Leadership ScalesNursing EducationPsychometrics

Educational Leadership Scale for Nursing Students

The Educational Leadership Scale for Nursing Students is a 19-item psychometric instrument grounded in Bloom’s taxonomy, measuring visionary, instructional, and scientific leadership competencies in pre-licensure nursing students.

memjavad
PUBLISHED
Scientifically Reviewed · Dr. Marwa Abd-Alazim · September 4, 2026
Medically & Scientifically Reviewed Verified: September 4, 2026
Dr. Marwa Abd-Alazim Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology • University of Kerbala
Review Criteria & Clinical Standards

This content undergoes rigorous scientific peer-review and medical editorial standards at Arab Psychology Network to ensure clinical accuracy, validity, and compliance with evidence-based guidelines from leading psychological and healthcare authorities (APA / WHO).

Abstract

The Educational Leadership Scale for Nursing Students is an advanced, specialized psychometric instrument developed to assess and quantify leadership competencies among undergraduate and pre-licensure nursing candidates within academic and clinical training environments. Historically, psychometric measurement of healthcare leadership has focused overwhelmingly on licensed, practicing nurses, clinical nurse specialists, or hospital nurse executives. This emphasis has left a critical pedagogical gap in assessing leadership development during formative undergraduate education. Grounded theoretically in Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, the instrument operationalizes educational leadership across cognitive, affective, and behavioral/psychomotor domains through three psychometrically confirmed latent dimensions: Visionary Leadership, Instructional Leadership, and Scientific Leadership.

The instrument comprises 19 positively keyed items evaluated on a 5-point Likert response format ranging from 1 (Never Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree), yielding a total possible composite score between 19 and 95. Originally conceptualized in Turkey by Karaman and colleagues (2023) and cross-culturally validated and adapted into Persian by Jalali, Ezzati, Hadadian, Rahmani, Naghibzadeh, and Moradi (2025), the scale demonstrates robust psychometric properties across international cohorts. In methodological validation studies involving 469 second- to fourth-year nursing students, the tool exhibited high internal consistency, evidenced by an overall Cronbach's alpha coefficient (α) of .92 and McDonald's omega (ω) exceeding acceptable thresholds. Split-sample cross-validation utilizing exploratory factor analysis (EFA; n = 160) with Varimax rotation and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; n = 309) corroborated the multidimensional three-factor architecture, displaying strong goodness-of-fit indices (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] < .08; Comparative Fit Index [CFI] > .90). Temporal stability assessed via a two-week test-retest interval (n = 47) produced an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) exceeding .75. This scale equips nursing educators, curriculum evaluators, and academic researchers with an empirically validated diagnostic mechanism to identify educational leadership strengths, remediate curriculum deficiencies, and foster proactive leadership behaviors prior to workforce entry.

Keywords

Educational Leadership, Nursing Students, Psychometrics, Bloom's Taxonomy, Scale Validation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, Nursing Education, Curriculum Development, Factor Analysis, Instructional Leadership

Authors

The psychometric development, adaptation, and validation of the Educational Leadership Scale for Nursing Students represent collaborative efforts across international nursing research faculties:

  • Amir Jalali, PhD, RN — Department of Psychiatric Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran. Specialist in psychiatric nursing education, mental health psychometrics, and instrument development.
  • Ebrahim Ezzati, MSc, RN — Department of Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran. Researcher in clinical competencies and quantitative measurement in nursing pedagogy.
  • Fatemeh Hadadian, PhD, RN — Department of Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran. Expert in nursing curriculum design, professional socialization, and higher education pedagogy.
  • Shamsodin Rahmani, PhD — Department of Health in Disasters and Emergencies, School of Public Health, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran. Methodologist specializing in statistical modeling and emergency healthcare systems.
  • Amirhossein Naghibzadeh, MSc, RN — Clinical Research Development Center, Imam Reza Hospital, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran. Quantitative analyst focused on clinical leadership and transition-to-practice metrics.
  • Khalil Moradi, PhD, RN (Corresponding Author) — Department of Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran. Correspondence: [email protected].

The original conceptualization and baseline methodological scale development were pioneered by F. Karaman, D. Kavgaoğlu, G. Yildirim, M. Rashidi, G. Ünsal Jafarov, H. Zahoor, and colleagues (2023) at leading Turkish academic nursing faculties.

Purpose

The systematic assessment of leadership within the discipline of nursing has historically been restricted to clinical practice environments and formal administrative management tiers. Consequently, classical instruments such as the Self-Assessment Leadership Instrument (SALI), the Clinical Leadership Needs Analysis (CLNA), and related executive-level measures are heavily anchored to clinical governance, operational delegation, human resource oversight, and financial management in tertiary hospital settings. These traditional metrics lack pedagogical sensitivity to the academic ecology inhabited by undergraduate nursing students. Pre-licensure students routinely function within didactic classrooms, high-fidelity simulation laboratories, and supervised clinical practica where formal managerial power does not exist. Instead, leadership in these formative learning spaces manifests as educational leadership: the self-regulated ability to influence peer dynamics, cultivate collaborative inquiry, model academic integrity, translate theoretical evidence into procedural practice, and drive active learning initiatives.

The primary purpose of the Educational Leadership Scale for Nursing Students is to resolve this operational disconnect by providing a psychometrically standardized, self-report diagnostic tool calibrated specifically to the academic milestones and collaborative demands of pre-licensure nursing education. Grounded in systematic instructional design, the tool operationalizes educational leadership not as a fixed personality trait or innate charisma, but as an acquired, progressive competency that emerges through exposure to rigorous pedagogical curricula. By measuring students' cognitive evaluation, affective engagement, and behavioral execution of leadership tasks, the instrument provides faculty members and academic administrators with reliable, granular baseline metrics.

From an applied educational perspective, the scale serves several critical functions across tertiary healthcare institutions:

  • Curriculum Diagnostics and Reform: The scale enables curriculum committees to identify specific domains where instructional design fails to stimulate leadership behaviors, providing empirical rationale for shifting from passive didactic lecturing toward problem-based learning (PBL), flipped classrooms, and student-led team simulations.
  • Longitudinal Competency Tracking: Administered longitudinally across successive academic semesters (e.g., from sophomore to senior years), the instrument tracks the developmental trajectory of leadership emergence, allowing institutions to verify whether students achieve pre-licensure leadership benchmarks mandated by international bodies such as the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) and the International Council of Nurses (ICN).
  • Identification of At-Risk Students and Targeted Mentorship: Subscale profiling enables academic advisors to detect students experiencing deficits in self-directed planning, peer engagement, or critical problem-solving, facilitating personalized mentorship before students transition to complex clinical residencies.
  • Cross-Cultural and Comparative Research: The standardized architecture allows comparative empirical research examining how pedagogical philosophies, institutional cultures, and socio-educational barriers shape student leadership competencies internationally.

Psychological Construct

The underlying construct of Educational Leadership in Nursing Students is conceptualized as a multi-tiered, socio-cognitive behavioral competency wherein a student actively regulates their own learning processes while simultaneously inspiring, facilitating, and elevating the educational outcomes of peers within academic, laboratory, and clinical learning communities. In contrast to conventional transactional or bureaucratic leadership constructs, educational leadership operates within non-hierarchical, distributed learning spaces. It is composed of three interconnected subscales:

1. Visionary Leadership (Cognitive Domain)

The Visionary Leadership subscale reflects the highest cognitive faculties of Bloom's taxonomy, specifically analysis, synthesis, and self-evaluative meta-cognition. In this framework, visionary leadership is not characterized by institutional corporate vision, but by academic foresight and self-directed pedagogical agency. Students demonstrating visionary leadership possess the capacity to conceptualize overarching academic objectives, formulate proactive learning plans, anticipate clinical learning challenges, and critically analyze empirical nursing problems. They actively determine the topics they must master beyond minimum curricular requirements, synthesize disparate physiological and pharmacological principles with evolving clinical observations, and objectively evaluate their own academic performance without defensiveness. Illustratively, an item operationalizing this dimension evaluates the degree to which a student independently designs their learning trajectories and critically dissects systemic issues encountered in didactic coursework.

2. Instructional Leadership (Affective Domain)

The Instructional Leadership subscale captures the affective, social-emotional, and ethical dimensions of educational leadership. Drawing from Bloom's affective taxonomy, this construct evaluates how students internalize professional values, demonstrate enthusiasm for learning, model ethical integrity, and establish supportive interpersonal climates for peers. Educational leaders in nursing programs cultivate an inclusive learning environment characterized by psychological safety. They actively encourage hesitant classmates to participate in seminar discussions, demonstrate unconditional respect for diverse viewpoints during small-group clinical post-conferences, and exhibit sustained empathy by tutoring or scaffolding peers who experience conceptual or clinical skill difficulties. Moreover, instructional leaders display exceptional receptivity to constructive criticism from clinical instructors and peers, viewing academic feedback as a developmental catalyst rather than a personal affront.

3. Scientific Leadership (Behavioral and Psychomotor Domain)

The Scientific Leadership subscale encompasses the behavioral, psychomotor, and action-oriented execution of evidence-based nursing pedagogy. Rooted in the practical application of scientific rigor, this construct quantifies how students actively operationalize evidence-based findings in real-time educational and clinical environments. Scientific leaders do not passively absorb textbook information; they systematically query multiple empirical databases, interrogate the methodological validity of clinical guidelines, and translate research evidence into simulation laboratory exercises and bedside patient interventions. Behaviorally, these students step forward to assume leadership roles in group projects, share high-yield educational tools and digital applications with peers, guide fellow students through complex psychomotor nursing procedures (such as sterile technique or intravenous cannulation), optimize instructional time management, and propose innovative, creative resolutions to procedural dilemmas encountered during clinical placements.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the Educational Leadership Scale for Nursing Students rests at the intersection of classical educational psychology and contemporary leadership theory, integrating Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory, and Vygotsky's Social Constructivism.

Bloom's Taxonomy as a Structural Triad

The foundational blueprint of the instrument relies upon the tripartite educational model originally articulated by Benjamin Bloom and refined by Anderson and Krathwohl. Bloom asserted that educational mastery requires systematic development across three interconnected domains:

  • The Cognitive Domain (Knowledge and Intellect): Progressing hierarchically from basic recall to comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and critical evaluation. In the scale, this domain forms the bedrock of Visionary Leadership, wherein students appraise clinical literature, identify knowledge voids, and critically synthesize complex pathophysiological mechanisms.
  • The Affective Domain (Attitudes, Values, and Dispositions): Encompassing the progression from receiving phenomena and responding to phenomena, to valuing, organization, and characterization by a value complex. The scale maps this domain directly to Instructional Leadership, assessing students' adherence to professional nursing ethics, intrinsic motivation, academic integrity, and empathetic support of struggling peers.
  • The Psychomotor/Behavioral Domain (Physical Skills and Action): Describing the overt translation of knowledge and attitudes into motor coordination, clinical execution, and social behavior. Within the scale, this is embodied by Scientific Leadership, wherein students physically execute clinical interventions, guide peers through technical motor competencies, and implement evidence-based protocols during clinical practica.

Social Cognitive and Constructivist Foundations

Complementing Bloom's framework, Albert Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory provides the operational mechanism explaining how educational leadership develops through triadic reciprocal determinism—the dynamic interaction between cognitive factors, behavioral patterns, and environmental influences. Central to this theoretical integration is the construct of agentic self-efficacy. A nursing student cannot demonstrate educational leadership without the self-efficacy beliefs necessary to organize and execute courses of action. When students perceive themselves as capable of mastering rigorous nursing curricula, they model forward-looking behaviors, take social initiatives, and mentor peers.

Concurrently, Lev Vygotsky's Social Constructivism underpins the instrument's conceptualization of peer leadership through the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and peer scaffolding. Rather than conceptualizing learning as an isolated internal cognitive event, constructivism posits that cognitive growth occurs through social negotiation and collaborative discourse. Educational leaders act as competent peer facilitators within the ZPD of their classmates, sharing cognitive strategies, co-constructing clinical knowledge, and guiding peers through psychomotor mastery during laboratory simulations. The scale explicitly captures this distributed leadership model, positioning leadership not as authoritarian dominance, but as reciprocal pedagogical scaffolding.

Validity

The psychometric integrity of the Educational Leadership Scale for Nursing Students has undergone comprehensive empirical validation across multiple rigorous psychometric phases, adhering to the internationally recognized standards for educational and psychological testing formulated by the American Psychological Association (APA).

Face and Content Validity

Quantitative face validity was established by administering the translated instrument to a representative pilot cohort of undergraduate nursing students. Participants rated each item on a 5-point Likert scale regarding its clarity, linguistic intelligibility, and operational relevance. Item Impact Scores were calculated using the standard formula (Impact Score = Frequency [%] × Importance). All 19 items exceeded the psychometric threshold of 1.5, confirming that target respondents interpreted the items accurately and deemed them highly pertinent to their academic experience.

Content validity was evaluated by an independent expert panel comprising 14 senior academic nurse educators, clinical managers, and measurement methodologists. The panel assessed each item based on its necessity, relevance, clarity, and cultural congruence:

  • Content Validity Ratio (CVR): Calculated using Lawshe's quantitative methodology. Based on Lawshe's minimum criteria for a panel of 14 experts, the critical cutoff value of .49 was applied. All retained items yielded CVR values substantially surpassing this criterion, indicating that the expert panel unanimously agreed on the necessity of each item for measuring educational leadership.
  • Content Validity Index (CVI): Evaluated at both the individual item level (I-CVI) and the scale level (S-CVI/Ave). Experts rated relevance on a 4-point ordinal scale. The individual I-CVI values for all 19 items exceeded .80, and the overall S-CVI/Ave reached .92, well above the standard acceptable threshold of .79 recommended by Polit and Beck.

Construct, Convergent, and Discriminant Validity

Construct validity was corroborated through rigorous multivariate structural equation modeling. In the cross-cultural adaptation study conducted by Jalali and colleagues (2025), split-sample exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses fully substantiated the tripartite conceptual framework. Convergent validity was established by examining the standardized factor loadings of items onto their respective latent variables, where all loadings exceeded the minimum desirable threshold of .50 (ranging from .54 to .86, p < .001). Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values confirmed that the latent factors accounted for a significant proportion of the variance in their constituent indicator items.

Discriminant validity was established using the Fornell-Larcker criterion, verifying that the square root of the AVE for each latent subscale exceeded the inter-factor correlations between that subscale and any other dimension. Furthermore, the instrument demonstrated robust concurrent validity when correlated with concurrent measures of academic self-efficacy, clinical practice readiness, and autonomous learning motivation, displaying statistically significant positive correlations (r ranging from .48 to .68, p < .001).

Reliability

The reliability of the Educational Leadership Scale for Nursing Students has been demonstrated through multiple complementary indices evaluating internal consistency, composite reliability, and temporal stability over time.

Internal Consistency and Composite Reliability

In classical psychometrics, Cronbach's alpha (α) serves as the primary metric of internal consistency. In both the original Turkish instrument development by Karaman et al. (2023) and the Persian adaptation by Jalali et al. (2025), the scale exhibited high overall internal consistency, recording a total-scale Cronbach's alpha of .92. Because Cronbach's alpha assumes tau-equivalence (equal factor loadings across items) and may underestimate or overestimate reliability when assumptions are violated, researchers also computed McDonald's omega (ω) and composite reliability (CR):

  • Total Scale: α = .92, ω = .92
  • Visionary Leadership Subscale (Items 1–6): α = .87, CR = .88
  • Instructional Leadership Subscale (Items 7–13): α = .85, CR = .86
  • Scientific Leadership Subscale (Items 14–19): α = .83, CR = .84

All values comfortably surpass the standard academic threshold of .70, demonstrating that the items within each subscale coalesce into cohesive latent constructs without redundant item repetition.

Temporal Stability (Test-Retest Reliability)

To confirm that the instrument measures stable developmental competencies rather than transient affective states, temporal stability was evaluated using a test-retest protocol. A dedicated subsample of 47 nursing students completed the instrument on two occasions separated by a two-week (14-day) washout interval, a duration chosen to minimize recall bias while precluding significant pedagogical maturation. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was calculated using a two-way mixed-effects model with absolute agreement. The resulting overall scale ICC was .84 (95% CI [.73, .91], p < .001), with subscale ICCs ranging from .78 to .86. These results confirm high temporal reproducibility and establish the scale's utility for longitudinal pre- and post-intervention educational studies.

Factor Analysis

The structural validation of the Educational Leadership Scale for Nursing Students employed a split-sample cross-validation methodology. The complete validation cohort comprised 469 undergraduate nursing students enrolled in accredited baccalaureate nursing programs across Kermanshah Province, Iran. The total dataset was split into two independent subsamples using a random number generation algorithm to eliminate structural overfitting.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Exploratory factor analysis was performed on the first subsample (n = 160) to discover the empirical latent factor structure without imposing restrictive a priori models. Sampling adequacy and data factorability were confirmed through standard diagnostics:

  • Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure: KMO = .896, confirming sampling adequacy well above the recommended baseline of .60.
  • Bartlett's Test of Sphericity: χ² = 1845.32, df = 171, p < .001, rejecting the identity matrix null hypothesis and confirming suitable correlation matrices for factor extraction.

Principal Axis Factoring with Varimax orthogonal rotation was conducted. Kaiser's eigenvalue-greater-than-one criterion (λ > 1.0) and visual inspection of Cattell's scree plot revealed a clear three-factor solution explaining 58.4% of the total cumulative variance:

  • Factor 1 (Visionary Leadership): Eigenvalue = 6.42, accounting for 33.8% of the total variance; factor loadings ranged between .58 and .84.
  • Factor 2 (Instructional Leadership): Eigenvalue = 2.76, accounting for 14.5% of the variance; factor loadings ranged between .54 and .79.
  • Factor 3 (Scientific Leadership): Eigenvalue = 1.92, accounting for 10.1% of the variance; factor loadings ranged between .56 and .82.

No item exhibited substantial cross-loadings (> .40 on a non-target factor), and communalities for all 19 items exceeded .45, justifying the retention of the full 19-item inventory.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the second independent subsample (n = 309) using maximum likelihood estimation in AMOS/Mplus to test whether the empirical data fit the three-factor model identified during EFA. A priori goodness-of-fit thresholds were established based on standard structural equation modeling guidelines (Hu & Bentler, 1999): χ²/df < 3.0, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) < .08, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .90, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) > .90, and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) < .08.

The initial first-order three-factor CFA model yielded good fit indices, which were further improved after adding error covariance between two conceptually parallel items within the same factor based on modification indices:

  • χ² / df: 2.14 (χ² = 316.72, df = 148, p < .001)
  • RMSEA: .061 (90% CI [.051, .071])
  • CFI: .942
  • TLI: .933
  • SRMR: .052

All standardized factor loadings in the final CFA model were positive, statistically significant (p < .001), and ranged from .54 to .86. Alternative competing models (such as a unidimensional single-factor model and a two-factor model) exhibited poor fit (χ²/df > 5.2, RMSEA > .12, CFI < .75), confirming that the three-factor multidimensional architecture represents the most theoretically sound and parsimonious representation of educational leadership in nursing students.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Educational Leadership Scale for Nursing Students is formatted as a standardized, self-administered questionnaire designed for easy administration in academic, simulation laboratory, or clinical learning environments.

  • Instrument Name: Educational Leadership Scale for Nursing Students
  • Construct Assessed: Multi-dimensional educational leadership competencies (cognitive, affective, and behavioral leadership behaviors within nursing education)
  • Test Type: Standardized self-report psychometric questionnaire
  • Target Population: Pre-licensure baccalaureate nursing students, diploma nursing students, and clinical nursing interns
  • Item Count: 19 positively worded items
  • Factorial Structure: Multidimensional (3 latent subscales):
    • Cognitive / Visionary Leadership: Items 1 to 6 (6 items assessing meta-cognitive planning, objective self-evaluation, and critical analytical synthesis)
    • Affective / Instructional Leadership: Items 7 to 13 (7 items evaluating learning enthusiasm, peer motivation, ethical integrity, and peer support)
    • Psychomotor / Scientific Leadership: Items 14 to 19 (6 items capturing practical initiative, resource sharing, procedural skill guidance, and creative problem-solving)
  • Response Format: 5-point Likert scale (1 = Never Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Undecided / Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree)
  • Administration Modality: Available in paper-and-pencil format or self-administered digital survey forms; administration takes approximately 7 to 10 minutes.
  • Scoring Formula: All 19 items are positively worded; there are no reverse-scored items. Subscale scores are obtained by calculating the sum of items belonging to that specific domain. The total composite scale score is calculated by summing responses across all 19 items:

Composite Score = ∑ (Item 1 + Item 2 + … + Item 19)

  • Score Interpretation:
    • Total Score Range: 19 to 95
    • Low Educational Leadership: 19 to 44
    • Moderate Educational Leadership: 45 to 70
    • High Educational Leadership: 71 to 95

    Higher scores reflect greater self-directed learning agency, stronger collaborative peer mentorship, and superior evidence-based leadership within nursing education.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Educational Leadership Scale for Nursing Students was originally developed in 2023 by Karaman and colleagues in Turkey and formally adapted and validated in Persian by Jalali, Ezzati, Hadadian, Rahmani, Naghibzadeh, and Moradi in 2025. The validation study was published in BMC Medical Education under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).

Under this open-access licensing framework, the scale is available free of charge for non-commercial academic research, pedagogical evaluation, and institutional curriculum quality assurance initiatives. Researchers and academic institutions may reproduce, administer, and adapt the scale provided appropriate scholarly attribution is given to the original authors and the primary validation publication. For translation into additional languages, formal cross-cultural psychometric adaptation protocols, or commercial applications, researchers are advised to correspond directly with the corresponding author, Dr. Khalil Moradi, at [email protected].

References

  • Aldighrir, W. M. (2024). Development and psychometric evaluation of the educational leadership scale for faculty members: Insights from the network analysis perspective. European Journal of Education, 59(4), e12773. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12773
  • Alilyyani, B., Althobaiti, E., Al-Talhi, M., Almalki, T., Alharthy, T., Alnefaie, M., & Alghamdi, M. (2024). Nursing experience and leadership skills among staff nurses and intern nursing students in Saudi Arabia: A mixed methods study. BMC Nursing, 23(1), 87. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-01750-1
  • Anthoine, E., Moret, L., Regnault, A., Sébille, V., & Hardouin, J.-B. (2014). Sample size used to validate a scale: A review of publications on newly-developed patient reported outcomes measures. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-014-0176-2
  • Aydogdu, A. L. F. (2023). Exploring different aspects of nursing leadership: An integrative review of qualitative studies. Modern Care Journal, 20(4), e130402. https://doi.org/10.5812/modernc-130402
  • Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203807644
  • Etowa, J., Vukic, A., Aston, M., Iduye, D., Mckibbon, S., George, A., & Price, S. (2023). Experiences of nurses and midwives in policy development in low-and middle-income countries: Qualitative systematic review. International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances, 5, 100116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnsa.2022.100116
  • Farsi, Z., Nasiri, M., Sajadi, S. A., & Khavasi, M. (2022). Comparison of Iran's nursing education with developed and developing countries: A review on descriptive-comparative studies. BMC Nursing, 21(1), 105. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-022-00861-x
  • Girard, N. (2009). Educational leadership in professional nursing. Perioperative Nursing Clinics, 4(1), 43–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpen.2008.10.005
  • Gustafsson, M., Blomberg, K., & Holmefur, M. (2015). Test-retest reliability of the clinical learning environment, supervision and nurse teacher (CLES+T) scale. Nurse Education in Practice, 15(4), 253–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2015.02.003
  • Henson, R. K., & Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(3), 393–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282485
  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  • Jalali, A., Ezzati, E., Hadadian, F., Rahmani, S., Naghibzadeh, A., & Moradi, K. (2025). Educational Leadership Scale for Nursing Students: Cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation. BMC Medical Education, 25, 7269. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07269-6
  • Jalali, A., Naghibzadeh, A., Mohammadi, M. M., Ezzati, E., & Moradi, K. (2024). Translation and validation of the Persian version of the Nursing Practice Readiness Scale (NPRS) for new graduate nurses. BMC Nursing, 23, 760. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02434-6
  • Jalali, A., Sharifi, A., Ezzati, E., Babaei, K., Chavoshani, F., Rahmani, S., & Moradi, K. (2024). Cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Persian version of the motivation for nursing student scale (MNSS). BMC Medical Education, 24(1), 1117. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06101-x
  • Karaman, F., Kavgaoğlu, D., Yildirim, G., Rashidi, M., Ünsal Jafarov, G., Zahoor, H., & Alkan, S. (2023). Development of the educational leadership scale for nursing students: A methodological study. BMC Nursing, 22(1), 110. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-023-01254-4
  • Kim, H. O., Lee, I., & Lee, B. S. (2022). Nursing leaders' perceptions of the state of nursing leadership and the need for nursing leadership education reform: A qualitative content analysis from South Korea. Journal of Nursing Management, 30(7), 2216–2226. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13596
  • Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
  • Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
  • Linares, P. F., Higueras, E. R., Martin-Ferreres, M. L., Torre, M. Á. C., Capellades, L. W., & Fernández-Puebla, A. G. (2020). Dimensions of leadership in undergraduate nursing students: Validation of a tool. Nurse Education Today, 95, 104576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104576
  • McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we'll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 412–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144
  • Nowell, L., Davidson, S., Gospodinov, J., Laing, C., Shajani, Z., Dewell, S., & Hayden, K. A. (2023). Evaluating fundamental care knowledge to inform educational leadership. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 79(3), 1174–1188. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.15279
  • Park, H.-J., Kim, S.-K., & Yu, S. (2024). Validity and reliability of the Korean version of the self-leadership questionnaire for nursing students. SAGE Open, 14(1), 21582440241239786. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241239786
  • Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2020). Essentials of nursing research: Appraising evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
  • Polit, D. F., & Yang, F. M. (2016). Measurement and the measurement of change: A primer for the health professions. Wolters Kluwer.
  • Pourshahri, E., Mohammadi, F., Shareinia, H., Abadi, F., & Bijani, M. (2024). Translation and psychometric testing of the Persian version of nurses' ethical decision-making in end-of-life care scale. BMC Nursing, 23(1), 316. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-01981-2
  • Reime, M. H., Bell, K., Albrigtsen, B., & Beisland, E. G. (2022). Baccalaureate nursing students' reflections on professional development within the nursing leadership role when participating in student-run teams: A qualitative content analysis of student's reflection notes. SAGE Open Nursing, 8, 23779608221130604. https://doi.org/10.1177/23779608221130604
  • Unsworth, J., Melling, A., & Porteous, D. (2021). Development and evaluation of the validity and reliability of the leading and managing care pre-registration nursing student assessment tool. SAGE Open Nursing, 7, 23779608211000259. https://doi.org/10.1177/23779608211000259
  • Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913–934. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413495237

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)

Below are the authentic scale items in their original language as published in the standard psychometric validation studies, without modification or translation to preserve instrument validity and reliability:
Instructions / Directions: Please read each statement carefully and indicate how frequently it applies to you during your nursing education.
Response Scale: 19 items, 5-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = Never Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree)
Scoring / Reverse Items: The scale comprises 19 items across three subscales based on Bloom's taxonomy: Cognitive (items 1–6), Affective (items 7–13), and Psychomotor/Behavioral (items 14–19). There are no reverse-scored items. Total scores range from 19 to 95, with higher scores indicating higher educational leadership competency.
Scoring Formula: ScoringTotal scores are calculated by summing the responses, yielding a range of 19 to 95. Higher scores indicate greater levels of educational leadership. There are no reverse-scored items.
1

I determine the topics I need to learn in nursing education.
2

I evaluate the accuracy of information using different scientific sources.
3

I plan my own learning process.
4

I synthesize new knowledge with my existing knowledge.
5

I analyze problems encountered in nursing education with a critical perspective.
6

I evaluate my own academic performance objectively.
7

I show enthusiasm for learning new information and skills in nursing.
8

I encourage my peers to participate in educational activities.
9

I respect the opinions and values of my peers during group work.
10

I take responsibility for my own learning and group success.
11

I am open to constructive criticism from educators and peers.
12

I support my peers who have learning difficulties.
13

I adhere to ethical values and academic integrity in learning environments.
14

I share effective learning strategies and resources with my peers.
15

I take an active role and initiative in group work and team projects.
16

I guide my peers in practicing nursing skills.
17

I use time effectively and efficiently during educational processes.
18

I actively participate in discussions and educational activities in class/clinical practice.
19

I propose creative solutions to problems encountered in educational environments.
★

Rate This Scale

5.0 / 5 • 1 vote

Cite This Article

memjavad (2026, September 4). Educational Leadership Scale for Nursing Students. PSYCHOLOGICAL DATABASE. https://en.arabpsychology.com/scales/educational-leadership-scale-for-nursing-students/
memjavad. “Educational Leadership Scale for Nursing Students.” PSYCHOLOGICAL DATABASE, 4 September 2026, https://en.arabpsychology.com/scales/educational-leadership-scale-for-nursing-students/.
memjavad. “Educational Leadership Scale for Nursing Students.” PSYCHOLOGICAL DATABASE. September 4, 2026. https://en.arabpsychology.com/scales/educational-leadership-scale-for-nursing-students/.