JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Cybercivility, the practice of what to say and how to say it in online environments, encourages individuals to treat each other with respect. However, due to the anonymity in cyberspace, some individuals behave in ways that violate social and cultural norms. These individuals treat others with a lack of regard and even bully others in faceless online confrontations. This practice of cyberincivility can be found across the internet, on commercial sites, and in schools offering online courses, and blogs. Health professions education is no exception. Research on cybercivility and cyberincivility has been concentrated in the United States, where instruments have been developed to measure the impact of cyberincivility in health professions education. However, there is no instrument that measures Korean nursing students’ behaviors in cyberspace.

Objective:

This study developed and tested a Korean version of the cybercivility scale developed in the United States.

Methods:

Data were collected from 213 nursing students in three South Korean colleges. The cyberincivility needs assessment scale developed by De Gagne et al. (2018) was adapted to measure students’ knowledge of cybercivility, their experiences with and acceptability of cyberincivility. Content validity was tested using the Content Validity Index (CVI). Criterion validity was tested using the digital citizenship scale developed by Choi (2015). The goodness-of-fit of the construct validity was determined through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses.

Results:

The average CVI of each item was 0.8 or higher for all items, and the reliability of the knowledge scale was Kuder–Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20) = .22. The reliability of the experience scale was Cronbach's α = .94, the goodness-of-fit indices of the model were χ2=5568.63(p<.001), the comparative fit index (CFI) = .92, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .08, which satisfied the criteria. The reliability of the acceptability scale was .94, and the goodness-of-fit indices were satisfied in the criteria (CMIN/DF = 2.34, TLI = .92, IFI = .93, SRMR = .05, CFI = .93, and RMSEA = .08).

Conclusions:

The construct- and criterion-related validity of the acceptability scale were a good fit, so the instrument is appropriate for measuring acceptability. The goodness-of-fit for the construct validity of the experience scale was confirmed. A revision of the instrument is needed considering the cultural differences between South Korea and the United States. Clinical Trial: Non applicable