Evolution Education Questionnaire on Acceptance and Knowledge (EEQ) - Standardised and ready-to-use protocols to measure acceptance of evolution and knowledge about evolution in an international context

Beniermann, Anna; Kuschmierz, Paul; Pinxten, Rianne; Aivelo, Tuomas; Bohlin, Gustav; Brennecke, Julia; Cebesoy, Ümran Betül; Cvetković, Dragana; Đorđević, Mirko; Dvořáková, Radka Marta; Futo, Momir; Geamănă, Nicoleta; Korfiatis, Konstantinos; Lendvai, Ádám Z.; Μόγιας, Αθανάσιος; Paolucci, Stefania; Petersson, Maria; Pietrzak, Barbara; Porozovs, Juris; Realdon, Giulia; Savković, Uroš; Sofonea, Mircea; Šorgo, Andrej; Stermin, Alexandru N.; Torkar, Gregor; Uitto, Anna; Ben, Lucía Vázquez; Graf, Dittmar

doi:10.5281/zenodo.4554741

Cited by 2 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…During the last two decades, several multi-item instruments have been developed to assess the acceptance of evolution. Among the most often applied instruments are the Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution (MATE; Rutledge & Warden, 1999), the Inventory of Student Evolution Acceptance (I-SEA; Nadelson & Southerland, 2012), the Generalized Acceptance of EvolutioN Evaluation (GAENE 2.0/2.1: GAENE 3.0: Glaze et al, 2020) and the ATEVO (e.g., Beniermann, 2019;Beniermann, Kuschmierz, et al, 2021).…”

Section: Diversity and Validity Of Evolution Acceptance Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using different acceptance measures: The interplay of evolution acceptance, evolution understanding, and religious belief among German preservice biology teachers, secondary school students, and creationists

Fiedler,

Moormann,

Beniermann

2023

Science Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evolution understanding is often positively connected with magnitudes of evolution acceptance, whereas religiosity mostly interferes negatively. However, comparisons between studies and countries must be treated cautiously due to the diversity of used instruments and samples. This study aims to generate new evidence concerning the interplay of evolution acceptance, evolution understanding, and religious belief by comparing the results of preservice biology teachers, school students, and self‐identified creationists answering several acceptance instruments (i.e., ATEVO, GAENE, I‐SEA, and MATE) while using the same measurement for understanding and belief. Results of our regression analysis indicate that belief and understanding were significant predictors but often diminished after including the interaction term of belief and understanding. When gender is included in the model, this variable is often significant. The interaction term of belief and understanding was only significant for two instruments in the group of school students. For the creationists, gender appeared as the essential term. While relationship patterns of preservice biology teachers seldom seem to be impacted by the choice of acceptance instruments (at least in correlations and regressions using only belief and understanding), this is not true for our school students and creationists. Our findings indicate that the magnitude of understanding may not mutually be the exclusive factor for (non‐)acceptance. Other factors, such as gender or religiosity, might be more prominent in people's attitudes toward (controversial) topics. Our study creates new insights into the interplay of acceptance, understanding, and belief, and we encourage researchers to carefully consider their choice of instruments.

show abstract

Section: Diversity and Validity Of Evolution Acceptance Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using different acceptance measures: The interplay of evolution acceptance, evolution understanding, and religious belief among German preservice biology teachers, secondary school students, and creationists

Fiedler,

Moormann,

Beniermann

2023

Science Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The ATEVO (Beniermann, 2019) contains eight rating scale items and was designed to be a short instrument for measuring evolution acceptance of high school students, university students, science teachers, and the general public. The instrument can be divided into two scales with four items each (Beniermann, 2019;Beniermann et al, 2021). One scale addresses acceptance of biological evolution in general (ATEVO-EG), while the other includes items on the acceptance of evolutionary epistemology (i.e., evolution of the human mind; ATEVO-EM).…”

Section: Atevomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One scale addresses acceptance of biological evolution in general (ATEVO-EG), while the other includes items on the acceptance of evolutionary epistemology (i.e., evolution of the human mind; ATEVO-EM). To address the criticized conflation of evolution acceptance and knowledge in other instruments, items are introduced with the phrase "In my personal opinion…" (Beniermann, 2019;Beniermann et al, 2021). The author defined evolution acceptance as a positive attitude toward evolution, for which attitude was described as a personal opinion or assessment of a person concerning a specific subject: An attitude, therefore, is the association between a term, fact, or an individual subject matter and its subjective assessment (Beniermann, 2019).…”

Section: Atevomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ATEVO was recently published in English, and several other languages (Beniermann et al, 2021) and subsequently applied in studies within Europe (Aptyka et al, 2022;Kuschmierz et al, 2020aKuschmierz et al, , 2021Martincov a et al, 2022;Torkar & Šorgo, 2020).…”

Section: Atevomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies discussed issues of test content in terms of construct irrelevance and construct underrepresentation (Beniermann, 2019;Sbeglia & Nehm, 2018Sya'bandari et al, 2021). As a result, several authors gave concrete recommendations about target groups for test application (Beniermann, 2019;Beniermann et al, 2021;Sbeglia & Nehm, 2018;, the use of specific instruments compared to others (Metzger et al, 2018;Sbeglia & Nehm, 2018), sound analysis of test results (Romine et al, 2017;Sbeglia & Nehm, 2018, concrete instrument adaptations (Romine et al, 2017;Sbeglia & Nehm, 2018;Sya'bandari et al, 2021) or intended interpretation of results (Beniermann, 2019;Beniermann et al, 2021;Romine et al, 2017;Rutledge & Sadler, 2007). In general, the consequences of testing seem to be an underrepresented aspect in studies about instruments' validity (Mead et al, 2019).…”

Section: Investigation Of Validity Evidence Of Evolution Acceptance M...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Validity aspects in measuring evolution acceptance: Evidence from surveys of preservice biology teachers and creationists

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past decades, a large body of research has examined students' magnitudes of evolution acceptance and related measurement issues resulting in questions concerning instruments' validity and operationalization. Until now, several studies investigated validity aspects of often‐used evolution acceptance instruments and came to diverging conclusions about instruments' scores comparability. Within the last years, religious identity was identified as a significant predictor for magnitudes of evolution acceptance. However, religious identity can also point to validity issues if aspects of the content under investigation are interpreted differently based on specific religious identity. Additionally, self‐identified creationists could serve as a source of validity evidence due to the assumption that creationists should score lower on an evolution acceptance instrument than groups with more scientifically adequate views. Thus, we aim to provide additional validity evidence for often‐used evolution acceptance instruments within a European context (i.e., Germany) by comparing two groups of particular interest for research in science education: preservice biology teachers and self‐identified creationists. Exploring evidence based on (1) internal structure, (2) relationships with other variables, and (3) test content provides arguments for test interpretations' validity. A total of 286 persons (206 preservice biology teachers and 81 self‐identified creationists) participated in a survey comprised of six often‐used evolution acceptance measures (i.e., MATE, GAENE, I‐SEA, ATEVO, Gallup question, and 100 point questions). Overall, our findings indicate that the six applied instruments demonstrate differences concerning their evidence for sound interpretation. In particular, the DIF and dimensionality analyses lead to the assumption that the GAENE may be multidimensional other than theoretically expected. In general, the multi‐item measures were stronger related to each other than to the general public polls. Using an instrument that differentiates between microevolution and macroevolution is advisable for creationist samples or samples with a remarkable share of creationists' views.

show abstract

Evolution Education Questionnaire on Acceptance and Knowledge (EEQ) - Standardised and ready-to-use protocols to measure acceptance of evolution and knowledge about evolution in an international context

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Using different acceptance measures: The interplay of evolution acceptance, evolution understanding, and religious belief among German preservice biology teachers, secondary school students, and creationists

Using different acceptance measures: The interplay of evolution acceptance, evolution understanding, and religious belief among German preservice biology teachers, secondary school students, and creationists

Validity aspects in measuring evolution acceptance: Evidence from surveys of preservice biology teachers and creationists

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About