测量教师对阅读障碍的了解在技术上是否充分。

IF 1.9 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
Dyslexia Pub Date : 2024-03-18 DOI:10.1002/dys.1765
Deborah K. Reed, Huibin Zhang
{"title":"测量教师对阅读障碍的了解在技术上是否充分。","authors":"Deborah K. Reed,&nbsp;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 (&lt;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":"{\"title\":\"Technical adequacy of measuring teachers' knowledge of dyslexia\",\"authors\":\"Deborah K. Reed,&nbsp;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 (&lt;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}","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

摘要

鉴于针对教育工作者诵读困难知识的教育政策发展迅速,本研究探讨了测量诵读困难知识的通用工具在技术上是否适当。1141 名职前教师的回答以三种方式进行评分:原始的 4 点李克特量表的二分法、真-假的二分法以及选项为多项选择的二分法。探索性因素分析表明,至少有三分之一的项目需要删除。确认性因素分析表明,采用多项式计分的单因素模型与数据的拟合度最高,但只有六个项目有载荷。所有模型都显示出不可接受的内部一致性可靠性 (
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Technical adequacy of measuring teachers' knowledge of dyslexia

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Dyslexia
Dyslexia Multiple-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
27
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
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信