ABSTRACT
Purpose: This study aimed to translate the Pandemic-Related Pregnancy Stress Scale into Korean and validate the translated instrument. Patients and Methods: After translating the instrument, seven items of two factors (preparedness and perinatal infection stress) were selected for content validity testing. Validity and reliability were evaluated using SPSS 25.0 and AMOS 26.0. An online survey, via Google Forms, was conducted from January 20 to January 26, 2022. Participants were 283 pregnant women in Korea who consented to participate in the study. Results: Exploratory factor analysis revealed factor loadings on two factors of 0.64-0.87 with a total variance explained of 69.77%. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated good model fit (RMR = 0.03, RMSEA = 0.06, GFI = 0.98, SRMR = 0.03), and convergent and discriminant validity were established. Concurrent validity was established based on the correlation with the Revised Prenatal Distress Questionnaire (r = 0.45), and the reliability of the final instrument was indicated by Cronbach's α = 0.87. Conclusion: The Pandemic-Related Pregnancy Stress Scale was validated for use in the Korean population. The Korean version of the Pandemic-Related Pregnancy Stress Scale can be utilized to measure pandemic-related stress in pregnant women.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To compare online learning with traditional face-to-face and blended learning, based on randomized controlled trials, to determine the impact of online learning on nursing students' learning outcomes. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search was conducted via English (PubMed, ERIC, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL) and Korean databases (RISS, DBpia, and KISS). REVIEW METHODS: Studies published up to the first week of April 2022 were reviewed with a focus on the participants, intervention, comparison, outcome, and study design format. Following a primary screening of titles and abstracts, and secondary screening of full texts, 10 randomized controlled trial studies were selected, of which eight were included in the meta-analysis. Two researchers independently reviewed the literature, and the final selection was made in consensus. RESULTS: Online learning had a statistically significant positive effect on nursing students' knowledge, compared with no educational intervention (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 1.63; 95 % confidence interval (CI): 1.31 to 1.95). However, there was no significant difference in the impact of online learning on knowledge compared with blended learning (SMD = -0.14; 95 % CI: -0.70 to 0.41) and face-to-face learning (SMD = 0.37; 95 % CI: -0.32 to 1.06). Furthermore, compared with blended learning (SMD = -0.18; 95 % CI: -0.43 to 0.06) and face-to-face learning (SMD = 0.05; 95 % CI: -0.31 to 0.41), there was no significant difference in the impact of online learning on attitudes toward learning. CONCLUSIONS: Online learning in nursing education is not significantly different from blended or face-to-face learning in terms of its impact on knowledge acquisition and attitudes toward learning. The results of this review and meta-analysis highlight the need for selective application of learning methods, taking into account learning environments as well as curricular subjects and topics.