Reliability and Validity of the Chinese Version of the Undergraduate Research Student Self-Assessment Among Chinese...

Undergraduate research (UR) plays a pivotal role in medical education, fostering scientific thinking and professional development. At present, China lacks standardized tools to effectively appraise UR experiences among medical undergraduates. The Undergraduate Research Student Self-Assessment (URSSA), widely used in Western countries, has not been validated for Chinese populations and culture. This study aimed to translate and adapt the URSSA into Chinese and assess its psychometric properties for use with medical undergraduates.

The URSSA was translated following Brislin's model, including forward-backward translation, expert panel review, and pilot testing. The final Chinese version was administered to 165 medical undergraduates from Peking University Health Science Center with UR experience. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's α and Guttman split-half coefficients. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) tested the four-factor structure (Skills, Thinking and Working Like a Scientist, Personal Gains, and Attitudes and Behaviors). Discriminant validity was examined by comparing scores across distinct subgroups.

A total of 165 medical undergraduates were included, among whom 66.7% were majoring in clinical medicine. After rigorous translation and back-translation, we obtained the URSSA questionnaire suitable for the Chinese context. The Chinese URSSA demonstrated excellent reliability (Cronbach's α coefficients = .972; Guttman split-half coefficients = 0.956). CFA supported the original structure and related metrics for testing the overall fitness of the structural equation model, including χ²/df = 2.858, CFI = 0.790, and RMSEA = 0.106. Students with higher research engagement scored significantly higher on all four subscales (P<.01), confirming the capability of URSSA to differentiate among different groups of people.

The Chinese URSSA is a valid and reliable tool for assessing UR gains among medical undergraduates. Its adoption can aid in program evaluation and curriculum development. Future research should validate the tool nationally and explore its predictive validity for long-term academic outcomes.