Exploratory factor analysis of a Force Concept Inventory data set

Scott, Terry F.; Schumayer, Dániel; Gray, Andrew

doi:10.1103/physrevstper.8.020105

Cited by 82 publications

(129 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

116

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, we expect that our results can be extrapolated because they are consistent with the results of the interviews with students at Tokyo Gakugei University, Nagoya University, and Meijo University. Further, Thornton et al and Scott et al found similar results for Q.16 [13,14].…”

Section: Range Of Resultssupporting

confidence: 66%

“…However, this finding was not considered statistically significant because the number of respondents was insufficient. Scott and colleagues also stated that their hypothesis requires further investigation [14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similar shortcomings have been highlighted by other studies. For example, Thornton and colleagues used the interview method to highlight the inadequacy of Q.37 in force and motion concept evaluation [13], and Scott and colleagues performed a factor analysis on an FCI data set and hypothesized why students who answer Q.16 correctly treat it as a question pertaining to Newton's first law rather than to his third law [14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Validating two questions in the Force Concept Inventory with subquestions

Yasuda

Taniguchi

2013

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we evaluate the structural validity of Q.16 and Q.7 in the Force Concept Inventory (FCI). We address whether respondents who answer Q.16 and Q.7 correctly actually have an understanding of the concepts of physics tested in the questions. To examine respondents' levels of understanding, we use subquestions that test them on concepts believed to be required to answer the actual FCI questions. Our sample size comprises 111 respondents; we derive false-positive ratios for prelearners and postlearners and then statistically test the difference between them. We find a difference at the 0.05 significance level for both Q.16 and Q.7, implying that it is possible for postlearners to answer both questions without an understanding of the concepts of physics tested in the questions; therefore, the structures of Q.16 and Q.7 are invalid. In this study, we only evaluate the validity of these two FCI questions; we do not assess the validity of previous studies that have compared total FCI scores.

show abstract

Section: Range Of Resultssupporting

confidence: 66%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Validating two questions in the Force Concept Inventory with subquestions

Yasuda

Taniguchi

2013

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The FCI authors proposed a division of the instrument into subcategories [1], but exploratory factor analysis failed to reproduce this division [2,52,53]. More recent analyses have resolved an alternate factor structure [3,48]; however, replication studies are needed to determine if these structures are robust. Because there is not yet a consensus on the FCI factor structure, we did not perform a confirmatory factor analysis.…”

Section: Reliabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Force Concept Inventory (FCI) [1] has been studied using tools such as factor analysis [2,3], item response theory [4,5], and network analysis [6]. Though these investigations have probed the structure and validity of the test, they have primarily treated student data as a single undifferentiated sample and have not studied gender effects.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender fairness within the Force Concept Inventory

Traxler

Henderson

Stewart

et al. 2018

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on the test structure of the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) has largely ignored gender, and research on FCI gender effects (often reported as "gender gaps") has seldom interrogated the structure of the test. These rarely crossed streams of research leave open the possibility that the FCI may not be structurally valid across genders, particularly since many reported results come from calculus-based courses where 75% or more of the students are men. We examine the FCI considering both psychometrics and gender disaggregation (while acknowledging this as a binary simplification), and find several problematic questions whose removal decreases the apparent gender gap. We analyze three samples (total N pre ¼ 5391, N post ¼ 5769) looking for gender asymmetries using classical test theory, item response theory, and differential item functioning. The combination of these methods highlights six items that appear substantially unfair to women and two items biased in favor of women. No single physical concept or prior experience unifies these questions, but they are broadly consistent with problematic items identified in previous research. Removing all significantly gender-unfair items halves the gender gap in the main sample in this study. We recommend that instructors using the FCI report the reduced-instrument score as well as the 30-item score, and that credit or other benefits to students not be assigned using the biased items.

show abstract

Assessment in Chemistry Education

Stowe

Cooper

2019

Israel Journal of Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowing what students know and can do is challenging business, as we cannot directly examine what any given person is thinking. Instead, we must construct opportunities for students to make their thinking visible and interpret the evidence elicited from these opportunities to infer progress toward desired outcomes. Here we describe the approach of "assessments as evidentiary arguments" and examine several types of assessments that are used to evaluate the learning of college chemistry students. Throughout this discussion, we will pay especial attention to the assumptions (or lack thereof) that particular assessment strategies make about how students learn. We have limited discussion to what students know and can do with regards to chemistry and chemical phenomena. That is, we are not concerned here with assessment of affective constructs (e. g. motivation, identity). Figure 3. Assessment items representative of prompts found on communally developed, normed assessments ("traditional assessment prompt"), concept inventories, [23] and 3-dimensional assessments.

show abstract

Exploratory factor analysis of a Force Concept Inventory data set

Cited by 82 publications

References 32 publications

Validating two questions in the Force Concept Inventory with subquestions

Validating two questions in the Force Concept Inventory with subquestions

Gender fairness within the Force Concept Inventory

Assessment in Chemistry Education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About