教师行动研究胜任力问卷的验证性因子分析

IF 0.7 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Advanced Education Pub Date : 2021-12-29 DOI:10.20535/2410-8286.241148
Sylvester T. Cortes, Hedeliza Pineda, I. J. Geverola
{"title":"教师行动研究胜任力问卷的验证性因子分析","authors":"Sylvester T. Cortes, Hedeliza Pineda, I. J. Geverola","doi":"10.20535/2410-8286.241148","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The instrument that assesses teachers’ competence on AR methodology is limited. Thus, it is one of the issues concerning evaluating the effectiveness of a professional development program on designing AR projects. It is difficult to determine how much and what teachers have learned in a course or training. Thus, this cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate further the validity and reliability of the Teacher’s Competence in Action Research Questionnaire, a seven-factor instrument previously proposed by Cortes, Pineda, and Geverola (2020). This self-report scale was not subjected to confirmatory factor analysis, had less sample size, and had homogenous participants. In the present study, 450 participants, both pre- and in-service teachers and from different teaching specializations, answered the survey. The data were analyzed using the confirmatory factor analysis method through the Maximum Likelihood approach. Four model fit indices recorded satisfactory results (CFI = 0.890; TLI = 0.884; RMSEA = 0.072; SRMR = 0.039), thus, supporting the seven-factor scale. The standardized factor loading, composite reliability, average variance extracted, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient/s of the entire scale and within subscales also provide evidence of the convergent validity and reliability of the scale. There may be an issue in the discriminant validity of the scale, but the conceptual distinctions of each factor as supported by theoretical foundation and arguments provide a principal reason for retaining all the items and factors.","PeriodicalId":43037,"journal":{"name":"Advanced Education","volume":"131 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS OF TEACHER’S COMPETENCE IN ACTION RESEARCH (TCAR) QUESTIONNAIRE\",\"authors\":\"Sylvester T. Cortes, Hedeliza Pineda, I. J. Geverola\",\"doi\":\"10.20535/2410-8286.241148\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The instrument that assesses teachers’ competence on AR methodology is limited. Thus, it is one of the issues concerning evaluating the effectiveness of a professional development program on designing AR projects. It is difficult to determine how much and what teachers have learned in a course or training. Thus, this cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate further the validity and reliability of the Teacher’s Competence in Action Research Questionnaire, a seven-factor instrument previously proposed by Cortes, Pineda, and Geverola (2020). This self-report scale was not subjected to confirmatory factor analysis, had less sample size, and had homogenous participants. In the present study, 450 participants, both pre- and in-service teachers and from different teaching specializations, answered the survey. The data were analyzed using the confirmatory factor analysis method through the Maximum Likelihood approach. Four model fit indices recorded satisfactory results (CFI = 0.890; TLI = 0.884; RMSEA = 0.072; SRMR = 0.039), thus, supporting the seven-factor scale. The standardized factor loading, composite reliability, average variance extracted, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient/s of the entire scale and within subscales also provide evidence of the convergent validity and reliability of the scale. There may be an issue in the discriminant validity of the scale, but the conceptual distinctions of each factor as supported by theoretical foundation and arguments provide a principal reason for retaining all the items and factors.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43037,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advanced Education\",\"volume\":\"131 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advanced Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.241148\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advanced Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.241148","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

评估教师在AR方法上能力的工具是有限的。因此,这是评估设计AR项目的专业发展计划有效性的问题之一。很难确定教师在一门课程或培训中学到了多少,学到了什么。因此,本横断面研究旨在进一步评估教师行动能力研究问卷的效度和信度,该问卷是由Cortes、Pineda和Geverola(2020)先前提出的一个七因素工具。这个自我报告量表不受验证性因子分析的影响,样本量较少,参与者同质。在本研究中,有450名来自不同教学专业的在职和在职教师参与了调查。采用最大似然法对数据进行验证性因子分析。4项模型拟合指标均取得满意结果(CFI = 0.890;Tli = 0.884;Rmsea = 0.072;SRMR = 0.039),因此,支持七因子量表。整个量表和子量表的标准化因子负荷、复合信度、提取的平均方差和Cronbach 's α系数/s也证明了量表的收敛效度和信度。量表的区别效度可能存在问题,但理论基础和论据支持的每个因素的概念差异是保留所有项目和因素的主要原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
A CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS OF TEACHER’S COMPETENCE IN ACTION RESEARCH (TCAR) QUESTIONNAIRE
The instrument that assesses teachers’ competence on AR methodology is limited. Thus, it is one of the issues concerning evaluating the effectiveness of a professional development program on designing AR projects. It is difficult to determine how much and what teachers have learned in a course or training. Thus, this cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate further the validity and reliability of the Teacher’s Competence in Action Research Questionnaire, a seven-factor instrument previously proposed by Cortes, Pineda, and Geverola (2020). This self-report scale was not subjected to confirmatory factor analysis, had less sample size, and had homogenous participants. In the present study, 450 participants, both pre- and in-service teachers and from different teaching specializations, answered the survey. The data were analyzed using the confirmatory factor analysis method through the Maximum Likelihood approach. Four model fit indices recorded satisfactory results (CFI = 0.890; TLI = 0.884; RMSEA = 0.072; SRMR = 0.039), thus, supporting the seven-factor scale. The standardized factor loading, composite reliability, average variance extracted, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient/s of the entire scale and within subscales also provide evidence of the convergent validity and reliability of the scale. There may be an issue in the discriminant validity of the scale, but the conceptual distinctions of each factor as supported by theoretical foundation and arguments provide a principal reason for retaining all the items and factors.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Advanced Education
Advanced Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
自引率
27.30%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
TEACHING PRACTICES IN THE NEW NORMAL: QUALITATIVE INQUIRY (SRI LANKA CASE) AWARENESS LEVELS OF SOCIAL STUDIES PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS REGARDING METAVERSE USE TRANSLATION AND TEACHING OF CLASSICAL ANCIENT GREEK LITERATURE IN UKRAINE: CULTURAL INFLUENCE AND HISTORICAL DIMENSION SELF-PERCEIVED EFFICACY OF MENTOR TEACHERS EFFECT OF QUIZLET USE ON UKRAINIAN SERVICE MEMBERS’ ENGLISH VOCABULARY ACQUISITION
×
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