IS THE MINNESOTA TEACHER ATTITUDE INVENTORY VALID AND HOMOGENEOUS?<sup>1</sup>

Yee, Albert H.

doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1967.tb00584.x

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…None of the validity coefficients with pupils' ratings as criterion are statistically significant, but all coefficients with principals' ratings are significant. Past study of the MTAI's validity has found that contrary to the test authors' claims, the MTAI appears to have higher validity with principals' ratings than with pupils' ratings as criterion (Yee, 1967). The validity coefficients of the E and P-L keys are identical and slightly higher than for the T-L key.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 74%

“…The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (MTAI) developed by Cook, Leeds, and Callis (1951) has been found imperfect in major aspects (Yee, 1967): however, it remains the most popular and perhaps best indicant of teachers' attitudes toward children available in published form. As Getzels and Jackson (1963) wrote, "The importance of understanding teacher attitudes would certainly justify any efforts to make the MTAI more meaningful" (p. 522).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A NEW LOGICAL SCORING KEY FOR THE MINNESOTA TEACHER ATTITUDE INVENTORY¹

Yee

Kriewall

1969

J Educational Measurement

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study tested three scoring keys for the MTAI—the published empirical key (E); a logical key with three different weights, i.e., + 1, 0, ‐1; and a new logical key with five different scoring weights, one for each of the five responses in MTAI items, i.e., +2, +1, 0, ‐1, ‐2. The latter, termed the pentachotomous‐logical (P‐L), provided scores with slightly higher internal consistency and a frequency distribution which is not so significantly skewed as the others and which provides greater spread among extreme positive and negative scores. Use of the P‐L scoring weights would facilitate the psychological interpretation of the MTAI. However, conclusion that the P‐L scoring key is an improvement must be tempered by the fact that an expected increase in construct validity was not found.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 74%

mentioning

confidence: 99%