Instructional reforms of science, technology, engineering,
and
mathematics (STEM) courses in higher education have primarily focused
on instructors’ teaching practices. While this area has been
well explored, other areas of instructional reform lag. One such broad
area is assessment and evaluation, which includes grading schemes.
In recent years, alternative grading schemes and movements have increased
in popularity. Within chemistry, specifications grading is favored.
Specifications grading has been proposed as an alternative grading
scheme to address the reported flaws of the traditional, 100-point
or A–F grading system. Advocates for specifications grading
expect increases in students’ motivation to learn, grading
transparency, and reductions in stress. However, empirical investigations
testing these hypothesized outcomes are rare. To empirically test
the hypothesized outcomes of specifications grading, we developed
the Perceptions of Grading Schemes (PGS) instrument, which explores
students’ perceptions of the implementation of specifications
grading as compared to a traditional grading scheme experienced in
other STEM courses. We analyze the psychometric properties of the
PGS instrument data from students enrolled in a specifications-graded,
year-long general chemistry laboratory course. Analyses demonstrate
good data-model fit through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses
and high reliability of the instrument subscales, indicating that
the instrument functions well with students in specifications-graded
courses. Data suggest that implementations of specifications grading
may not be achieving all of the hypothesized student outcomes.