Document Type : Research Article (s)


1 Assistant Professor, School of Nursing and Midwifery Amol, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran

2 Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences Research Center, Addiction Institute, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences

3 Professor, Neurology Research Center, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

4 Associate Professor, Modeling in Health Research Center, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran


Background: The lack of a comprehensive instrument to measure school climate with good psychometric properties in Iran is strongly felt. This study aimed to examine the construct validity of the multidimensional structure of the Maryland Safe and Supportive Schools Climate Survey (MDS3) among Iranian pupils.
Methods: This validation study was peformed on a sample of 1540 pupils from 42 schools in Mazandran province in 2017. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) and exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) were employed to evaluate the construct validity of each of the three scales of the questionnaire (Safety, Engagement, and Environment). The current study tested measurement invariance across gender, school type, and grade levels.
Results: Our findings confirmed the factor structures and measurement invariance across gender, school types, and grade levels regarding Safety, Engagement, and Environment scales of the Persian version of the MDS3 Climate Survey. This study revealed a conceptual overlap between the dimensions of school climate which can be well shown by ESEM (CFI=0.975, TLI=0.945, RMSEA=0.053, SRMR=0.029 for Safety scale; CFI=0.987, TLI=0.961, RMSEA=0.027, SRMR=0.018 regarding Engagement scale; CFI=0.960, TLI=0.926, RMSEA=0.036, SRMR=0.025 concerning Environment scale). Furthermore, the Pearson correlations of all school climate sub-scales were significant (p <0.05) with the exception of correlations between disorder subscale and connection to teachers (r=0.03, P=0.239), academic engagement (r=0.04, P=0.116), and culture of equity (r=0.02, P=0.432).
Conclusion: The Persian version of MDS3 Climate Survey can be used to measure the three key domains of school climate (Safety, Engagement, and Environment) in Iranian context and the epidemiological studies associated with student health and behaviors.


1. Konold T, Cornell D, Huang F, Meyer P, Lacey A, Nekvasil E, et al. Multilevel multi-informant structure of the Authoritative School Climate Survey. Sch Psychol Q. 2014;29(3):238-55. doi: 10.1037/spq0000062. [PubMed: 24884448].## 2. Thapa A, Cohen J, Guffey S, Higgins-D’Alessandro A. A review of school climate research. Rev Educ Res. 2013;83(3):357-85. doi: 10.3102/0034654313483907. ## 3. Benbenishty R, Astor RA, Roziner I, Wrabel SL. Testing the causal links between school climate, school violence, and school academic performance: A cross-lagged panel autoregressive model. Educ Res. 2016;45(3):197-206. doi:10.3102/0013189X16644603. ## 4. Rezapour M, Khanjani N, Mirzai M. Exploring associations between school environment and bullying in Iran: Multilevel contextual effects modeling. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2019;99:54-63. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.01.036. ## 5. Rezapour M, Khanjani N, Soori H. The Types of Bullying Behaviors and Its Association with General Life Satisfaction and Self-Rated Health among Iranian Pupils. J Res Health Sci. 2019;19(1):e00436. doi: 10.15171/jrhs.2019.03. [PubMed: 31133626]. ## 6. Waasdorp TE, Pas ET, O’Brennan LM, Bradshaw CP. A Multilevel Perspective on the Climate of Bullying: Discrepancies Among Students, School Staff, and Parents. J Sch Violence. 2011;10(2):115-32. doi: 10.1080/15388220.2010.539164. [PubMed: 21552337]. [PubMed Central: PMC3088118]. ## 7. Ramsey CM, Spira AP, Parisi JM, Rebok GW. School climate: perceptual differences between students, parents, and school staff. Sch Eff Sch Improv. 2016;27(4):629-41. doi: 10.1080/09243453.2016.1199436. [PubMed: 28642631]. [PubMed Central: PMC5473611]. ## 8. Cohen J, McCabe L, Michelli NM, Pickeral T. School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teach Coll Rec. 2009;111(1):180-213. ## 9. Kohl D, Recchia S, Steffgen G. Measuring school climate: an overview of measurement scales. Educ Res. 2013;55(4):411-26. doi: 10.1080/00131881.2013.844944. ## 10. Voight A, Nation M. Practices for Improving Secondary School Climate: A Systematic Review of the Research Literature. Am J Community Psychol. 2016;58(1-2):174-91. doi: 10.1002/ajcp.12074. [PubMed: 27535489]. ## 11. Rezapour M, Khanjani N, Mirzai M, Mohebbi M. Comparison of Self-Report, Peer-Report, and Principal-Report in Bullying Victimization and Perpetration Among Iranian Students. Int J School Health. 2019;6(2):e89882. doi: 10.5812/intjsh.89882. ## 12. School climate survey compendia: The National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments (NCSSLE) [Internet]; 2017. Available from: ## 13. Bachman R, Randolph A, Brown BL. Predicting Perceptions of Fear at School and Going to and From School for African American and White Students: The Effects of School Security Measures. Youth Soc. 2011;43(2):705-26. doi: 10.1177/0044118x10366674. ## 14. Bradshaw CP, Waasdorp TE, Debnam KJ, Johnson SL. Measuring school climate in high schools: A focus on safety, engagement, and the environment. J Sch Health. 2014;84(9):593-604. doi: 10.1111/josh.12186. [PubMed: 25117894]. ## 15. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. School Connectedness: Strategies for Increasing Protective Factors Among Youth. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2009. ## 16. Johnson B, Stevens JJ, Zvoch K. Teachers’ Perceptions of School Climate:A Validity Study of Scores From the Revised School Level Environment Questionnaire. Educ Psychol Meas. 2007;67(5):833-44. doi: 10.1177/0013164406299102. ## 17. Marsh HW, Morin AJ, Parker PD, Kaur G. Exploratory structural equation modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2014;10:85-110. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700. [PubMed: 24313568]. ## 18. Morin AJS, Marsh HW, Nagengast B. Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling. In: Gregory R. Hancock, Mueller RO, editors. Structural equation modeling : a second course. 2nd ed; 2013. p. 395-437. ## 19. Marsh HW, Lüdtke O, Muthén B, Asparouhov T, Morin AJ, Trautwein U, et al. A new look at the big five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychol Assess. 2010;22(3):471-91. doi: 10.1037/a0019227. [PubMed: 20822261]. ## 20. Tsigilis N, Gregoriadis A, Grammatikopoulos V, Zachopoulou E. Applying Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling to Examine the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale in a Representative Greek Sample. Front Psychol. 2018;9:733. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00733. [PubMed: 29867688]. [PubMed Central: PMC5967347]. ## 21. Pan J, Zaff JF. The Measurement Structure of School Engagement Among Youth in China: An Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling Study. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 2019;37(3):280-92. doi: 10.1177/0734282917733652. ## 22. Marsh HW, Guo J, Dicke T, Parker PD, Craven RG. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM), and Set-ESEM: Optimal Balance Between Goodness of Fit and Parsimony. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 2020;55(1):102-19. doi: 10.1080/00273171.2019.1602503. ## 23. Rezapour M, Khanjani N, Mirzai M. Testing measurement invariance and multilevel factor structures of bullying among Iranian adolescents. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology. 2019;1-17. doi: 10.1080/21683603.2019.1605952 . ## 24. Brislin RW. Back-Translation for Cross-Cultural Research. J Cross Cult Psychol. 1970;1(3):185-216. doi: 10.1177/135910457000100301. ## 25. Rutherford-Hemming T. Determining Content Validity and Reporting a Content Validity Index for Simulation Scenarios. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2015;36(6):389-93. doi: 10.5480/15-1640. [PubMed: 26753299]. ## 26. Hu Lt, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999;6(1):1-55. ## 27. Muthen LK, Muthen BO. Mplus user’s guide. 7th ed. Los Angeles: CA: Muthén & Muthén; 2015. ## 28. Stapleton LM. Multilevel structural equation modeling techniques with complex sample data. In: Hancock GR, Mueller RO, editors. Structural equation modeling: A second course: Iap; 2013. p. 521-62. ## 29. Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling. 2002;9(2):233-55. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5. ## 30. Byrne BM, Van de Vijver FJR. Testing for measurement and structural equivalence in large-scale cross-cultural studies: Addressing the issue of nonequivalence. International Journal of Testing. 2010;10(2):107-32. doi: 10.1080/15305051003637306. ## 31. Meade AW, Johnson EC, Braddy PW. Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. J Appl Psychol. 2008;93(3):568-92. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.568. [PubMed: 18457487]. ## 32. Muñoz PE, Casas JA, Del Rey R, Ortega-Ruiz R, Cerda G, Pérez C. Validation and cross-cultural robustness of the School-wide Climate Scale (SCS) across Spanish and Chilean students. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2018;56:182-8. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.01.002. ## 33. Wang M-T, Degol JL. School Climate: a Review of the Construct, Measurement, and Impact on Student Outcomes. Educational Psychology Review. 2016;28(2):315-52. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9319-1. ##