Validation of Service-Learning Outcomes Measurement Scale-Short Version (S-Loms-SV) With New Samples and Cross-Cultural Comparisons
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21634578 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Ka Hing Lau (0000-0002-7255-186X, Centre for Innovative Service-Learning, General Education Office, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, China), Lisa Lam (0009-0004-1316-2225, Centre for Innovative Service-Learning, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, China, corresponding author), Robin Stanley Snell (0000-0002-8803-447X, Department of Management, The Hang Seng University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China), Carol Ma Hok Ka (0000-0002-9420-0112, Singapore University of Social Sciences), Carol Ma (Singapore University of Social Sciences) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Volume | 48 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 524-550 |
| Publication date | 2025-09-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Experiential Education (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1053-8259 • E-ISSN: 2169-009X |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/10538259241291779 |
| OpenAlex | W4404342007 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 26 |
Background: The Service-Learning Outcomes Measurement Scale (S-LOMS) with 56 items is an established tool for evaluating student developmental outcomes arising from service-learning in Hong Kong. However, its length may have deterred potential users. Hence, the current study used a shortened version (S-LOMS-SV) with 21 items for validation in Hong Kong and Singapore. Purpose: The purpose of the current study is to validate S-LOM-SV with new samples, as is required for shortened scales. Methodology/Approach: We recruited 970 respondents from Hong Kong and Singapore universities. They answered the 21-item S-LOMS-SV before and after service-learning, along with a service-learning experience questionnaire. We tested scale validity and reliability and used multisample analyses to examine factor stability and cross-cultural validity. In addition, we employed structural equation modeling to establish the relationship between service-learning experience and developmental outcomes. Findings/Conclusions: The current study established the scale validity and reliability and preliminary cross-cultural validity of the S-LOMS-SV. Results revealed developmental differences between traditional undergraduate students and adult learners and reaffirmed the positive relationships between service-learning experience and student development. Implications: The validated S-LOMS-SV provides a succinct and reliable tool for academic research and quality assurance purposes and paves the way for developing a centralized database for cross-cultural and cross-institutional comparisons
Adventure Education · Cartography · Cross-cultural · Geography · Outdoor education · Pedagogy · Sociology · Anthropology · Nursing Education, Practice, and Leadership · Psychology · Service-Learning and Community Engagement · Social Psychology · Youth Development and Social Support
A Meta-Analysis on the Effects of Service-Learning on the Social, Personal, and Cognitive Outcomes of Learning
A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Service-Learning on Students
On the sins of short-form development.
Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance
Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis
Service-Learning in Undergraduate General Chemistry
The Impact of Experiential Learning on Professional Identity
A Large-Scale Study of Students’ E-Service-Learning Experiences and Outcomes During the Pandemic
Impact and Reasoning
A Cross-Sectional, Decade-Long Examination of the Impacts of International Service Learning in Teacher Education
Do student and survey characteristics affect the quality of UK undergraduate medical education course evaluation? A systematic review of the literature
Service learning in higher education
Comparative fit indexes in structural models
Individual Orientation Toward Engagement in Social Action
Service learning and democratic citizenship
Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit
| Citations per year | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2026 - 2026 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |