studies across multiple countries. The variance explained (65.9%) exceeded that of the Spanish version (60.70%) [29], Turkish version (57.1%) [30], and Persian version (62.5%) [31]. The exceptionally high KMO value of .97 surpassed values reported in the Spanish (.94) [29], Turkish (.95) [30], and Persian (.94) studies [31], indicating stronger inter-item correlations and more consistent response patterns among Korean participants.

The four-factor structure emerged clearly in our analysis, with factor loadings ranging from .42 to .76, all exceeding the conventional .40 threshold after removing three items (items 13, 24, and 31) with loadings below this cutoff. Notably, item 13 (“Faculty members demonstrate a high level of knowledge in their subject area”), originally assigned to Factor 2 (In-class teaching), loaded instead on Factor 1 (The program) with a factor loading of .49. Similarly, item 31 (“Faculty members behave professionally”), initially categorized under Factor 4 (Clinical teaching), also loaded on Factor 1 with a stronger loading of .70. This cross-loading suggests that Korean nursing students may perceive attributes related to faculty expertise and professionalism less as individual instructor qualities and more as components reflecting the overall educational program’s structure and quality. Such interpretation aligns with educational cultural patterns in South Korea, where greater emphasis is placed on curriculum organization and coherence relative to individual instructor characteristics [45]. Previous research has reported that students in the East Asian contexts typically evaluate academic satisfaction based on curriculum-level factors rather than personal teaching traits [46].

Item 24 (“Clinical instructors assign me to patients that are appropriate for my level of competence”) was excluded due to its low factor loading. This decision reflects the structural differences in clinical education between Canada and South Korea. Unlike the Canadian system, where clinical instructors actively assign patients based on student competencies, Korean nursing students primarily engage in observational learning across diverse ward patients. Patient assignments, when made, are often student-initiated or directed by staff nurses without formal competency-based assessments. Consequently, item 24 did not accurately capture South Korean students' clinical learning experiences and contributed limited meaningful variance to the satisfaction construct.

The CFA of the K-UNSASS revealed mixed fit indices. Incremental fit indices (TLI=.90, CFI=.91, IFI=.91) and RMSEA (.05) met acceptable standards, whereas absolute fit indices (GFI=.83, AGFI=.81, NFI=.86) fell below the commonly desired threshold of .90. These findings partially align with previous UNSASS validation studies: the Turkish version reported GFI=.89 and CFI=.94 [30], while the Persian version demonstrated GFI=.91 and CFI=.95 [31]. This pattern of acceptable incremental fit accompanied by less robust absolute fit has been consistently observed in validations of related satisfaction instruments in nursing education, including the Polish validation of the Student Satisfaction and Self-Confidence in Learning Scale (SCLS) [47] and the NSSS [40]. Such trends suggest that cultural and educational contextual differences may systematically influence absolute fit measures when adapting psychometric scales across diverse nursing education environments, highlighting the importance of considering context-specific factors in cross-cultural validation studies.

Comparisons across translated versions of UNSASS and related satisfaction instruments reveal important patterns. The four-factor model of satisfaction identified in Korea closely matches the results in Canada [3], Spain [29], and Turkey [30], despite cultural and educational system differences. The relatively high variance explained in Korea may be attributable to clear curricular compartmentalization and student familiarity with distinct program components, as well as high student engagement with both didactic and practicum coursework.

In contrast, the NSSS [40] and The Course Experience Questionnaire (CESQ) [48], despite demonstrating sound reliability and moderate explanatory power, have revealed conceptual blending of satisfaction domains—such as the merging of faculty and social interaction in the NSSS developed in the United States or the theory-practice gap highlighted in Norwegian CESQ findings. These studies underscore that while satisfaction is a multidimensional construct across cultures, its boundaries and factor clarity vary depending on local curriculum organization, expectations, and educational transitions. The Polish SSCL validation identified persistent item-level issues (item 13, for example), reflecting that specific content adaptation is often needed for optimal scale performance across contexts [47].

Our findings offer substantive insights into Korean nursing students' satisfaction beyond technical psychometric considerations. The mean K-UNSASS score of 167.38±29.15 indicates moderate satisfaction, with notable variation suggesting diverse individual experiences. A noteworthy finding is the significant differences in academic satisfaction across sex and academic years. Specifically, male and third-year students reported higher satisfaction than female and fourth-year students. This aligns with previous research indicating that senior nursing students often experience increased stress due to clinical practice and job preparation, which can negatively affect satisfaction. Conversely, third-year students may hold more positive expectations and demonstrate higher engagement during the initial stages of clinical practice, which may contribute to greater satisfaction [49]. Regarding sex differences, other research has indicated that female students frequently report higher academic adjustment and satisfaction levels than their male counterparts [50]. However, empirical studies directly comparing satisfaction between male and female nursing students are limited, and existing findings are often inconsistent. Therefore, additional research—particularly qualitative studies—is required to elucidate the factors underlying these sex-related differences.

The mean scores of the subscales of K-UNSASS reveal that no single domain is exceptionally problematic, yet “In-class teaching” shows the lowest relative satisfaction, suggesting this may be a priority area for improvement (Table 5). This finding aligns with the observation by Espeland and Indrehus [48] that “Good teaching” correlates most strongly with overall satisfaction and their recommendation that nursing education should focus more on feedback, support, and integration of theory with practice. Our “Clinical teaching” subscale, while scoring higher (76% of maximum), still leaves room for enhancement, particularly given the critical importance of clinical education in professional preparation.

The absence of significant differences in satisfaction by institution type (technical college vs. university) observed in the present study contrasts with the substantial institutional variation reported in Norwegian CESQ findings [48]. This discrepancy suggests that, in rapidly developing education systems such as Korea’s, students’ perceptions of satisfaction may be shaped more by shared national educational values and standardized curricular structures than by institutional identity alone. Notably, students from technical colleges and universities reported statistically equivalent levels of satisfaction (no significant difference, p=.662), despite differences in institutional missions, resources, and student characteristics. These results imply that key factors influencing satisfaction—such as teaching quality, clinical experiences, support services, and program organization—may operate similarly across institutional types, or that variability within each sector may be as pronounced as differences between sectors. From a quality assurance perspective, this finding suggests that efforts to enhance student satisfaction should prioritize educational processes and practices rather than presuming institutional type as a primary determinant.

This study’s findings highlight the essential role of cultural and contextual relevance in adapting internationally developed instruments for use across diverse educational systems. The validation of the K-UNSASS demonstrated that careful translation, expert review, and empirical testing are critical to ensuring conceptual equivalence and psychometric robustness. By maintaining the original structure of the UNSASS while modifying items to reflect the specific characteristics of nursing education in South Korea, this study offers evidence for the tool’s applicability and reliability in a new context. This work contributes to the growing body of research emphasizing that educational measurement tools must exhibit both linguistic accuracy and contextual appropriateness to ensure valid assessments across diverse cultural settings.

However, several limitations warrant consideration. First, while the CFA demonstrated generally acceptable model fit based on incremental indices and RMSEA, absolute fit indices fell below the commonly recommended .90 threshold. Although this pattern aligns with findings from Turkish [30] and Persian [31] UNSASS validations as well as other nursing education satisfaction instruments, suggesting sensitivity of absolute fit indices to cultural and structural variations, the model may not fully capture the complexity of academic satisfaction within Korean nursing education. Future research should explore potential model refinements, including alternative item wordings or factor structure modifications, while recognizing that perfect fit may be unattainable when measuring multifaceted educational constructs across diverse institutional contexts. Despite EFA and CFA sample sizes meeting conventional adequacy standards, larger samples would enable more powerful model fit evaluation and formal testing of measurement invariance across demographic subgroups. Given the significant sex and academic year differences observed in satisfaction, configural, metric, and scalar invariance testing would establish whether the K-UNSASS measures satisfaction equivalently across these groups—a question with both psychometric and substantive importance.

Second, conducting both EFA and CFA during the same general period, though with different participants through random sample splitting, represents a less rigorous validation approach than cross-validation with independent samples recruited at different times. Future research should examine K-UNSASS factor structure stability across truly independent samples to more definitively establish replicability and ensure that our factor solution does not capitalize on sample-specific characteristics.

Finally, this study focused primarily on structural validity through factor analysis and internal consistency reliability. Comprehensive validation requires examining additional psychometric properties including, discriminant validity, criterion validity, and test-retest reliability over appropriate intervals. Establishing these validity forms would strengthen confidence in interpretability of K-UNSASS scores and utility.

Despite these limitations, this study makes important contributions to nursing education research and practice. The K-UNSASS provides the first validated instrument for systematically assessing academic satisfaction among Korean nursing students, addressing a critical gap in the measurement of educational quality. With Korea’s rapidly expanding nursing education system and increasing emphasis on student-centered education, reliable assessment tools are essential for evidence-based program improvement. The K-UNSASS enables nursing educators and administrators to identify specific areas requiring enhancement, monitor satisfaction trends over time, and evaluate the effectiveness of educational interventions. Furthermore, by adding a Korean validation to the growing international UNSASS literature, this study strengthens the cross-cultural evidence base for understanding nursing student satisfaction and facilitates comparative research across diverse educational contexts. Future studies should employ longitudinal designs, examine additional validity evidence, and investigate the relationship between satisfaction and important outcomes such as academic performance, clinical competence development, and career commitment to fully realize the K-UNSASS’s potential as a tool for improving nursing education quality in Korea.

Conclusion

This study empirically demonstrated the reliability and validity of the K-UNSASS. Rigorous translation, expert validation, and statistical testing revealed that the K-UNSASS was a conceptually and psychometrically sound instrument for assessing academic satisfaction among nursing students in South Korea. Despite retaining the overall factor structure of the original UNSASS, modifications were made to ensure contextual relevance to the South Korean educational system.

This study’s findings highlight the necessity of culturally sensitive adaptation when applying internationally developed measurement tools across diverse contexts. Additionally, the observed differences in academic satisfaction by sex and academic year underscore the complexity of student experiences and emphasize the criticality of targeted educational strategies and additional research.

Ultimately, the K-UNSASS can serve as a valuable tool for nursing educators and program evaluators to monitor and enhance the academic experiences of undergraduate nursing students in South Korea. Its utilization may help improve educational outcomes by guiding curriculum development, teaching strategies, and student support services tailored to the needs of diverse learner populations.

Article Information

Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Professor Susan Dennison and Professor Maher M. El-Masri for authorizing the translation of the Undergraduate Nursing Student Academic Satisfaction Scale. In addition, we would like to express our deepest gratitude to the translators, experts, and all nursing students for participating in this study.

Funding

This research was supported by the Yeungnam University College Research Grants in 2023 and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. 2020R1G1A1101049).

Data Sharing Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on reasonable request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization or/and Methodology: DP, JHS. Data curation or/and Analysis: DP. Funding acquisition: DP, JHS. Investigation: DP, JHS. Project administration or/and Supervision: DP, JHS. Resources or/and Software: DP. Validation: DP, JHS. Visualization: DP. Writing: original draft or/and Review & Editing: DP, JHS. Final approval of the manuscript: DP, JHS.

Table 1.

General characteristics of the participants (N=482)

Characteristic	Participants	K-UNSASS^a)	t (p)
Age (yr)	22.9±2.81		1.79 (.074)
≤22	268 (55.6)	169.50±29.53
>22	214 (44.4)	164.73±28.52
Sex			2.08 (.038)^*
Male	141 (29.6)	171.77±30.15
Female	336 (70.4)	165.57±28.58
Year in college			1.67 (.049)^*
Third	190 (39.4)	170.16±30.63
Fourth	292 (60.6)	165.57±28.06
School type			0.44 (.662)
Technical college	202 (41.9)	179.63±30.79
University	280 (58.1)	178.39±30.86

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%) unless otherwise stated.

K-UNSASS, Korean version of Undergraduate Nursing Student Academic Satisfaction Scale.

*p<.05 (two-tailed). ^a)Based on the final 45-item K-UNSASS.

Table 2.

Rotated component matrix of the K-UNSASS (N=240)

Factor	Item no.	Loading	IV%	CV%
Factor 1: The program	34	.76
	42	.70
	39	.69
	41	.69
	35	.67
	43	.65
	32	.64
	33	.62
	36	.61
	38	.57
	40	.44
	37	.43
			20.1	20.1
Factor 2: In-class teaching	11	.69
	2	.68
	7	.66
	14	.64
	4	.64
	1	.63
	16	.58
	10	.58
	9	.56
	15	.55
	8	.55
	6	.54
	5	.50
	12	.46
	3	.42
	13^a)	.33
			16.6	36.7
Factor 3: Support & resources	47	.72
	44	.68
	45	.68
	46	.65
	48	.61
			15.4	52.1
Factor 4: Clinical teaching	18	.67
	22	.65
	17	.62
	29	.61
	21	.57
	23	.56
	25	.54
	28	.52
	19	.51
	26	.50
	27	.48
	20	.48
	30	.45
	24^a)	.39
	31^a)	.29
			13.8	65.9

CV, cumulative variance; IV, individual variance; K-UNSASS, Korean version of Undergraduate Nursing Student Academic Satisfaction Scale.

^a)Item deleted due to loading score ≤.40.

Table 3.

Confirmatory factor analysis of the K-UNSASS (N=242)

Factor	Item no.	Standardized estimate	SE	C.R.	p	AVE	CR
In-class teaching	1	.73				.56	.95
	2	.73	.13	9.14	<.001
	3	.62	.15	7.24	<.001
	4	.78	.16	7.70	<.001
	5	.76	.15	6.85	<.001
	6	.71	.18	6.34	<.001
	7	.73	.16	7.33	<.001
	8	.81	.14	7.28	<.001
	9	.74	.18	6.69	<.001
	10	.77	.17	6.89	<.001
	11	.89	.17	7.76	<.001
	12	.71	.18	6.06	<.001
	13	.73	.16	7.36	<.001
	14	.73	.14	7.56	<.001
	15	.78	.17	7.69	<.001
Clinical teaching	16	.79				.52	.93
	17	.71	.08	9.52	<.001
	18	.75	.09	8.93	<.001
	19	.70	.10	9.84	<.001
	20	.73	.09	8.98	<.001
	21	.72	.09	8.96	<.001
	22	.63	.09	9.05	<.001
	23	.65	.10	9.22	<.001
	24	.63	.09	9.05	<.001
	25	.78	.11	7.08	<.001
	26	.72	.11	9.55	<.001
	27	.79	.10	11.10	<.001
	28	.74	.09	9.13	<.001
The program	29	.71				.52	.93
	30	.64	.15	8.14	<.001
	31	.86	.15	8.26	<.001
	32	.72	.15	8.80	<.001
	33	.70	.13	8.55	<.001
	34	.76	.16	7.30	<.001
	35	.70	.16	8.59	<.001
	36	.73	.14	7.96	<.001
	37	.73	.16	8.04	<.001
	38	.74	.14	8.07	<.001
	39	.68	.15	8.50	<.001
	40	.71	.13	8.70	<.001
Support & resources	41	.79				.59	.88
	42	.81	.11	9.62	<.001
	43	.75	.15	6.82	<.001
	44	.76	.14	6.33	<.001
	45	.72	.13	6.16	<.001

χ²/df=2.37, RMSEA=.05, GFI=.83, AGFI=.81, NFI=.86, IFI=.91, TLI=.90, CFI=.91.

AGFI, adjusted goodness-of-fit index; AVE, average variance extracted; CFI, comparative fit index; C.R., critical ratio; CR, construct reliability; GFI, goodness-of-fit index; IFI, incremental fit index; K-UNSASS, Korean version of Undergraduate Nursing Student Academic Satisfaction Scale; NFI, normal fit index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SE, standard error; TLI, Tucker-Lewis index; χ²/df, chi-square/degrees of freedom.

Table 4.

Item descriptive statistics for the K-UNSASS (N=482)

Factor	Item no.	Mean±SD	CITC	α-ID	Cronbach’s α	McDonald’s ω
In-class teaching	1	3.68±1.01	.64	.91
	2	3.36±1.07	.67	.91
	3	3.99±0.89	.57	.92
	4	3.68±0.98	.67	.91
	5	3.76±0.95	.59	.92
	6	2.99±1.25	.59	.92
	7	3.60±1.04	.71	.91
	8	3.85±0.94	.66	.91
	9	3.26±1.15	.62	.92
	10	3.21±1.15	.64	.91
	11	3.60±1.07	.71	.91
	12	2.85±1.23	.58	.92
	14	3.61±1.06	.72	.91
	15	3.83±0.93	.67	.91
	16	3.55±1.08	.67	.91
					.93	.92
Clinical teaching	17	3.80±0.97	.72	.92
	18	3.88±0.94	.68	.92
	19	3.82±0.94	.68	.92
	20	3.74±1.01	.72	.92
	21	3.87±0.92	.65	.92
	22	3.86±0.95	.72	.92
	23	3.79±0.98	.71	.92
	25	3.84±0.98	.70	.92
	26	4.05±0.85	.64	.92
	27	3.49±1.03	.62	.93
	28	3.66±1.07	.70	.92
	29	3.83±0.99	.76	.92
	30	3.75±0.96	.68	.92
					.93	.93
The program	32	3.94±0.91	.68	.92
	33	3.89±0.91	.69	.92
	34	4.02±0.87	.73	.92
	35	3.85±0.93	.71	.92
	36	3.97±0.85	.71	.92
	37	3.67±1.04	.61	.92
	38	3.88±0.96	.71	.92
	39	4.00±0.85	.70	.92
	40	3.73±0.97	.66	.92
	41	4.07±0.86	.67	.92
	42	4.02±0.88	.69	.92
	43	4.05±0.83	.66	.92
					.93	.93
Support & resources	44	3.51±1.09	.62	.81
	45	3.51±1.07	.64	.81
	46	3.65±1.02	.69	.80
	47	3.65±1.04	.69	.79
	48	3.76±0.97	.58	.82
					.84	.83
The entire K-UNSASS		167.38±29.15			.97	.97

α-ID, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient if item is deleted; CITC, corrected item-total correlation; K-UNSASS, Korean version of Undergraduate Nursing Student Academic Satisfaction Scale; SD, standard deviation.

Table 5.

Descriptive statistics for the K-UNSASS (N=482)

Measure	No. of items	Min–max	Mean±SD
K-UNSASS^a)	45	45–225	167.38±29.15
In-class teaching^a)	15	15–75	52.83±11.10
Clinical teaching^a)	13	13–65	49.37±9.36
Organizational culture of the program^a)	12	12–60	47.09±8.08
The program^a)	5	5–25	18.09±4.05

K-UNSASS, Korean version of Undergraduate Nursing Student Academic Satisfaction Scale; SD, standard deviation.

^a)Based on the final 45-item K-UNSASS.

References

1. Choperena A, Rosa-Salas V, Esandi-Larramendi N, Diez-Del-Corral MP, Jones D. Nursing educational framework: a new nurse-driven, conceptually guided approach. Int J Nurs Knowl. 2025;36(1):29-38. https://doi.org/10.1111/2047-3095.12459Article PubMed PMC
2. Mohammadi SZ, Khoskhoo NH. Correlation between satisfaction with the field of study and clinical competence in nursing students. Mod Care J. 2022;19(3):e127692. https://doi.org/10.5812/modernc-127692Article
3. Dennison S, El-Masri MM. Development and psychometric assessment of the undergraduate nursing student academic satisfaction scale (UNSASS). J Nurs Meas. 2012;20(2):75-89. https://doi.org/10.1891/1061-3749.20.2.75Article PubMed
4. Chen HC, Lo HS. Development and psychometric testing of the nursing student satisfaction scale for the associate nursing programs. J Nurs Educ Pract. 2012;2(3):25-37. https://doi.org/10.5430/jnep.v2n3p25Article
5. Ramos AM, Barlem JG, Lunardi VL, Barlem EL, Silveira RS, Bordignon SS. Satisfaction with academic experience among undergraduate nursing students. Texto Contexto Enferm. 2015;24(1):187-195. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-07072015002870013Article
6. Ma X, Mustapha SM. Systematic literature review on academic satisfaction. Front Humanit Soc Sci. 2025;5(8):409-418. https://doi.org/10.54691/y4n94080Article
7. Morelli M, Baiocco R, Cacciamani S, Chirumbolo A, Perrucci V, Cattelino E. Self-efficacy, motivation and academic satisfaction: the moderating role of the number of friends at university. Psicothema. 2023;35(3):238-247. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2022.254Article PubMed
8. Jeong Y, Shim J. The mediating effect of psychological capital in the relationship between stress and college adjustment among nursing students in South Korea: a cross-sectional study. J Korean Biol Nurs Sci. 2025;27(2):224-233. https://doi.org/10.7586/jkbns.25.021Article
9. Benti Terefe A, Gemeda Gudeta T. Factors associated with nursing student satisfaction with their clinical learning environment at Wolkite University in southwest Ethiopia. Nurs Res Pract. 2022;2022:3465651. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3465651Article
10. Zalazar-Jaime MF, Moretti LS, Medrano LA. Contribution of academic satisfaction judgments to subjective well-being. Front Psychol. 2022;13:772346. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.772346Article PubMed PMC
11. Franzen J, Jermann F, Ghisletta P, Rudaz S, Bondolfi G, Tran NT. Psychological distress and well-being among students of health disciplines: the importance of academic satisfaction. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(4):2151. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18042151Article PubMed PMC
12. Emaliana I, Lintangsari AP, Sujannah WD, Kusumawardani IN, Alia AA, Alhad MA. Academic well-being amongst university students: the roles of mindfulness and epistemic beliefs on psychological well-being. Int J Adolesc Youth. 2025;30(1):2500514. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2025.2500514Article
13. Canzan F, Saiani L, Mezzalira E, Allegrini E, Caliaro A, Ambrosi E. Why do nursing students leave bachelor program?: findings from a qualitative descriptive study. BMC Nurs. 2022;21(1):71. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-022-00851-zArticle
14. Cant R, Gazula S, Ryan C. Predictors of nursing student satisfaction as a key quality indicator of tertiary students' education experience: an integrative review. Nurse Educ Today. 2023;126:105806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2023.105806Article PubMed
15. Al Hassani AA, Wilkins S. Student retention in higher education: the influences of organizational identification and institution reputation on student satisfaction and behaviors. Int J Educ Manag. 2022;36(6):1046-1064. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-03-2022-0123Article
16. Rahmatpour P, Peyrovi H, Sharif Nia H. Development and psychometric evaluation of postgraduate nursing student academic satisfaction scale. Nurs Open. 2021;8(3):1145-1156. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.727Article PubMed PMC
17. Astin AW. Student involvement: a developmental theory for higher education. J Coll Stud Pers. 1984;25:297-308.
18. Jamshidi K, Mohammadi B, Mohammadi Z, Parviz MK, Poursaberi R, Mohammadi MM. Academic satisfaction level and academic achievement among students at Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences: academic year 2015-2016. Res Dev Med Educ. 2017;6(2):72-79. https://doi.org/10.15171/rdme.2017.016Article
19. Santini FDO, da Silva Rocha L, Gattermann Perin M, Ladeira WJ, Akhtar S, Rasul T, et al. Factors influencing student loyalty in higher education: a meta-analytic generalization. J Mark High Educ. 2024;34:1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2024.2393617Article
20. Bloom KC, Hough MC. Student satisfaction with technology-enhanced learning. Comput Inform Nurs. 2003;21(5):241-246. https://doi.org/10.1097/00024665-200309000-00011Article PubMed
21. Creedy DK, Mitchell M, Seaton-Sykes P, Cooke M, Patterson E, Purcell C, et al. Evaluating a web-enhanced bachelor of nursing curriculum: perspectives of third-year students. J Nurs Educ. 2007;46(10):460-467. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20071001-06Article PubMed
22. Kearns LE, Shoaf JR, Summey MB. Performance and satisfaction of second-degree BSN students in web-based and traditional course delivery environments. J Nurs Educ. 2004;43(6):280-284. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20040601-07Article PubMed
23. Boylston MT, Peters MA, Lacey M. Adult student satisfaction in traditional and accelerated RN-to-BSN programs. J Prof Nurs. 2004;20(1):23-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2003.12.008Article PubMed
24. Cleary M, Happell B. Recruitment and retention initiatives: nursing students’ satisfaction with clinical experience in the mental health field. Nurse Educ Pract. 2005;5(2):109-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2004.06.001Article PubMed
25. El Ansari W. Student nurse satisfaction levels with their courses: part I -- effects of demographic variables. Nurse Educ Today. 2002;22(2):159-170. https://doi.org/10.1054/nedt.2001.0682Article PubMed
26. Kinsella FE, Williams WR, Green BF. Student nurse satisfaction: implications for the common foundation programme. Nurse Educ Today. 1999;19(4):323-333. https://doi.org/10.1054/nedt.1999.0644Article PubMed
27. El Ansari W, Oskrochi R. What ‘really’ affects health professions students’ satisfaction with their educational experience?: implications for practice and research. Nurse Educ Today. 2004;24(8):644-655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2004.09.002Article PubMed
28. Baykal U, Sokmen S, Korkmaz S, Akgun E. Determining student satisfaction in a nursing college. Nurse Educ Today. 2005;25(4):255-262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2004.11.009Article PubMed
29. Guerra-Martín MD, Cano-Orihuela A, Martos-García R, Ponce-Blandón JA. Translation and first pilot validation study of the “Undergraduate Nursing Student Academic Satisfaction Scale” questionnaire to the Spanish context. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(2):423. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020423Article PubMed PMC
30. Göktepe N, Harmancı Seren AK, Türkmen E. Turkish adaptation of the Undergraduate Nursing Students’ Academic Satisfaction Scale. J Educ Res Nurs. 2020;17(Suppl: 1):18-26. https://doi.org/10.5222/HEAD.2020.36263Article
31. Rahmatpour P, Sharif Nia H, Farahani MA, Allen KA. Translation and psychometric evaluation of the Undergraduate Nursing Student Academic Satisfaction Scale (UNSASS). J Nurs Meas. 2022;30(2):222. https://doi.org/10.1891/JNM-D-20-00068Article PubMed
32. El Seesy NA, Banakhar M, Kandil FS. Nursing students’ satisfaction with the academic program: a cross-sectional study. Int J Adv Appl Sci. 2021;8(11):50-57. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2021.11.007Article
33. Al Niarat T. Predictors of empowerment among undergraduate nursing students: a cross-sectional study. SAGE Open Nurs. 2024;10:23779608241286740. https://doi.org/10.1177/23779608241286740Article PubMed PMC
34. Mazzotta R, Bulfone G, Verduci B, Gregoli V, Bove D, Maurici M, et al. Nursing Student Satisfaction Scale: evaluation of measurement properties in nursing degree programs. Nurs Rep. 2025;15(5):161. https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep15050161Article PubMed PMC
35. Kim KH, Ha HS. A study of department satisfaction factors of undergraduate students. Korea J Couns. 2000;1(1):7-20. https://kiss.kstudy.com/Detail/Ar?key=3165140
36. Lee SH, Kim SY, Kim JA. Nursing students’ image of nurse and satisfaction with clinical practice. J Korean Acad Nurs Adm. 2004;10(2):219-231.
37. Polit DF, Beck CT. Nursing research: generating and assessing evidence in nursing practice. 10th ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2017. 814 p.
38. Brislin RW. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J Cross Cult Psychol. 1970;1(3):185-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301Article
39. Lee KS, Park DI. Psychometric evaluation of the Korean version of Control Attitudes Scale-Revised. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2023;38(1):101-108. https://doi.org/10.1097/JCN.0000000000000833Article PubMed
40. Chen HC, Farmer S, Barber L, Wayman M. Development and psychometric testing of the Nursing Student Satisfaction Scale. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2012;33(6):369-373. Article PubMed
41. Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity?: appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2007;30(4):459-467. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199Article PubMed
42. Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and programming. 3rd ed. Routledge; 2016. 460 p.
43. Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model. 1999;6(1):1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118Article
44. Dunn TJ, Baguley T, Brunsden V. From alpha to omega: a practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. Br J Psychol. 2014;105(3):399-412. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046Article PubMed
45. Afrin F, Rahaman MS, Hamilton M. Mining student responses to infer student satisfaction predictors. arXiv [Preprint]. 2020 Jun 14. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2006.07860
46. Boman B. Educational achievement among East Asian schoolchildren 1967-2020: a thematic review of the literature. Int J Educ Res Open. 2022;3:100168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2022.100168Article
47. Studnicka K, Zarzycka D, Zalewski J. Student satisfaction and self confidence in learning scale (SSCL): reliability and validity test of the Polish version. Signa Vitae. 2023;19(5):104-111. https://doi.org/10.22514/sv.2023.069Article
48. Espeland V, Indrehus O. Evaluation of students’ satisfaction with nursing education in Norway. J Adv Nurs. 2003;42(3):226-236. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02611.xArticle PubMed
49. Alshammari JA. Nursing students’ experiences of the clinical learning environment at Hafr Al Batin University: a cross-sectional study. Int J Adv Appl Sci. 2024;11(4):155-160. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2024.04.017Article
50. Caputo T, Ross JG. Male nursing students’ experiences during prelicensure education: an integrative review. Nurse Educ Today. 2023;121:105671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105671Article PubMed

Appendix

Appendix 1.

Korean version of Undergraduate Nursing Student Academic Satisfaction Scale

[한국어판 간호대학생 학업 만족도 측정도구]

	번호	문항
교내교육	1	교수진에게 학업관련 또는 그 외 고민에 대해 자유롭게 이야기할 수 있다.
	2	교수진에게 다가가기 쉽다.
	3	학생이 질문하면 교수진은 성심성의껏 도움을 주려고 한다.
	4	교수진은 내가 수업 중에 겪는 어려움을 이해하려고 노력한다.
	5	교수진은 주로 수업 후와 면담시간에 상담이 가능하다.
	6	행정실에 학업 관련 또는 그 외 고민에 대해 자유롭게 이야기할 수 있다.
	7	교수진은 학생을 공평하고 편견 없이 대한다.
	8	교수진은 학생의 수업성취도에 대해 적절한 피드백을 제공한다.
	9	제출한 과제에 대해 교수진의 상세한 피드백을 받는다.
	10	학생들의 불만을 자유롭게 제기할 수 있는 경로가 있다.
	11	교수진은 좋은 롤 모델이며 내가 최선을 다하도록 동기부여를 해준다.
	12	행정실은 학생 개개인에게 신경을 써준다.
	13	교수진은 내 학업 능력에 영향을 미치는 요인들에 대해 듣고 상담해준다.
	14	교수진은 전반적으로 좋은 인상을 준다.
	15	내가 배워야 할 내용들을 이해하기 위해 충분한 시간이 주어진다.
임상실습교육	16	실습지도자는 다가가기 쉽고 학생들이 편하게 질문할 수 있도록 해준다.
	17	실습지도자는 적절한 타이밍에 피드백을 제공하고 타인(다른 학생, 의료진, 환자 또는 보호자) 앞에서 나를 무안하게 하지 않는다.
	18	실습지도자는 다양한 의견을 수용하고 토론의 기회를 준다.
	19	실습지도자는 내가 간호술기를 수행하기 전 충분한 지도를 해준다.
	20	실습지도자는 내가 실수해도 배우는 과정의 일부로 여긴다.
	21	실습지도자는 임상실습에서 내가 해야 하는 것들을 명확하게 알려준다.
	22	실습지도자는 내가 담당 환자의 요구를 명확히 사정할 수 있도록 도와준다.
	23	실습지도자는 나의 실습 경험에 대하여 구두 및 서면 피드백을 제공한다.
	24	실습지도자는 높은 수준의 이론 지식과 임상 전문 지식을 가지고 있다.
	25	실습지도자는 내가 필요할 때 도움을 줄 수 있다.
	26	실습지도자는 실습실과 임상현장에서 내가 간호술기를 수행할 수 있는 기회를 충분히 제공한다.
	27	실습지도자는 이론과 실무를 연결하도록 격려해준다.
	28	실습지도자와 교강사 간 수업 지침이 일관적이다.
교육과정	29	교육과정은 다양하고 관련성 있는 수업을 제공한다.
	30	교육과정은 나의 분석력을 향상시켜준다.
	31	교육과정의 수업 대부분이 도움이 되고 내가 전문적으로 성장하는 데 기여한다.
	32	수업의 질이 좋고 도움이 된다.
	33	교육과정에서 나에게 기대하는 바가 무엇인지 명확히 알고 있다.
	34	교육과정은 학생들 간의 팀워크를 촉진시킨다.
	35	교육과정은 나의 문제해결능력과 비판적 사고능력을 향상시킨다.
	36	교육과정은 학문적 우수성을 기반으로 구성되었다.
	37	수업을 통해 나는 임상 간호 문제 해결에 대한 자신감이 생겼다.
	38	수업은 교과서 내용을 이해하는 데 도움이 된다.
	39	교육과정을 통해 학문적 성장을 경험한다.
	40	전반적으로 졸업 요건은 합리적이고 달성 가능하다.
지원 및 자원	41	조교 선생님들은 친절하고 도움이 된다.
	42	조교 선생님들은 전문적으로 행동한다.
	43	교내 실습실과 컴퓨터실에서 도움이 필요할 때 적절한 자원이 마련되어 있다.
	44	교내 실습실과 컴퓨터실은 장비가 잘 갖춰져 있고 담당 직원이 충분히 배치되어 있어 필요할 때 도움 요청이 가능하다.
	45	교내 시설(강의실, 실습실, 컴퓨터실)은 나의 학업에 도움이 된다.

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Corrigendum: Psychometric testing of the Korean version of the Undergraduate Nursing Student Academic Satisfaction Scale: a methodological study
Da-In Park, Joohee Shim
Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing.2026; 56(2): 289. CrossRef

ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Psychometric testing of the Korean version of the Undergraduate Nursing Student Academic Satisfaction Scale: a methodological study

J Korean Acad Nurs. 2026;56(1):51-66. Published online February 9, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.25125

XML Download

We recommend

Related articles

Psychometric testing of the Korean version of the Undergraduate Nursing Student Academic Satisfaction Scale: a methodological study

Characteristic	Participants	K-UNSASS^a)	t (p)
Age (yr)	22.9±2.81		1.79 (.074)
≤22	268 (55.6)	169.50±29.53
>22	214 (44.4)	164.73±28.52
Sex			2.08 (.038)^*
Male	141 (29.6)	171.77±30.15
Female	336 (70.4)	165.57±28.58
Year in college			1.67 (.049)^*
Third	190 (39.4)	170.16±30.63
Fourth	292 (60.6)	165.57±28.06
School type			0.44 (.662)
Technical college	202 (41.9)	179.63±30.79
University	280 (58.1)	178.39±30.86

Factor	Item no.	Loading	IV%	CV%
Factor 1: The program	34	.76
	42	.70
	39	.69
	41	.69
	35	.67
	43	.65
	32	.64
	33	.62
	36	.61
	38	.57
	40	.44
	37	.43
			20.1	20.1
Factor 2: In-class teaching	11	.69
	2	.68
	7	.66
	14	.64
	4	.64
	1	.63
	16	.58
	10	.58
	9	.56
	15	.55
	8	.55
	6	.54
	5	.50
	12	.46
	3	.42
	13^a)	.33
			16.6	36.7
Factor 3: Support & resources	47	.72
	44	.68
	45	.68
	46	.65
	48	.61
			15.4	52.1
Factor 4: Clinical teaching	18	.67
	22	.65
	17	.62
	29	.61
	21	.57
	23	.56
	25	.54
	28	.52
	19	.51
	26	.50
	27	.48
	20	.48
	30	.45
	24^a)	.39
	31^a)	.29
			13.8	65.9

Factor	Item no.	Standardized estimate	SE	C.R.	p	AVE	CR
In-class teaching	1	.73				.56	.95
	2	.73	.13	9.14	<.001
	3	.62	.15	7.24	<.001
	4	.78	.16	7.70	<.001
	5	.76	.15	6.85	<.001
	6	.71	.18	6.34	<.001
	7	.73	.16	7.33	<.001
	8	.81	.14	7.28	<.001
	9	.74	.18	6.69	<.001
	10	.77	.17	6.89	<.001
	11	.89	.17	7.76	<.001
	12	.71	.18	6.06	<.001
	13	.73	.16	7.36	<.001
	14	.73	.14	7.56	<.001
	15	.78	.17	7.69	<.001
Clinical teaching	16	.79				.52	.93
	17	.71	.08	9.52	<.001
	18	.75	.09	8.93	<.001
	19	.70	.10	9.84	<.001
	20	.73	.09	8.98	<.001
	21	.72	.09	8.96	<.001
	22	.63	.09	9.05	<.001
	23	.65	.10	9.22	<.001
	24	.63	.09	9.05	<.001
	25	.78	.11	7.08	<.001
	26	.72	.11	9.55	<.001
	27	.79	.10	11.10	<.001
	28	.74	.09	9.13	<.001
The program	29	.71				.52	.93
	30	.64	.15	8.14	<.001
	31	.86	.15	8.26	<.001
	32	.72	.15	8.80	<.001
	33	.70	.13	8.55	<.001
	34	.76	.16	7.30	<.001
	35	.70	.16	8.59	<.001
	36	.73	.14	7.96	<.001
	37	.73	.16	8.04	<.001
	38	.74	.14	8.07	<.001
	39	.68	.15	8.50	<.001
	40	.71	.13	8.70	<.001
Support & resources	41	.79				.59	.88
	42	.81	.11	9.62	<.001
	43	.75	.15	6.82	<.001
	44	.76	.14	6.33	<.001
	45	.72	.13	6.16	<.001

Factor	Item no.	Mean±SD	CITC	α-ID	Cronbach’s α	McDonald’s ω
In-class teaching	1	3.68±1.01	.64	.91
	2	3.36±1.07	.67	.91
	3	3.99±0.89	.57	.92
	4	3.68±0.98	.67	.91
	5	3.76±0.95	.59	.92
	6	2.99±1.25	.59	.92
	7	3.60±1.04	.71	.91
	8	3.85±0.94	.66	.91
	9	3.26±1.15	.62	.92
	10	3.21±1.15	.64	.91
	11	3.60±1.07	.71	.91
	12	2.85±1.23	.58	.92
	14	3.61±1.06	.72	.91
	15	3.83±0.93	.67	.91
	16	3.55±1.08	.67	.91
					.93	.92
Clinical teaching	17	3.80±0.97	.72	.92
	18	3.88±0.94	.68	.92
	19	3.82±0.94	.68	.92
	20	3.74±1.01	.72	.92
	21	3.87±0.92	.65	.92
	22	3.86±0.95	.72	.92
	23	3.79±0.98	.71	.92
	25	3.84±0.98	.70	.92
	26	4.05±0.85	.64	.92
	27	3.49±1.03	.62	.93
	28	3.66±1.07	.70	.92
	29	3.83±0.99	.76	.92
	30	3.75±0.96	.68	.92
					.93	.93
The program	32	3.94±0.91	.68	.92
	33	3.89±0.91	.69	.92
	34	4.02±0.87	.73	.92
	35	3.85±0.93	.71	.92
	36	3.97±0.85	.71	.92
	37	3.67±1.04	.61	.92
	38	3.88±0.96	.71	.92
	39	4.00±0.85	.70	.92
	40	3.73±0.97	.66	.92
	41	4.07±0.86	.67	.92
	42	4.02±0.88	.69	.92
	43	4.05±0.83	.66	.92
					.93	.93
Support & resources	44	3.51±1.09	.62	.81
	45	3.51±1.07	.64	.81
	46	3.65±1.02	.69	.80
	47	3.65±1.04	.69	.79
	48	3.76±0.97	.58	.82
					.84	.83
The entire K-UNSASS		167.38±29.15			.97	.97

Measure	No. of items	Min–max	Mean±SD
K-UNSASS^a)	45	45–225	167.38±29.15
In-class teaching^a)	15	15–75	52.83±11.10
Clinical teaching^a)	13	13–65	49.37±9.36
Organizational culture of the program^a)	12	12–60	47.09±8.08
The program^a)	5	5–25	18.09±4.05

	번호	문항
교내교육	1	교수진에게 학업관련 또는 그 외 고민에 대해 자유롭게 이야기할 수 있다.
	2	교수진에게 다가가기 쉽다.
	3	학생이 질문하면 교수진은 성심성의껏 도움을 주려고 한다.
	4	교수진은 내가 수업 중에 겪는 어려움을 이해하려고 노력한다.
	5	교수진은 주로 수업 후와 면담시간에 상담이 가능하다.
	6	행정실에 학업 관련 또는 그 외 고민에 대해 자유롭게 이야기할 수 있다.
	7	교수진은 학생을 공평하고 편견 없이 대한다.
	8	교수진은 학생의 수업성취도에 대해 적절한 피드백을 제공한다.
	9	제출한 과제에 대해 교수진의 상세한 피드백을 받는다.
	10	학생들의 불만을 자유롭게 제기할 수 있는 경로가 있다.
	11	교수진은 좋은 롤 모델이며 내가 최선을 다하도록 동기부여를 해준다.
	12	행정실은 학생 개개인에게 신경을 써준다.
	13	교수진은 내 학업 능력에 영향을 미치는 요인들에 대해 듣고 상담해준다.
	14	교수진은 전반적으로 좋은 인상을 준다.
	15	내가 배워야 할 내용들을 이해하기 위해 충분한 시간이 주어진다.
임상실습교육	16	실습지도자는 다가가기 쉽고 학생들이 편하게 질문할 수 있도록 해준다.
	17	실습지도자는 적절한 타이밍에 피드백을 제공하고 타인(다른 학생, 의료진, 환자 또는 보호자) 앞에서 나를 무안하게 하지 않는다.
	18	실습지도자는 다양한 의견을 수용하고 토론의 기회를 준다.
	19	실습지도자는 내가 간호술기를 수행하기 전 충분한 지도를 해준다.
	20	실습지도자는 내가 실수해도 배우는 과정의 일부로 여긴다.
	21	실습지도자는 임상실습에서 내가 해야 하는 것들을 명확하게 알려준다.
	22	실습지도자는 내가 담당 환자의 요구를 명확히 사정할 수 있도록 도와준다.
	23	실습지도자는 나의 실습 경험에 대하여 구두 및 서면 피드백을 제공한다.
	24	실습지도자는 높은 수준의 이론 지식과 임상 전문 지식을 가지고 있다.
	25	실습지도자는 내가 필요할 때 도움을 줄 수 있다.
	26	실습지도자는 실습실과 임상현장에서 내가 간호술기를 수행할 수 있는 기회를 충분히 제공한다.
	27	실습지도자는 이론과 실무를 연결하도록 격려해준다.
	28	실습지도자와 교강사 간 수업 지침이 일관적이다.
교육과정	29	교육과정은 다양하고 관련성 있는 수업을 제공한다.
	30	교육과정은 나의 분석력을 향상시켜준다.
	31	교육과정의 수업 대부분이 도움이 되고 내가 전문적으로 성장하는 데 기여한다.
	32	수업의 질이 좋고 도움이 된다.
	33	교육과정에서 나에게 기대하는 바가 무엇인지 명확히 알고 있다.
	34	교육과정은 학생들 간의 팀워크를 촉진시킨다.
	35	교육과정은 나의 문제해결능력과 비판적 사고능력을 향상시킨다.
	36	교육과정은 학문적 우수성을 기반으로 구성되었다.
	37	수업을 통해 나는 임상 간호 문제 해결에 대한 자신감이 생겼다.
	38	수업은 교과서 내용을 이해하는 데 도움이 된다.
	39	교육과정을 통해 학문적 성장을 경험한다.
	40	전반적으로 졸업 요건은 합리적이고 달성 가능하다.
지원 및 자원	41	조교 선생님들은 친절하고 도움이 된다.
	42	조교 선생님들은 전문적으로 행동한다.
	43	교내 실습실과 컴퓨터실에서 도움이 필요할 때 적절한 자원이 마련되어 있다.
	44	교내 실습실과 컴퓨터실은 장비가 잘 갖춰져 있고 담당 직원이 충분히 배치되어 있어 필요할 때 도움 요청이 가능하다.
	45	교내 시설(강의실, 실습실, 컴퓨터실)은 나의 학업에 도움이 된다.

Table 1. General characteristics of the participants (N=482)

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%) unless otherwise stated.

K-UNSASS, Korean version of Undergraduate Nursing Student Academic Satisfaction Scale.

*p<.05 (two-tailed). ^a)Based on the final 45-item K-UNSASS.

Table 2. Rotated component matrix of the K-UNSASS (N=240)

CV, cumulative variance; IV, individual variance; K-UNSASS, Korean version of Undergraduate Nursing Student Academic Satisfaction Scale.

^a)Item deleted due to loading score ≤.40.

Table 3. Confirmatory factor analysis of the K-UNSASS (N=242)

χ²/df=2.37, RMSEA=.05, GFI=.83, AGFI=.81, NFI=.86, IFI=.91, TLI=.90, CFI=.91.

Table 4. Item descriptive statistics for the K-UNSASS (N=482)

Table 5. Descriptive statistics for the K-UNSASS (N=482)

K-UNSASS, Korean version of Undergraduate Nursing Student Academic Satisfaction Scale; SD, standard deviation.