Psychometric characteristics of the Persian Version of The Online Student Engagement Scale

Choobsaz, Freshteh; Zolfaghari, Mitra; Borjalilu, Somaieh

doi:10.22062/sdme.2025.199547.1347

Psychometric characteristics of the Persian Version of The Online Student Engagement Scale

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Freshteh Choobsaz ¹

Mitra Zolfaghari ²

Somaieh Borjalilu ³

¹ Master of Educational Technology in Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

² Professor of Department Health Information Technology, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

³ Assistant Professor, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

10.22062/sdme.2025.199547.1347

Abstract

Background: With the rapid growth of e-learning technology, it has become one of the most common educational approaches in educational institutions.
Objectives: This study was conducted with the aim of psychometrically evaluating the Online Student Engagement Scale (OSE) in Persian to assess the level of engagement in online courses.
Methods: In this descriptive-cross-sectional study, 125 online students completed the Persian version of the OSE. The construct validity of the OSE was examined using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and Pearson correlations. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to determine internal consistency. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed using Smart PLS 3 software to analyze the confirmatory factor structure of the instrument. The Larcker-Fornell criterion was used to check divergent validity.
Results: Four factors of learning engagement (social, behavioral, cognitive, and affective) were identified using factor analysis. The reliability was confirmed with a Cronbach's alpha score of 0.923. The factor structure was supported by fit indices (Χ²/df = 2316.824,
p < .0001, SRMR = 0.166, d_ULS = 29.682, RMS Theta = 0.231). The construct validity and reliability of the tool were confirmed with composite construct validity values above 0.7.
Conclusion: The Persian version of the OSE appears to be a reliable and potentially valid instrument for use in Iranian online students. It may be favorable for evaluating e-learning engagement.

Highlights

Freshteh Choobsaz: (Google Scholar) (PubMed)

Mitra Zolfaghari: (Google Scholar) (PubMed)

Somaieh Borjalilu: (Google Scholar) (PubMed)

Keywords

Psychometric

Questionnaire

Engagement

Online Learning

Chen PSD, Lambert AD, Guidry KR. Engaging online learners: The impact of Web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education. 2010; 54(4); 1222-32. doi:1016/j.compedu.2009.11.008.
Lewis AD, Huebner ES, Malone PS, Valois RF. Life satisfaction and student engagement in adolescents. J Youth Adolesc. 2011 Mar;40(3):249-62. doi: 1007/s10964-010-9517-6. [PMID: 20204687]
Fredricks J, McColskey W, Meli J, Mordica J, Montrosse B, Mooney K. Measuring Student Engagement in Upper Elementary through High School: A Description of 21 Instruments [cited 2011 Jan 20]. Available from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED514996.
National Survey of Student Engagement. Engagement Insights. Survey Findings on the Quality of Undergraduate Education. Bloomington, Indiana: Center for Postsecondary Research, Indiana University, Annual Results; 2015.
Li F, Qi J, Wang G, Wang X. Traditional Classroom VS E-learning in Higher Education: Difference between Students’ Behavioral Engagement. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning. 2014; 9(2): 48–52. doi:3991/ijet.v9i2.3268.
Mosher R, MacGowan B. Assessing Student Engagement in Secondary Schools: Alternative Conceptions, Strategies of Assessing, and Instruments. [cited 2019 Jan 16]. Available from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id= ED272812.
Reschly AL, Christenson SL. Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In: Christenson SL, Reschly AL, Wylie C. Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. New York: Springer: 2012: 97–131. doi:1007/978-1-4614-2018-7.
Burch GF, Heller NA, Burch JJ, Freed R, Steed SA. Student engagement: Developing a conceptual framework and survey instrument Journal of Education for Business. 2015; 9(4): 224-9. doi:1080/08832323.2015.1019821.
Lee Y, Choi J. A review of online course dropout research: Implications for practice and future research. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2011; 59(5): 593–618. doi:1007/s11423-010-9177-y.
Lee J, Song HD, Hong AJ. Exploring factors, and indicators for measuring students' sustainable engagement in e-learning. Sustainability. 2019;11(4): 985. doi:3390/su11040985.
Horton W. E-learning by Design. San Francisco, USA: John Wiley & Sons: 2011.
Dixson, M.D. Measuring Student Engagement in the Online Course: The Online Student Engagement Scale (OSE). Online Learning. 2015; 19(4): n4. doi:24059/olj.v19i4.561.
Jung YJ, Lee JM. Learning engagement and persistence in massive open online courses (MOOCS). Computers & Education. 2018; 122: 9-22. doi: 1016/j.compedu.2018.02.013.
Garrison DR, Anderson T, Archer W. The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education. 2010; 13(1-2): 5–9. doi: 1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.003.
Joo YJ, Lim KY, Kim EK. Online university students’ satisfaction and persistence: Examining perceived level of presence, usefulness and ease of use as predictors in a structural model. Computers & Education. 2011, 57(2): 1654–64. doi: 1016/j.compedu.2011.02.008.
Parkes M, Reading C, Stein S. The competencies required for effective performance in a university e-learning environment. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 2013; 29(6): 777–91. doi: 14742/ajet.38.
Henrie CR, Halverson LR, Graham CR. Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: A review. Computers & Education. 2015; 90:36–53. doi: 1016/j.compedu.2015.09.005.
Watted A, Barak M. Motivating factors of MOOC completers: Comparing between university-affiliated students and general participants. The Internet and Higher Education. 2018; 37: 11–20. doi: 1016/j.iheduc.2017.12.001.
Bond M, Buntins K, Bedenlier S, Zawacki-Richter O, Kerres M. Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 2020;17(1):2. doi:1186/s41239-019-0176-8.
Zen Z, Ariani F. Academic achievement: the effect of project-based online learning method and student engagement. Heliyon. 2022 Nov 12;8(11):e11509. doi: 1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11509. [PMID: 36411883] [PMCID: PMC9674908]
Wong L. Student engagement with online resources and its impact on learning outcomes. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice. 12(1); 129-46. doi:28945/1829.
Lamborn S, Newmann F, Wehlage G. The Significance and Sources of Student Engagement. In: Newman FM. Student Engagement and Achievement in American Secondary Schools. New York: Teachers College Press; 1992: 11-39.
Deng R, Benckendorff P, Gannaway D. Learner engagement in MOOCs: Scale development and validation. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2020; 51(1): 245–62. doi: 1111/bjet.12810.
Hoi VN, Le Hang H. The structure of student engagement in online learning: A bi-factor exploratory structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2021;37(4):1141–53. doi:1111/jcal.12551.
Taghizade A, Musavian SS, Hosseininik SS. Psychometric Properties of the Persian Version of the Online Student Engagement Questionnaire: A Transcultural Adaptation and Psychometric Study. Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences, 2024; 15(3): 226-40. doi: 30476/ijvlms.2024.102125.1299.
Ben-Eliyahu A, Moore D, Dorph R, Schunn CD. Investigating the multidimensionality of engagement: Affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement across science activities and contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2018;53:87–105. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.01.002.