Cognitive Processing of Self-Report Items in Educational Research: Do They Think What We Mean?

Karabenick, Stuart A.; Woolley, Michael E.; Friedel, Jeanne M.; Ammon, Bridget V.; Blazevski, Julianne; Bonney, Christina Rhee; Groot, Elizabeth de; Gilbert, Melissa C.; Musu, Lauren; Kempler, Toni M.; Kelly, Kristin L.

doi:10.1080/00461520701416231

Cited by 313 publications

(213 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

209

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Methodologies common to SRL research include self-report questionnaires (Ainley and Patrick 2006;Karabenick et al 2012;Pintrich 2004), think-aloud protocols (Azevedo 2005b;Greene et al 2011), microanalysis (Cleary 2011) and qualitative classroom observation methods (Boekaerts and Corno 2005;Corno 1995;Perry and Rahim 2011). Trace methodologies from think aloud protocols (Greene, Robertson, and Costa 2011) and sequenced, computer-generated logs of learner behaviors are increasingly common (Aleven et al 2010;Azevedo et al 2010;Graesser and McNamara.…”

Section: Methodology and Design Choicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Addressing complexities in self-regulated learning: a focus on contextual factors, contingencies, and dynamic relations

Ben-Eliyahu

Bernacki

2015

Metacognition Learning

158

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodology and Design Choicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Addressing complexities in self-regulated learning: a focus on contextual factors, contingencies, and dynamic relations

Ben-Eliyahu

Bernacki

2015

Metacognition Learning

158

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Twenty scholars and practitioners familiar with school climate completed an online survey to provide feedback on the clarity and relevance of items, possible missing items, and appropriateness for parents of all Running head: MEASURING PARENT PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL CLIMATE cultural and linguistic backgrounds, and with children of all ages. Sixth, we employed a cognitive pretesting procedure with 10 parents to ensure potential respondents understood the items as we intended (Karabenick et al, 2007). We conducted 40 to 60 minute one-on-one interviews in which we first asked parents to restate each question in their own words, without using words from the item itself, and then to "think aloud" as they came to their own answer to the question.…”

Section: Scale Development Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring parent perceptions of school climate.

Schueler¹,

Capotosto²,

Bahena³

et al. 2014

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Parents' attitudes about their children's schools matter. Their views can shape their children's attitudes about school, affect their levels of family-school engagement, and influence their residential and school enrollment decisions. This paper describes the development of a survey scale to assess parent perceptions of the climate of their child's school. Our comprehensive scale development process incorporated feedback from academics and potential respondents from the outset of the design process to enhance scale quality. We conducted three studies with national samples of parents (n = 385; n = 253; n = 266) to gather evidence of scale score reliability and valid score inferences based on convergent/discriminant validity. Through confirmatory factor analysis we identified a theoretically grounded factor structure that fit the data well.Interestingly, we found no evidence that parental response patterns distinguish between academic and social elements of school climate. Furthermore, we found that parents of younger children, on average, had a more positive perception of the school's climate than parents of older children.We conclude by discussing how researchers and Pre-K -12 schools and districts can use the scale to aid school improvement efforts.

show abstract

“…During or at the end of the interview the survey designer usually asks follow-up, probing questions to clarify how respondents understand each item. See Karabenick, et al (2007) for a detailed illustration of this process.…”

Section: Step 5: Expert Validationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measure Twice, Cut down Error: A Process for Enhancing the Validity of Survey Scales

Gehlbach

Brinkworth

2011

Review of General Psychology

207

175

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For years psychologists across many subfields have undertaken the formidable challenge of designing survey scales to assess attitudes, opinions, and behaviors. Correspondingly, scholars have written much to guide researchers in this undertaking. Yet, many new scales violate established best practices in survey design, suggesting the need for a new approach to designing surveys. This article presents 6 steps to facilitate the construction of questionnaire scales. Unlike previous processes, this one front loads input from other academics and potential respondents in the item-development and revision phase with the goal of achieving credibility across both populations. Specifically, the article describes how (a) a literature review and (b) focus group-interview data can be (c) synthesized into a comprehensive list to facilitate (d) the development of items. Next, survey designers can subject the items to (e) an expert review and (f) cognitive pretesting before executing a pilot test.

show abstract

Cognitive Processing of Self-Report Items in Educational Research: Do They Think What We Mean?

Cited by 313 publications

References 43 publications

Addressing complexities in self-regulated learning: a focus on contextual factors, contingencies, and dynamic relations

Addressing complexities in self-regulated learning: a focus on contextual factors, contingencies, and dynamic relations

Measuring parent perceptions of school climate.

Measure Twice, Cut down Error: A Process for Enhancing the Validity of Survey Scales

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About