Investigation of The Measurement Invariance of Affective Characteristics Related to TIMSS 2019 Mathematics Achievement by Gender

Mehmet ATILGAN, Kaan Zulfikar DENİZ
{"title":"Investigation of The Measurement Invariance of Affective Characteristics Related to TIMSS 2019 Mathematics Achievement by Gender","authors":"Mehmet ATILGAN, Kaan Zulfikar DENİZ","doi":"10.21031/epod.1221365","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This research examines whether the affective characteristics of the TIMSS 2019 Turkey mathematics application provide measurement invariance according to gender. The research sample consists of 4048 8th-grade students participating in the TIMSS in 2019. Research data were downloaded from the international website of TIMSS. The research data collection tools are “Sense of School Belonging”, “Students Confident in Mathematics”, “Students Like Learning Mathematics”, and “Students Value Mathematics” scales. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were performed in the context of validity analyses to examine measurement invariance. In terms of reliability, the Cronbach Alfa internal consistency coefficient was calculated. Accordingly, out of the four scales in the study, only “Students Confident in Mathematics” scale could not be confirmed in confirmatory factor analysis. Therefore, while “Students Confident in Mathematics” scale was not examined for measurement invariance, the other three scales were examined within the scope of measurement invariance. For measurement invariance, research data were tested with Multiple Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MG-CFA), one of the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) techniques. As a result of the analyses, while the strict invariance model was provided in “Students Like Learning Mathematics” scale and “Students Value Mathematics” scale, strong invariance/scale invariance model was provided in “Sense of School Belonging” scale. It was concluded that there was no gender bias in the three scales for which MG-CFA was performed, and the mean scores were comparable according to gender. In this context, it can be said that “Sense of School Belonging”, “Students Like Learning Mathematics”, and “Students Value Mathematics” scales are valid in determining the differences according to gender.","PeriodicalId":43015,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology-EPOD","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology-EPOD","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.1221365","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This research examines whether the affective characteristics of the TIMSS 2019 Turkey mathematics application provide measurement invariance according to gender. The research sample consists of 4048 8th-grade students participating in the TIMSS in 2019. Research data were downloaded from the international website of TIMSS. The research data collection tools are “Sense of School Belonging”, “Students Confident in Mathematics”, “Students Like Learning Mathematics”, and “Students Value Mathematics” scales. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were performed in the context of validity analyses to examine measurement invariance. In terms of reliability, the Cronbach Alfa internal consistency coefficient was calculated. Accordingly, out of the four scales in the study, only “Students Confident in Mathematics” scale could not be confirmed in confirmatory factor analysis. Therefore, while “Students Confident in Mathematics” scale was not examined for measurement invariance, the other three scales were examined within the scope of measurement invariance. For measurement invariance, research data were tested with Multiple Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MG-CFA), one of the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) techniques. As a result of the analyses, while the strict invariance model was provided in “Students Like Learning Mathematics” scale and “Students Value Mathematics” scale, strong invariance/scale invariance model was provided in “Sense of School Belonging” scale. It was concluded that there was no gender bias in the three scales for which MG-CFA was performed, and the mean scores were comparable according to gender. In this context, it can be said that “Sense of School Belonging”, “Students Like Learning Mathematics”, and “Students Value Mathematics” scales are valid in determining the differences according to gender.
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
性别对TIMSS 2019数学成绩相关情感特征测量不变性的调查
本研究考察了TIMSS 2019土耳其数学应用程序的情感特征是否根据性别提供测量不变性。研究样本为2019年参加TIMSS的4048名8年级学生。研究数据从TIMSS国际网站下载。研究数据收集工具为“学校归属感”、“学生对数学的信心”、“学生喜欢学习数学”和“学生重视数学”量表。在效度分析的背景下,进行探索性因子分析(EFA)和验证性因子分析(CFA)来检验测量的不变性。信度方面,计算Cronbach alpha内部一致性系数。因此,在本研究的四个量表中,只有“学生数学自信”量表在验证性因子分析中无法得到证实。因此,在对“学生数学自信”量表不进行测量不变性检查的同时,对其他三个量表在测量不变性范围内进行了检查。为了测量不变性,研究数据采用结构方程建模(SEM)技术之一的多组验证因子分析(MG-CFA)进行检验。分析结果表明,“学生喜欢学习数学”量表和“学生重视数学”量表提供了严格不变性模型,而“学校归属感”量表提供了强不变性/尺度不变性模型。我们得出结论,MG-CFA的三个量表不存在性别偏倚,平均得分根据性别具有可比性。在此背景下,可以说“学校归属感”、“学生喜欢学习数学”和“学生重视数学”量表在确定性别差异方面是有效的。
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
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
20.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Learning analytics in formative assessment: A systematic literature review Analysis of Peer and Self-Assessments Using the Many-facet Rasch Measurement Model and Student Opinions Ability Estimation with Polytomous Items in Computerized Multistage Tests Investigation of The Measurement Invariance of Affective Characteristics Related to TIMSS 2019 Mathematics Achievement by Gender A Bibliometric Analysis on Power Analysis Studies
×
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