Introduction The learning environment is a critical component of health professions education, influencing student well-being, academic performance, and the long-term quality of the healthcare workforce. Reliable and culturally appropriate instruments are essential for monitoring educational environments and informing institutional and system-level quality improvement. Although the Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM) has been widely used internationally, a validated Hungarian version has not previously been available. Methods The DREEM questionnaire was translated and culturally adapted into Hungarian following established international guidelines for cross-cultural instrument validation. An online survey was administered to medical, dental, and pharmacy students at the University of Pécs Medical School between November and December 2024. Psychometric evaluation included assessment of internal consistency (Cronbach’s α), test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), and confirmatory factor analysis to examine construct validity. Results A total of 529 valid responses were included in the analysis. The Hungarian DREEM demonstrated excellent overall internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.95) and good to excellent temporal stability (ICC range: 0.77–0.91). Confirmatory factor analysis provided only partial support for the original five-factor structure, with acceptable absolute fit indices but suboptimal incremental fit indices. The overall mean DREEM score ( M = 135.0) indicated a generally positive perception of the learning environment. Conclusion The Hungarian version of the DREEM demonstrated strong reliability and acceptable practical utility for assessing students’ perceptions of the learning environment in medical and health professions education. Its application can support institutional evaluation, national benchmarking, and international comparison, contributing to evidence-based educational quality assurance and health workforce development in Hungary. However, confirmatory factor analysis provided only partial support for the original five-factor structure, and construct validity should therefore be interpreted cautiously.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dávidovics et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: