{"title":"Technical adequacy of measuring teachers' knowledge of dyslexia","authors":"Deborah K. Reed, Huibin Zhang","doi":"10.1002/dys.1765","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Given the rapid growth in educational policies targeting educators' knowledge of dyslexia, this study explored the technical adequacy of a common instrument for measuring that knowledge. The responses of 1141 preservice teachers were scored in three ways: polytomously with the original 4-point Likert scale, dichotomously as true-false, and dichotomously as though the options were multiple choice. An exploratory factor analysis suggested at least one-third of the items needed to be removed. Confirmatory factor analyses suggested a one-factor model with polytomous scoring had the best fit to the data, but only six items loaded. All models demonstrated unacceptable internal consistency reliability (<0.70). Because no technically adequate version of the measure was identified, questions remain about basing policy on scores from these instruments. However, the findings indicated ways this type of measure might be improved.</p>","PeriodicalId":47222,"journal":{"name":"Dyslexia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dyslexia","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dys.1765","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Given the rapid growth in educational policies targeting educators' knowledge of dyslexia, this study explored the technical adequacy of a common instrument for measuring that knowledge. The responses of 1141 preservice teachers were scored in three ways: polytomously with the original 4-point Likert scale, dichotomously as true-false, and dichotomously as though the options were multiple choice. An exploratory factor analysis suggested at least one-third of the items needed to be removed. Confirmatory factor analyses suggested a one-factor model with polytomous scoring had the best fit to the data, but only six items loaded. All models demonstrated unacceptable internal consistency reliability (<0.70). Because no technically adequate version of the measure was identified, questions remain about basing policy on scores from these instruments. However, the findings indicated ways this type of measure might be improved.
期刊介绍：
DYSLEXIA provides reviews and reports of research, assessment and intervention practice. In many fields of enquiry theoretical advances often occur in response to practical needs; and a central aim of the journal is to bring together researchers and practitioners in the field of dyslexia, so that each can learn from the other. Interesting developments, both theoretical and practical, are being reported in many different countries: DYSLEXIA is a forum in which a knowledge of these developments can be shared by readers in all parts of the world. The scope of the journal includes relevant aspects of Cognitive, Educational, Developmental and Clinical Psychology Child and Adult Special Education and Remedial Education Therapy and Counselling Neuroscience, Psychiatry and General Medicine The scope of the journal includes relevant aspects of: - Cognitive, Educational, Developmental and Clinical Psychology - Child and Adult Special Education and Remedial Education - Therapy and Counselling - Neuroscience, Psychiatry and General Medicine
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
