Technical Adequacy of the Data-Based Instruction Knowledge and Skills Assessment in Writing

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2024-05-14 DOI:10.1177/15345084241252369
Seohyeon Choi, Kristen McMaster, Erica S. Lembke, Manjary Guha
{"title":"Technical Adequacy of the Data-Based Instruction Knowledge and Skills Assessment in Writing","authors":"Seohyeon Choi, Kristen McMaster, Erica S. Lembke, Manjary Guha","doi":"10.1177/15345084241252369","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Teachers’ knowledge and skills about data-based instruction (DBI) can influence their self-efficacy and their implementation of DBI with fidelity, ultimately playing a crucial role in improving student outcomes. The purpose of this brief report is to provide evidence for the technical adequacy of a measure of DBI knowledge and skills in writing by examining its internal consistency reliability, considering different factor structures, and assessing item statistics using classical test theory and item response theory. We used responses from 154 elementary school teachers, primarily special educators, working with children with intensive early writing needs. Results from confirmatory factor analysis did not strongly favor either a one-factor solution, representing a single dimension of DBI knowledge and skills, or a two-factor solution, comprising knowledge and skills subscales. Internal consistency reliability coefficients were within an acceptable range, especially with the one-factor solution assumed. Item difficulty and discrimination estimates varied across items, suggesting the need to further investigate certain items. We discuss the potential of using the DBI Knowledge and Skills Assessment, specifically in the context of measuring teacher-level DBI outcomes in writing.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15345084241252369","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Teachers’ knowledge and skills about data-based instruction (DBI) can influence their self-efficacy and their implementation of DBI with fidelity, ultimately playing a crucial role in improving student outcomes. The purpose of this brief report is to provide evidence for the technical adequacy of a measure of DBI knowledge and skills in writing by examining its internal consistency reliability, considering different factor structures, and assessing item statistics using classical test theory and item response theory. We used responses from 154 elementary school teachers, primarily special educators, working with children with intensive early writing needs. Results from confirmatory factor analysis did not strongly favor either a one-factor solution, representing a single dimension of DBI knowledge and skills, or a two-factor solution, comprising knowledge and skills subscales. Internal consistency reliability coefficients were within an acceptable range, especially with the one-factor solution assumed. Item difficulty and discrimination estimates varied across items, suggesting the need to further investigate certain items. We discuss the potential of using the DBI Knowledge and Skills Assessment, specifically in the context of measuring teacher-level DBI outcomes in writing.
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
基于数据的写作教学知识和技能评估的技术充分性
教师对基于数据的教学(DBI)的知识和技能可以影响他们的自我效能感和对 DBI 的忠实实施,最终在提高学生成绩方面发挥至关重要的作用。本简短报告的目的是通过检验 DBI 知识和技能的内部一致性可靠性、考虑不同的因素结构以及使用经典测验理论和项目反应理论评估项目统计,为 DBI 知识和技能的写作测量方法的技术充分性提供证据。我们使用了 154 名小学教师(主要是特殊教育工作者)的答卷,这些教师的工作对象是有密集早期写作需求的儿童。确认性因素分析的结果显示,无论是代表 DBI 知识和技能单一维度的单因素方案,还是由知识和技能子量表组成的双因素方案,都没有得到强有力的支持。内部一致性信度系数在可接受的范围内,尤其是在假设采用单因素解决方案的情况下。不同项目的难度和区分度估计值各不相同,这表明有必要对某些项目进行进一步研究。我们讨论了使用 DBI 知识与技能评估的可能性,特别是在测量教师水平的 DBI 写作成果方面。
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
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
期刊最新文献
The change process questionnaire (CPQ): A psychometric validation. Differential Costs of Raising Grandchildren on Older Mother-Adult Child Relations in Black and White Families. Does Resilience Mediate the Relationship Between Negative Self-Image and Psychological Distress in Middle-Aged and Older Gay and Bisexual Men? Intergenerational Relations and Well-being Among Older Middle Eastern/Arab American Immigrants During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Caregiving Appraisals and Emotional Valence: Moderating Effects of Activity Participation.
×
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