首页> 外文OA文献 >Construct Validity Evidence Based on Internal Structure: Exploring and Comparing the Use of Rasch Measurement Modeling and Factor Analysis with a Measure of Student Motivation
【2h】

Construct Validity Evidence Based on Internal Structure: Exploring and Comparing the Use of Rasch Measurement Modeling and Factor Analysis with a Measure of Student Motivation

机译:基于内部结构构建有效性证据:使用Rasch测度模型和因子分析与学生动机测度进行探索和比较

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

The current study examined and compared the use of Rasch measurement, common factor analysis (EFA), and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in establishing construct validity evidence based on internal structure with multi-item scales measuring middle and secondary studentsu27 achievement goal orientation and academic self-efficacy. 1054 complete responses were received to 18 items measuring mastery, performance-approach, performance-avoidance, and self-efficacy. Items in each subscale were first analyzed by each method as a unidimensional unit. Items were then analyzed by each method as a multidimensional unit. Results showed that when scales were analyzed individually, all three methods corroborated unidimensionality; however, when all items were analyzed together, the multi-factor model identified through EFA was not supported by the Rasch or CFA analysis. While EFA provided the best information about individual item functioning, Rasch provided important, additional information about rating scale functioning and item fit that helps diagnose poorly performing items. Results also support the use of EFA in evaluating the suitability of a scale for meeting the unidimensionality requirement of item response models. While the mastery and efficacy scales performed in a manner consistent with the motivation literature, the approach and avoidance subscales did not. Conclusions from the study include the need for better explication of conjoint use of classical and modern test theory methods in instrument development, more exposure of current and future researchers to the foundations of measurement theory, and more research about the saliency of measuring performance-avoidance.
机译:当前的研究检查并比较了Rasch度量,公共因子分析(EFA)和验证性因子分析(CFA)在基于内部结构并使用多项目量表测量中,中学生成就目标定向的建构效度证据中的使用和学术自我效能感。收到对10个项目的1054个完整答复,这些项目测量了精通度,绩效方法,绩效回避和自我效能感。首先通过每种方法将每个次级量表中的项目作为一维单位进行分析。然后通过每种方法将项目作为多维单位进行分析。结果表明,当分别对量表进行分析时,所有三种方法均证实了单维性。但是,当一起分析所有项目时,Rasch或CFA分析不支持通过EFA识别的多因素模型。 EFA提供了有关单个项目功能的最佳信息,而Rasch提供了有关等级量表功能和项目适合性的重要重要信息,有助于诊断性能不佳的项目。结果还支持使用EFA评估量表的适用性,以满足项目响应模型的一维要求。虽然精通量表和效能量表的执行方式与动机文献一致,但进近和回避量表却没有。该研究得出的结论包括需要更好地说明在仪器开发中结合使用经典和现代测试理论方法,使当前和将来的研究人员更多地接触测量理论的基础,以及更多关于避免性能测量的重要性的研究。

著录项

  • 作者

    Coleman Mary Angela;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2006
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号