Preliminary Validation Study of the Sustainable Development Goals Literacy Scale (SDGs: LS): Focusing on Fathers of the MZ Generation
Le résumé fourni par la source
The primary purpose of this study was to develop the Sustainable Development Goals Literacy Scale (SDGs: LS) and examine its preliminary validity among MZ generation fathers. A total of 39 items were constructed through three rounds of content validity testing, and survey data from 158 participants were analyzed using SPSS and R. Analyses included item difficulty and discrimination, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, reliability testing, point-biserial correlation, and regression analyses. Results indicated that the knowledge dimension consisted of three subfactors—Human Rights and Eco-friendly Consumption, Sustainable Resource Circulation, and Social Participation—with 17 items, while the practice dimension comprised three subfactors—Value Implementation, Value Choice, and Value Orientation—with 12 items. The overall reliability was .86, with subfactor reliabilities ranging from .71 to .76. Significant positive correlations were found between knowledge and practice, except for value orientation. Predictive, validity analysis confirmed that knowledge positively influenced practice (t=3.54, p<.01). These findings provide empirical support for the preliminary validity of the SDGs: LS and highlight its potential as a foundational tool for developing knowledge-based, practice-oriented parent education programs targeting MZ generation fathers.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Preliminary Validation Study of the Sustainable Development Goals Literacy Scale (SDGs: LS): Focusing on Fathers of the MZ Generation
- Date Crossref
- 30/09/2025
- Éditeur
- Korean Society of Children's Literature and Education
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.