Diantha Soemantri : 0000-0002-3956-1265

Zhafirah Salsabila : 0000-0002-1337-8868

Vernonia Yorasaki : 0000-0003-0606-6919


Background: Given the extensive use of e-learning, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, a validated instrument is deemed important for continuous evaluation. This study aimed to measure health profession education students’ satisfaction toward the e-learning process within all health sciences cluster (HSC) courses, following further validation of the satisfaction scale for the e-learning process.

Methods: A cross-sectional study using an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to validate the 29-item Indonesian version of the satisfaction scale for the e-learning process. That the validated tool was used to measure 2,471 students’ satisfaction toward the e-learning process.

Results: The EFA resulted in 19 items divided into three subscales: the teaching process (5 items), the instructional content (4 items), and the interaction and evaluation (10 items). The scores of students’ satisfaction toward the e-learning process are at 84–94% of the possible maximum score of the whole instrument or each subscale.

Conclusions: The Indonesian version of the satisfaction scale for the e-learning process serves as a valid tool to measure students’ satisfaction toward e-learning. Current students have relatively good perceptions toward e-learning used in all HSC courses, including the interaction domain, which is an important aspect in an e-learning system. Strategies are warranted to maintain and further improve the e-learning process.


  1. Daniel M, Gordon M, Patricio M, Hider A, Pawlik C, Bhagdev R, et al. An update on developments in medical education in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: A BEME scoping review: BEME Guide No. 64. Med Teach. 2021;43:253–71.
  2. Genn JM. AMEE Medical Education Guide No. 23 (Part 2): Curriculum, environment, climate, quality and change in medical education - A unifying perspective. Med Teach. 2001;23:445–54.
  3. Rodriguez MC, Ooms A, Montañez M. Students’ perceptions of online-learning quality given comfort, motivation, satisfaction, and experience. J Interact Online Learn. 2008;7:105–25.
  4. Baber H. Determinants of students’ perceived learning outcome and satisfaction in online learning during the pandemic of COVID19. J Educ e-Learn Res. 2020;7:285–92.
  5. Almusharraf NM, Khahro SH. Students’ satisfaction with online learning experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Emerg Technol Learn. 2020;15:246–67.
  6. Owusu-Fordjour C, Koomson CK, Hanson D. The impact of COVID-19 on learning – The perspective of the Ghanaian student. Eur J Educ Stud. 2020;7:88–101.
  7. Suryani NK, Sugianingrat IAPW. Student E-learning satisfaction during the Covid-19 pandemic in Bali, Indonesia. Jurnal Economia. 2021;17:141–51.
  8. Sun PC, Tsai RJ, Finger G, Chen YY, Yeh D. What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Comput Educ. 2008;50:1183–202.
  9. Piccoli G, Ahmad R, Ives B. Web-based virtual learning environments: a research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skill training. MIS Q. 2001;25:401–26.
  10. Gulbahar Y. Study of developing scales for assessment of the levels of readiness and satisfaction of participants in e-learning environments. Ankara Univ J Faculty Educ Sci. 2012;45:119–38.
  11. Kolcu MİB, Öztürkçü ÖSK, Kaki GD. Evaluation of a distance education course using the 4C-ID model for continuing endodontics education. J Dent Educ. 2020;84:62–71.
  12. Abriya W, Simadibrata M, Soemantri D. Adaptasi kuesioner satisfaction scale for E-learning process versi Indonesia: Evaluasi kepuasan mahasiswa terhadap pembelajaran 4C/ID. eJKI. 2021;9:169–77.
  13. DeVellis RF. Scale development: Theory and applications, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE publications; 2003.
  14. Tinsley HEA, Tinsley DJ. Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. J Couns Psychol. 1987;34:414–24.
  15. Hammick M, Olckers L, Campion-Smith C. Learning in interprofessional teams: AMEE Guide no 38. Med Teach. 2009;31:1–12.
  16. Anderson T, Rourke L, Garrison DR, Archer W. Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Online Learn. 2001;5:1-17.
  17. Bernard RM, Abrami PC, Borokhovski E, Wade CA, Tamim RM, Surkes MA, et al. A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Rev Educ Res. 2009;79:1243–89.
  18. Coetzee M, Oosthuizen RM. Students’ sense of coherence, study engagement and self-efficacy in relation to their study and employability satisfaction. J Psychol Afr. 2012;22:315–22.
  19. El-Sayad G, Md Saad NH, Thurasamy R. How higher education students in Egypt perceived online learning engagement and satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Comput Educ. 2021;8:527–50.
  20. Gebauer MM, McElvany N, Bos W, Köller O, Schöber C. Determinants of academic self-efficacy in different socialization contexts: investigating the relationship between students’ academic self-efficacy and its sources in different contexts. Soc Psychol Educ. 2020;23:339–58.
  21. Kim S, Kim DJ. Structural relationship of key factors for student satisfaction and achievement in asynchronous online learning. Sustainability. 2021;13:6734.
  22. Klem AM, Connell JP. Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. J Sch Health. 2004;74:262–73.
  23. Knowles MS, Holton III EF, Swanson RA, Swanson R, Robinson PA. The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. 9th ed. New York, NY: Routledge; 2020.
  24. Kurucay M, Inan FA. Examining the effects of learner-learner interactions on satisfaction and learning in an online undergraduate course. Comput Educ. 2017;115:20–37.
  25. Laird TFN. College students’ experiences with diversity and their effects on academic self-confidence, social agency, and disposition toward critical thinking. Res High Educ. 2005;46:365–87.
  26. Moore MG. Editorial: Three types of interaction. Am J Distance Educ. 1989;3:1–7.
  27. Moore MG, Kearsley G. Distance learning: A systems view of online learning. California: Wadsworth, OH: Cengage Learning; 2011.
  28. She L, Ma L, Jan A, Sharif Nia H, Rahmatpour P. Online learning satisfaction during COVID-19 pandemic among Chinese university students: The serial mediation model. Front Psychol. 2021;12:743936.
  29. Skinner E, Furrer C, Marchand G, Kindermann T. Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? J Educ Psychol. 2008;100:765–81.
  30. Zhang Q. Assessing the effects of instructor enthusiasm on classroom engagement, learning goal orientation, and academic self-efficacy. Commun Teach. 2014;28:44–56.
  31. Maresca C, Barrero C, Duggan D, Platin E, Rivera E, Hannum W, et al. Utilization of blended learning to teach preclinical endodontics. J Dent Educ. 2014;78:1194–204.
  32. Yang M, Shao Z, Liu Q, Liu C. Understanding the quality factors that influence the continuance intention of students toward participation in MOOCs. Educ Technol Res Dev. 2017;65:1195–214.
  33. Instructional Design Australia. Instructional design. Australia: Instructional Design Australia, 2019.
  34. Baticulon RE, Sy JJ, Alberto NRI, Baron MBC, Mabulay REC, Rizada LGT, et al. Barriers to online learning in the time of COVID-19: A national survey of medical students in the Philippines. Med Sci Educ. 2021;31:615–26.
  35. Martin F, Bolliger DU. Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learn. 2018;22:205–22.
  36. Ellman MS, Schulman-Green D, Blatt L, Asher S, Viveiros D, Clark J, et al. Using online learning and interactive simulation to teach spiritual and cultural aspects of palliative care to interprofessional students. J Palliat Med. 2012;15:1240–7.
  37. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2011;2:53–5.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.