2006
DOI: 10.1007/bf03217434
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Surveying primary teachers about compulsory numeracy testing: Combining factor analysis with rasch analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
5
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
1
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Based on the research that has been done it is found that the data that has been analyzed using Rasch and confirmatory factor analysis has produced an instrument with a statistically and conceptually elegant factor structure, and can be used for teacher surveys. This is consistent with research conducted by Grimbeek and Nisbet which states that the resulting factors proved acceptable in terms of exploratory factor analysis and confirmation and in terms of analysis of Rasch items so that teachers see the reporting system numerical Queensland [35].…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Based on the research that has been done it is found that the data that has been analyzed using Rasch and confirmatory factor analysis has produced an instrument with a statistically and conceptually elegant factor structure, and can be used for teacher surveys. This is consistent with research conducted by Grimbeek and Nisbet which states that the resulting factors proved acceptable in terms of exploratory factor analysis and confirmation and in terms of analysis of Rasch items so that teachers see the reporting system numerical Queensland [35].…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 89%
“…However, since this questionnaire was still in its development phase, it was deemed acceptable to collapse these categories. According to Grimbeeck and Nisbet (2006), a fundamental issue with using a Likerttype scale is the problematic measurement properties of categories that require multi-choice responses per item. This warrants further investigation into the appropriate number of response categories for the MACE Work-Family Enrichment Instrument.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The reason for using the CFA is that whereas exploratory factor analysis (EFA) makes no assumption about item‐scale associations, the CFA explicitly tests the proposition that items cluster in specific subscales. Its rigorous testing procedures include a suite of fit estimates, ranging from statistics through various types of model fit that permit a more rigorous scrutiny of outcomes than is afforded via EFA (Grimbeek and Nisbet, 2006). Moreover, in contrast to EFA, where all loadings are free to vary, CFA allows for the explicit constraint of certain loadings to be zero.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%