INTRODUCTION

Learning is a complex process that incorporates diverse phases and where personal variables and interconnected contexts intervene¹. On top of this, in searching for the development of the teaching-learning process (TL-P), education in Colombia is based on the participation of two protagonists: the teacher and the student². However, it is the student who should be more deeply immersed in this process being the one directly involved by interest in his or her own formation and reaching his or her goals. This is the reason why the pedagogical focuses employed by universities do not center on the professor. The student plays a fundamental role being the most important part in the construction of knowledge.

This being how things are, education should be understood as a natural process that emerges from within an individual and not an imposition. It is a process that seeks the student’s personal growth and thus the development of all of the student’s capabilities for the achievement of one final goal: learning. It also demands a commitment on the part of the pupil so that a real transformation, which includes the social and human self to the benefit of others, can exist.

In this way, the TL-P will find itself influenced by diverse learning focuses (TL). TLs are considered a form of learning style, learning styles being understood as an expression of cognitive style and personality, linked to specific and situational motives and strategies³. In the same manner they encompass the student’s intention to learn and how the student learns (process)1. This is how the Students’ Approaches to Learning (SAL) theory explains learning as a design of Students and Teachers, taking into account the educational and cultural context where the process develops⁴. This theory, proposed by Biggs in 1989⁵, assumes three intervening factors in the learning focus that a student adopts: promise, process, and product (3P). In promise, factors related to the student known as preferential learning focuses (previous knowledge and abilities), as well as others related to the Teacher (objectives, evaluation, environment, institutional teaching processes) intervene. Processes, for their part, are focused on activities related to learning (developed approaches to learning). Finally, product describes the results of learning (deeds, skills and qualifications obtained) and can be recognized as a contextual learning approach5.

Some recent investigations suggest modifications to this 3P theory (ecological to Biggs), referencing the existence of two approaches to learning: one oriented towards comprehension and meaning (deep), another towards superficiality and reproduction (superficial)⁵. The deep approach generally conveys a “transformation of knowledge” with the end goal of bettering understanding of the material, generating a dynamic interaction with the contents, introducing new knowledge, and lastly experiences that relate the evidence with the conclusions. For its part, the one in charge of generating “reproduction of information” is the superficial approach, primarily through the memorization of contents but inability to identify background contexts of the text^5-8. It is natural, therefore, for students to be able to transition between the two approaches but it is incorrect to label students as either superficial or deep⁷.

One of the most used measuring tools in these learning approaches has been the Processes in Learning Questionnaire (CPE) that was originally developed from the Behavior in Learning Questionnaire represented in 10 steps. Higher order analyses suggest that these 10 steps can be interpreted in terms of the three factors (3P) previously described. However, the necessity of instruments that allow for measuring the phenomenon with the same operational performance but greater agility, came to derive the revised two factor instrument (R-SPQ-2F: Revised - Study Process Questionnaire - 2 Factor) focusing on the simplified two approaches to learning model (deep and superficial)⁷.

Various investigations worldwide have utilized R-SPQ-2F in order to describe the learning approaches employed by TL-P university students, including in Colombia^2,4,9. Others have evaluated the validity and reliability of the R-SPQ-2F replicating the two factor structure originally proposed by Biggs⁷. In a sample of 2251 university students in Spain, Hernandez-Pina et al¹⁰ evaluated the psychometric properties of this instrument. The study was able to obtain that the best factorial solution was given by the presence of the two factors (the deep approach and the superficial approach) in a consistent manner with Biggs’s original findings..

Despite the diverse efforts to find an universal factorial solution, but still having in mind the recommendation in validation of scales over the necessity of having evidence on the psychometric properties of an instrument in each context of investigation, for the R-SPQ-2F about students in Colombia it actually does not depend on these types of reports. Thus, the objective of this current investigation was to determine the psychometric properties (construct validity and internal consistency) of the R-SPQ-2F in health science students of a state Universidad de Cartagena, Colombia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Type of study

A validation of scales study without reference criteria was developed. This study developed ad hoc to the observational study titled “Enfoques de aprendizaje en estudiantes de Ciencias de Salud de la Universidad de Cartagena, Colombia” (“Learning approaches in Health Science students of the Universidad de Cartagena, Colombia”) and counted on the approval of the ethics in investigation committee of the Universidad de Cartagena.

Population and Sample size

The population was made up of students from the health science campus (Medicine, Dentistry, Chemistry, Pharmacy, and Nursing) of the second academic period of 2015 of the Universidad de Cartagena. The sample size was calculated in the Sample Size v.1.1 information packet having a cross-section observational design as parameters and a dependent variable of a continuous nature (total score of the scale), type I error 0.05, standard deviation 0.69812, distance from the population mean 0.05, and a two-tailed calculation for a total of 749 students. Anticipating a 15% sampling error, a final sample size of 861 students was estimated. For the specific purposes of this study (validation of scale), the sample size was considered adequate according to the universal recommendations for sample sizes on these types of investigations: 10 participants for every item or reactant¹¹.

Sample

A multistep and probability sampling was employed. On the first stage a stratified sample with proportional affixation (each stratum was represented by one of the Faculties) was performed where the number of students necessary per Faculty was determined. Subsequently, through another stratified sample with proportional affixation (each stratum was represented by each academic cycle of each Faculty) the number of students necessary per academic cycle was calculated. Lastly, through a simple random sample with replacement, it was determined which students would be invited to participate in the study.

Location and characteristics of the population

Students from the health sciences campus of the Universidad de Cartagena, Colombia were invited to participate. The inclusion criteria were as follows: students that accepted to participate voluntarily, were registered and academically active in the second academic period in 2015^12..

Instrument

R-SPQ-2F is a scale that consists of 20 items expressed in an affirmative manner that inquire about the frequency of use of each learning approach, such as “Studying provoques a sense of deep satisfaction” or “I learn some things mechanically, reviewing them again and again until I know them by memory, even if I do not understand them”, measured on two factors: deep learning approach and superficial learning approach. The total time required for the application of the scale was from four to five minutes. The recording of their Likert type responses allows the frequency of appearance of these aspects to be known. The responses varied on a scale from 1 (it never occurs) to 5 (it always occurs) and is considered dimensional in that there is no cutoff point. Thus, scores could vary from 20 - the least intensity- to 100 -the most intensity of the construct-7. Since its origin in 2001, the questionnaire hypothesized the presence of two main sub-scales (domains/factors) called approaches: deep and superficial. Likewise and in accord with the ecological theory of Biggs, each approach has its motivations: situations that awaken interest in the Student and its strategies: means that added to the interest of each Student allow for the achievement of the product¹⁰. In this manner each principal domain (approaches) is conformed by two secondary sub-domains (strategies and motivations).

In its its original proposal, the deep approach was formed by the summation of the scores in items 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18 and the superficial approach formed by the remaining items. In each of these domains the minimum score possible is 1 and the maximum is 50. A higher score indicates more usage of this approach on the part of the Student. The deep and superficial motivations are formed by items 1, 5, 9, 13, 17 and 3, 7, 11, 15, and 19 respectively. For their part, the deep strategies are represented in items 2, 6, 10, 14, and 18 while the superficial strategies are represented by items 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20.. In respect to the scores of these four motivations and strategies the scores can vary between 1 and 25.

The version in Spanish utilized in this study is derived from a previous version already published and validated and in which a transcultural adaptation process was applied that included English-Spanish translation and later on Spanish-English by qualified personel¹⁰ for which it was unnecessary to advance this phase in this study.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used for the univariate analysis of the R-SPQ-2F reactives. Proportions and intervals of confidence were calculated to 95% for qualitative variables and mean/median and standard deviation/interquartile range depending on the normal distribution of the data. The psychometric properties evaluated included validity (of construct) and reliability (internal consistency). Every statistical analysis for determining psychometric properties was realized by one of the authors following the statistical approach employed in previous validation of scales studies^12-16.

Using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, the internal consistency was estimated overall and according to sub-scales: each factor/domain of the R-SPQ-2F. The measurements of internal consistency were evaluated utilizing the criteria proposed by Kline¹⁷ in this manner: acceptable (0.60 - 0.70), good (0.70 - 0.90) and excellent (>0.90). Before proceeding with the evaluation of validity, the factorisablity of the matrix (Bartlett's test of sphericity) and the sample adequacy (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test: KMO) were evaluated. Bartlett's test of sphericity was considered acceptable with a high X. and a p-valor <0.05, while the KMO test was considered acceptable with values >0.70.

The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was handled with the extraction of maximum verisimilitude technique and oblique rotation (promax) due to the possible correlation between the factors. The number of factors after extraction was determined through a parallel analysis due to it appearing to be a better criterion in respect to Kaiser’s criteria¹⁸. Each item was comprised of at least three items and each item showed a factorial load of ≥0.40.

The multivariate normality was verified through Mardia’s test as a requisite before being able to proceed with the confirmatory factorial analysis (CFA). Even though no multivariate normality was found, the CFA is strong in this supposing when the sample size is ≥200¹⁹. Using partial squared minimums with adjusted mean and variance (PSMAMV) as a method of estimation, CFA was conducted and the following indexes of adjustment to the model were obtained: X. and p-valor for X., degrees of freedom (df), root mean square error -RMSEA and confidence interval to 90%, comparative index of adjustment- CAI and Tucker-Lewis index - TLI. the evaluation of the adjustment of the model was realized employing the criteria proposed by Hu and Bentler: p-valor for X.>0.05, RMSEA≤0.06, CAI and TLI>0.95²⁰.

The descriptive analysis, the EFA and the internal consistency were calculated using Stata v. 13.2 for Windows (StataCorp., TX., USA) and the CFA was achieved using Mplus v.7.31 for Windows (Muthen & Muthen., Los Angeles, CA., USA).

Declaration of ethical aspects

This study was classified according to the current national legislation (Resolution 8430 of 1993 of Colombia’s Ministry of Health) and international legislation (Declaration of Helsinki) as a no-risk study. Voluntary participation was sought through a written consent form and objectives, risks and benefits, and alternative options, among others, were explained. It also counted on approval on the part of the Ethics of Investigation committee of the Universidad de Cartagena.

RESULTS

In total 857 participants were included, the majority being women (57.7%). The overall average for age was 20.2 ± 2.51 years. The department that had the most representation was Medicine (35.3%), followed by Dentistry (25.6%), Nursing (24.1%), and Chemistry and Pharmacy (14.8%). Overall, the R-SPQ-2F reached an average of 66.01 ± 12.3, and as to the subscales of deep and superficial approach 36.5 ± 6.35 and 29.5 ± 9.1 respectively. The descriptive statistics for each item is shown on Table 1.

Internal consistency

In relation to internal consistency, the R-SPQ-2F showed an overall alpha coefficient of 0.868. For the two primary sub-scales: deep and superficial reports showed 0.836 and 0.895 respectively.

Dimensionality

The adequacy trial showed the KMO was 0.98 and Bartlett's test for sphericity showed a p-valor <0.001. The best factorial solution showed two domains that explained the 42.56% of the variation. The first was made up of of items 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18 and the second by the remaining items. The first domain was recognized as the deep approach and the second as the superficial approach. The commonalities were in between 0.3352 and 0.6912 and no factorial loads <0.40 were found. Table 2 shows the commonalities and the factorial loads for each item.

Construct Validity

The two factor model delivered the following adjusted statistics after applying three modification indices (covariance correlation error): X.: 962.783; gl: 166; RMSEA: 0.075. IC 90%: 0.070 - 0.079); CAI: 0.883 and TLI: 0.866. The pathway diagram showing this factorial solution is shown in Figure 1.

The two bigger circles on the left represent the two underlying factors to the latent variable (learning approaches). The arrows to each item indicate the estimators (values on top of the arrow). The name of each item appears in the rectangles, respectively. The Greek letter epsilon (ε) inside the small circles on the right denote the error associated to each estimator. The interconnected circles to the right represent the correlation of the error to the covariance (modification indexes) between the items.

DISCUSSION

During the last few decades, the analysis of learning approaches in Health Science students has become a valuable tool for the understanding of “how students construct knowledge”. Knowing the approach that a student predominantly uses will allow -as far as of what is possible and when necessary- to bring about early intervention in the search for an effective and persistent learning on the part of the student improving. In this way the TL-P is at times interpreted in the best parts of the future Professional’s competence²¹.

In Colombia, there are few studies about learning approaches on higher education Students that have utilized the R-SPQ-2F. However, their results consistently indicate that students predominantly acquire knowledge using a deep approach which indicates that their motivation is intrinsic- the student has much interest in the course and wishes to accomplish learning that has a personal significance. The strategies that these students employ are used to achieve comprehension and satisfy their personal curiosity^4,9,22.

To the best of the knowledge of the authors of this study, this is the first Colombian study to explore the psychometric properties (internal consistency and construct validity) of this instrument and furthermore also employing EFA and CFA techniques (factorial validity). In this way and by taking into account this investigation’s objective, the results of this study show evidence that the R-SPQ-2F is a dependable questionnaire but has a limited construct validity in the sample in which it was used due to the poor derived adjustment of the CFA. The overall internal consistency and those according to sub-scales reflected in the current study is understood to be good and is consistent with the findings of other investigations conducted in other languages such as Spanish in Spain¹⁰, Dutch (α=0.84-0.81)²³, Arabic (α=0.90-0.93)²⁴, and Ghanaian (α=0.76)²⁵ as well as the original version proposed by Biggs. (α=0.73-0.64). This reflects the adequate degree to which the items or reactants that make up the R-SPQ-2F correlate with themselves, the magnitude in which the same evaluated construct is measured²⁶.

On the other hand, the dimensionality found in the EFA that was derived from this investigation suggests that two factors are sufficient to explain the construct. This is consistent with a multitude of previous studies^10,24,25 and with the original version proposed 15 years ago⁷. Even so, a study that prove the psychometric properties of the R-SPQ-2F in Holland²³ using CFA suggested that the construct of the scale is represented in four factors: studying is interesting, invest extra time, minimal efforts, and learning “by heart” which are not consistent with what was previously reported and with the findings of this current study. It is important to note that with the passage of time, the CFA has been converted into a valuable strategy for the determination of construct validity²⁷. However, the inconsistent use of adjustment indexes for the evaluation of results generate differences in the models that a study can result in. Thus, one of the criterion universally accepted in the scientific literature for evaluation of the adjustment of proposed models by CFA techniques and their specific application -validation of scales- is proposed by Hu and Bentler²⁰. This situation can partially explain the discrepancies between the Dutch R-SPQ-2F and the results of this study. The results of the CFA developed by Stes et al²³ in Holland indicates the use of: index of goodness of fit -IGF, corrected index of goodness of fit -C-IGF, the comparative adjustment index- CAI, and the root mean square error -RMSEA, suggesting values ≥0.90 for the first three and ≤0.05 for the last one²⁹. The criteria of Hu and Bentler²⁰ propose the Tucker -Lewis index -TLI, the the comparative adjustment index- CAI than the RMSEA, being the acceptable model when the first two are ≥0.95 and the last ≤0.0620. With that in mind, it is probable that more flexible criteria like those used by the Dutch study suppose the acceptance of a false model that explains the latent variable. Additionally, the authors did not develop a standardized methodological process for the translation and transcultural adaptation of the instrument as in recommended in validation of scales studies, a situation that can also influence the results of the factor analysis^30,31.

Consistent with what was previously discussed, major investigation is needed on some of the instrument’s reactants that can be unrelated to the latent variable despite finding the same results in the exploratory phase of the factor analysis. This is therefore the justification for conducting modification indices in order to improve specific areas of the model, which is hence reflected on better psychometric properties of the instrument²⁹. The justification for the application of these MIs between items 7 “I do not think the course I am taking is very interesting so I only do the minimum amount of work” and 8 “I learn some things mechanically, reviewing them again and again until I know them by memory, even if I do not understand them” is so that Learners can be conceptually related by how much item 7 indicates a minimal amount of work in class and 8 indicates learning thing mechanically which is a product of a minimal amount of work in class, as well as belonging to the same domain (the superficial approach). For their part, in the case between items 8 and 11: “I think that I can pass most exams by memorizing the important parts instead of trying to understand them” apart from being actions that are linked together, they also belong to the same domain (the superficial approach) as in the previous case. Finally, in the case of items 17 “I attend most classes with doubts that I would like resolved” and 18 “I try to take a look at most readings that professors recommend in class”, as in the previous two cases, they belong to the same domain (the deep approach) and are also actions that are related to the student attending the majority of classes, with the student’s extracurricular activities implying he or she also reviews the recommended contents. In this way these pairs of reactants can share the covariance error, which was the MI applied to the CFA model that was tested²⁸.

This study has certain strengths and weaknesses. Among its strengths in the sample size used, surpassing the minimum required for the factor analysis, and the employment of powerful statistical techniques for the estimation of the construct validity - confirmatory factor analysis. Even so, among its weaknesses is not having developed a process for transcultural adaptation from Spanish from Spain to Colombian Spanish, and the lack of investigation into other psychometric properties such as convergent validity or the scale’s test re-test stability.

The employment of structured questionnaires like the R-SPQ-2F consolidates them as important tools in trying to evaluate these recently proposed constructs. As a fact of importance, there exist Universities on the northern coast of Colombia that depend on services like the “Resource Center for Student Success” that support its strategies like the Academic Gymnasium on tools like the R-SPQ-2F so that the student, through self-evaluation processes, learns what approach, motivations, and strategies to employ as well as by reflecting upon his or her current academic performance in order to form adjustments wherever necessary³².

These findings demonstrate the importance of conducting more thorough studies about the psychometric properties of the instrument or even explore others for this population and that give an account of suitable psychometric properties. In applying instruments with better psychometric properties, the quality of the measurements will improve and, accordingly, so will the generalization of the results. It is also important to strengthen the line of investigation into approaches to, and processes of, study in Colombia in order to count on better indicators on an educational level. This will allow government entities to be properly addressed on the efforts in curriculum.

Acknowledgments

The investigating team will like to thank the Dentists Ana Orozco and Eduardo Roqueme for their invaluable help on the development of this study.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES

1. López-Aguado M, López-Alonso AI. Los enfoques de aprendizaje. Revisión conceptual y de investigación. Revista Colombiana de Educación. 2013(64):131-53. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.17227/01203916.64rce131.153.

2. Klimenko O, García-Jiménez HA, Ramírez BL, Muñoz N. Estudio sobre las prácticas de enseñanza y los enfoques de aprendizaje en algunas facultad de la Universidad Cooperativa de Colombia, Seccional Medellín. Revista Virtual de Ciencias Sociales y Humanas "PSICOESPACIOS". 2012;6(9):58-92. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.25057/21452776.90.

3. Corominas E, Tesouro M, Teixeidó J. Vinculación de los enfoques de aprendizaje con los intereses profesionales y los rasgos de la personalidad. Aportaciones a la innovación del proceso de enseñanza y aprendizaje en la educación superior. Revista de Investigación Educativa. 2006;24(2):2006. Retrieved from: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=283321897008.

4. Montealegre G, Núñez ML, Salgado D. Enfoques de aprendizaje de orden sociocultural en estudiantes de una institución de educación superior en Colombia. Acta Médica Colombiana. 2014;39(4):368-77. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resu.2015.10.001.

5. Biggs J. Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary teaching. Higher Education Research and Development. 1989;8(1):7-25. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436890080102.

6. Barca A, Peralbo M, Brenlla JC. Atribuciones causales y enfoques de aprendizaje: la escala SIACEPA. Psicothema. 2004;16(1):94-103. Retrieved from: <http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=72716116.

7. Biggs J, Kember D, Leung DY. The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. Br J Educ Psychol. 2001;71(Pt 1):133-49. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1348/000709901158433.

8. Chung EK, Elliott D, Fisher D, May W. A comparison of medical students' learning approaches between the first and fourth years. South Med J. 2015 Apr;108 (4):207-10. Retrieved from: doi: 10.14423/SMJ.0000000000000260.

9. Gargallo-López B, Garfella-Esteban PR, Pérez-Pérez C. Enfoques de aprendizaje y rendimiento académico en Estudiantes Universitarios. Bordón. 2006;58(3):45-61. Retrieved from: https://www.uv.es/~gargallo/Enfoques.pdf.

10. Hernández-Pina F, García-Sánz M, Maqulón J. Análisis del cuestionario de procesos de estudio - 2 Factores de Biggs en estudiantes universitarios Españoles. Sources: Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación. 2005;6:117-38. Retrieved from: https://revistascientificas.us.es/index.php/fuentes/article/view/2394.

11. Costello AB, Osborne JW. Best practices in Exploratory Factor Analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation. 2005;10(7):1-9. Retrieved from https://pareonline.net/pdf/v10n7.pdf.

12. Simancas-Pallares M, Díaz-Cárdenas S, Barbosa-Gómez P, Buendía-Vergara M, Arévalo-Tovar L. Propiedades psicométricas del Índice de Bienestar General-5 de la Organización Mundial de la Salud en pacientes parcialmente edéntulos. Revista de la Facultad de Medicina. 2016;64(4):701-5. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.15446/revfacmed.v64n4.52235.

13. Simancas-Pallares M, Arrieta KM, Arévalo LL. Validez de constructo y consistencia interna de tres estructuras factoriales y dos sistemas de puntuación del cuestionario de salud general de 12 ítems. Biomédica. 2017;37:308-14. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.7705/biomedica.v37i3.3240.

14. Simancas-Pallares MA, Mesa NF, Martínez FDG. Validity and internal consistency of the Maslach Burnout Inventory in dental students from Cartagena, Colombia. Revista Colombiana de Psiquiatría (English ed). 2017;46(2):103-9. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcpeng.2017.05.009.

15. Díaz-Cárdenas S, Simancas-Pallares MA. Propiedades Psicométricas de la Versión en Español del Índice General De Valoración de Salud Bucal GOHAI en Pacientes Adultos de Cartagena, Colombia. Salud Uninorte. 2017;33(3). Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.14482/sun.33.3.10887.

16. Díaz-Cárdenas S, Tirado-Amador L, Simancas-Pallares M. Validez de constructo y confiabilidad de la APGAR familiar en pacientes odontológicos adultos de Cartagena, Colombia. Revista de la Universidad Industrial de Santander Salud. 2017;49:541-8. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.18273/revsal.v49n4-2017003.

17. Kline P. Handbook of psychological testing: Routledge; 2013. Retrieved from: https://www.routledge.com/Handbook-of-Psychological-Testing-2nd-Edition/Kline/p/book/9780415211581.

18. Stawski RS. Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2013;20(3):541-50. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2013.797841.

19. Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. 2nd ed. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2015. Retrieved from: https://www.guilford.com/books/Confirmatory-Factor-Analysis-for-Applied-Research/Timothy-Brown/9781462515363.

20. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A multidisciplinary Journal. 1999;6(1):1-55. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.

21. Leung SF, Mok E, Wong D. The impact of assessment methods on the learning of nursing students. Nurse Educ Today. 2008;28(6):711-9. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2007.11.004.

22. Riveros-Pérez E, Bernal M, González N. Prevalencia de los enfoques de aprendizaje en estudiantes de Fisiología Médica: cuestionario de procesos de estudio revisado de dos factores (R-SPQ-2F). Biosalud. 2011;10(2):37-47. Retrieved from: http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1657-95502011000200005&lng=en.

23. Stes A, De Maeyer S, Van Petegem P. Examining the cross-cultural sensitivity of the Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) and validation of a Dutch version. PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e54099. Retrieved from: http://10.1371/journal.pone.0054099.

24. Munshi FM, Al-Rukban MO, Al-Hoqail I. Reliability and validity of an Arabic version of the revised two-factor study process questionnaire R-SPQ-2F. J Family Community Med. 2012;19(1):33-7. Retrieved from: doi: 10.4103/2230-8229.94010.

25. Mogre V, Amalba A. Assessing the reliability and validity of the Revised Two Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ2F) in Ghanaian medical students. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2014;11:19. Retrieved from: doi: 10.3352/jeehp.2014.11.19.

26. Campo-Arias A, Oviedo HC. Psychometric properties of a scale: internal consistency. Rev Salud Publica (Bogota). 2008;10(5):831-9. Retrieved from: http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0124-00642008000500015&lng=en.

27. Jackson DL, Gillaspy JJ, Purc-Stepheson R. Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: an overview and some recommendations. Psychological Methods. 2009;14(1):6-23. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014694.

28. Harrington D. Confirmatory Factor Analysis. 1st ed. Press OU, editor. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2008. 122 p. Retrieved from: http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195339888.001.0001.

29. Hoyle RH. Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues and applications. 1st ed. Hoyle RH, editor. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 1995. 291 p. Retrieved from: https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/structural-equation-modeling/book4796.

30. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(24):3186-91. Retrieved from: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014.

31. Eremenco SL, Cella D, Arnold BJ. A comprehensive method for the translation and cross-cultural validation of health status questionnaires. Eval Health Prof. 2005;28(2):212-32. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278705275342.

32. Gimnasio Académico - Centro de Recursos para el Éxito Estudiantil Barranquilla, Colombia: Universidad del Norte; 2016 cited 2016 Octubre 31, 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.uninorte.edu.co/documents/71051/0/EnfoquesGAC.

Conflict of interest declaration

Additional information

Short title: Psychometric properties of the study process questionnaire

To cite this article: Vergara-Hernández C, Simancas-Pallares M, Carbonell-Muñoz. Psychometric properties of the revised two-factor study process R-SPQ-2F Spanish version. Duazary. 2019 may; 16(2): xx-xx. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21676/2389783X.2744