Reducing the Administrative Demands of the Science Curiosity Scale (SCS): A Validation Study

Matthew P. Motta, D. Chapman, Kathryn Haglin, D. Kahan
{"title":"Reducing the Administrative Demands of the Science Curiosity Scale (SCS): A Validation Study","authors":"Matthew P. Motta, D. Chapman, Kathryn Haglin, D. Kahan","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3379265","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Science curious people -- those who enjoy consuming science-related information -- are less likely to hold polarized views about contentious science. Consequently, science curiosity is of great interest to scholars across the social sciences. However, measuring science curiosity via the science curiosity scale (SCS; Kahan et al., 2017) is highly time intensive; potentially impeding its widespread usage. In this paper, we present two new methods for reducing SCS administration time. One method presents respondents with a randomly selected subset of items (the \"Random Subset Method; RS\"). The other asks all respondents a core set of just four items (the \"Reduced-Form Method; RF\"). In three nationally representative surveys of U.S. adults, we assess the construct, convergent, and predictive validity of these alternatives. Across studies, the RS and RF versions of the SCS appear to be well validated. We conclude by discussing how researchers can apply these insights into their own research.","PeriodicalId":346559,"journal":{"name":"Innovation Measurement & Indicators eJournal","volume":"78 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Innovation Measurement & Indicators eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3379265","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Science curious people -- those who enjoy consuming science-related information -- are less likely to hold polarized views about contentious science. Consequently, science curiosity is of great interest to scholars across the social sciences. However, measuring science curiosity via the science curiosity scale (SCS; Kahan et al., 2017) is highly time intensive; potentially impeding its widespread usage. In this paper, we present two new methods for reducing SCS administration time. One method presents respondents with a randomly selected subset of items (the "Random Subset Method; RS"). The other asks all respondents a core set of just four items (the "Reduced-Form Method; RF"). In three nationally representative surveys of U.S. adults, we assess the construct, convergent, and predictive validity of these alternatives. Across studies, the RS and RF versions of the SCS appear to be well validated. We conclude by discussing how researchers can apply these insights into their own research.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
降低科学好奇心量表(SCS)的管理需求:一项验证研究
对科学好奇的人——那些喜欢消费科学相关信息的人——不太可能对有争议的科学持有两极分化的观点。因此,科学好奇心引起了社会科学学者的极大兴趣。然而,通过科学好奇心量表(SCS;Kahan等人,2017)是高度时间密集型的;可能阻碍其广泛使用。在本文中,我们提出了两种减少SCS给药时间的新方法。一种方法是向受访者提供随机选择的项目子集(“随机子集法”;RS”)。另一种方法只要求所有受访者回答四个核心问题(“简化形式法”;射频”)。在三个具有全国代表性的美国成年人调查中,我们评估了这些替代方案的结构、聚合和预测有效性。在所有研究中,RS和RF版本的SCS似乎得到了很好的验证。最后,我们讨论了研究人员如何将这些见解应用到他们自己的研究中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Disregarding the Shoulders of Giants: Inferences from Innovation Research Exploration and Exploitation in US Technological Change The Arms Race of Models: Complexify or Die Destabilization and Consolidation: Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Validating the Dual Characteristics of Technology Patent Classification Systems and Technological Categorization: An Overview and Data Update
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1