查詢結果分析
相關文獻
- An Evaluation of the Construct Validity for the Multiple-content Testing Programs
- 結構方程模式的應用--驗證性因素分析
- Development of the Product Benefit Scale for Elementary English Teacher Trainees (PBSEETT)
- 以共變結構模式探討會計科課程規劃
- 徑路探測法在測量知識結構的效度研究
- Construct Validity of the Prenatal Attachment Inventory: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis Approach
- Rational Cloze: Item-Generation Approaches and Construct Validity
- 手側化量表之初步探索性因素分析
- 遊憩問卷調查中問項選擇之探討
- 國立宜蘭農工專科學校體育課興趣選組動機因素問卷編製之研究(1):桌球
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | An Evaluation of the Construct Validity for the Multiple-content Testing Programs=評鑑多重學科評量工具之建構效度 |
---|---|
作 者 | 李源煌; | 書刊名 | 測驗年刊 |
卷 期 | 49:1 2002.01[民91.01] |
頁 次 | 頁107-127 |
分類號 | 521.3 |
關鍵詞 | 建構效度; 區別效度; 聚斂效度; Construct validity; Performance assessment; Multiple-choice assessment; Longitudinal correlation; Structural equation modeling; SEM; |
語 文 | 英文(English) |
中文摘要 | 本研究之研究目的在於評鑑兩種多重學科評量工具之建構效度。其中一種評量工具係採用選擇題方式,而另一種則以問答題方式來後評量學生之多重學科能力之高低。假如某學科在前後兩年施測分數之相關高於其與其他不同學科分數之相關,該學科具較佳之建構效度。本研究發現,以選擇題方法之評量工具,在五種不同學科之評量當中,其中兩種學科之評量達到較佳建構效度之標準。相對地,以問答題為方法之評量工具,在六種不同學科之評量中,僅有一學科之評量工具呈現較佳之建構效度。本研究再運用建構模式來評鑑兩種評量工具之區別效度與聚斂效度,結果顯示聚斂效度存在於此兩種評量工具,但沒有明顯之證據支持區別效度。 |
英文摘要 | The primary objective of this study was to examine the construct validity for the two multiple-content testing programs, the multiple-choice Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (CTBS/5) together with the performance-based Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP), by evaluating the true-score longitudinal associations among multiple-contest scores in one school district. The following criterion was closely examined: the true-score correlation between two time-period measures of the same content area is higher than its longitudinal true-score correlations with other content areas. This criterion was achieved in two (Reading and Mathematics) of five CTBS/5 content subtests, as well as one (Language)of six MSPAP content subtests. The structural equation modeling has been conducted on a multitrait-multimethod correlation dataset, where the traits of Reading and Mathematics were assessed by MSPAP and the old version of CTBS/4. Although convergent validity existed in these two measures, there was little evidence to support discriminant validity in both measures. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。