Your search found 61720 results.

Descriptors:
Family Violence; Economic Impact; Antisocial Behavior; Quality of Life; Literacy; Money Management; Compliance (Psychology); Personality Traits; Power Structure; Welfare Recipients; Personal Autonomy; Independent Living; Individual Power; Locus of Control; Self Actualization; Self Control; Self Determination; Sex Role; Educational Attainment

Abstract:
Intimate partner violence (IPV) often includes economic abuse as one tactic commonly used by an abuser; unfortunately, there is a lack of empirical understanding of economic abuse. Additionally, research is limited on the predictors of economic self-sufficiency in the lives of women experiencing IPV. This paper furthers our knowledge about economic abuse and its relationship with economic self-sufficiency by presenting the results from an exploratory study with IPV survivors participating in a financial literacy program. Of the 120 individuals who participated in the first wave, 94% experienced some form of economic abuse, which also correlated highly with other forms of IPV. Seventy-nine percent experienced some form of economic control, 79% experienced economic exploitative behaviors, and 78% experienced employment sabotage. MANOVA results also indicated that economic control differed significantly based on education with those with a high school education experiencing higher rates than those with less than high school education or those with some college. Finally, results from the OLS regressions indicated that experiencing any form of economic abuse as well as economic control significantly predicted a decrease in economic self sufficiency. Implications suggest that advocates should assess for economic abuse when working with survivors and should be prepared to offer financial tools to increase survivors' economic self-sufficiency. Policymakers should understand the ramifications of economic abuse and create policies that support survivors and prohibit economic abuse. Finally, more research is needed to fully understand economic abuse and its impact on survivors and their economic self-sufficiency. (Contains 4 tables and 1 note.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Disabilities; Factor Analysis; Student Attitudes; Psychometrics; Medical Students; Test Construction; Attitudes toward Disabilities; Test Reliability; Test Validity; Psychological Patterns; Negative Attitudes; Interpersonal Relationship; Clinics; Self Concept

Abstract:
As curricula to improve medical students' attitudes toward people with disabilities are developed, instruments are needed to guide the process and evaluate effectiveness. The authors developed an instrument to measure medical students' attitudes toward people with disabilities. A pilot instrument with 30 items in four sections was administered to 342 medical students. Internal consistency reliability and factor analysis were conducted. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.857, indicating very good internal consistency. Five components were identified: comfort interacting with people with disabilities, working with people with disabilities in a clinical setting, negative impressions of self-concepts of people with disabilities, positive impressions of self-concepts of people with disabilities, and conditional comfort with people with disabilities. The instrument appears to have good psychometric properties and requires further validation. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Science Teachers; Biology; Teacher Characteristics; Knowledge Base for Teaching; Pedagogical Content Knowledge; Measures (Individuals); Test Construction; Test Validity; Test Reliability; Item Response Theory

Abstract:
Research on teachers' professionalism and professional development has increased in the last two decades. A main focus of this line of research has been the cognitive component of teacher professionalism, i.e., professional knowledge. Most of the previous studies on teacher knowledge--such as the Learning Mathematics for Teaching (LMT) (Hill et al. 2004), the Professional Competence of Teachers, Cognitively Activating Instruction, and Development of Students' Mathematical Literacy (COACTIV) (Baumert et al. 2010), and the Mathematics Teaching in the 21st Century (MT21) (Schmidt et al. 2007) studies--have been conducted in the field of mathematics teachers' pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and content knowledge (CK). There have been few comparable studies conducted with science teachers, especially biology teachers. To fill the gap, this study examines the development and use of instruments to measure biology teachers' CK and PCK. In particular, this study describes a method to develop reliable, objective, and valid instruments measuring teachers' CK and PCK in four steps by the use of empirical data of students. Additionally, the study explores whether CK and PCK might be measured as separate knowledge categories by using a paper-and-pencil test. This paper presents a theoretical model that guides test development and provides steps to develop and validate the instruments. Details are also provided regarding the computation of the Rasch scale score measures for 158 biology teachers. The results indicate that the instruments measured teachers' CK and PCK in an objective, valid, and reliable way. This suggests that the new instruments can be used in combination with classroom observations to examine teaching quality and further its relation to student learning. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Space Sciences; Science Teachers; Field Tests; Test Validity; Test Reliability; Construct Validity; Test Construction; Item Response Theory; Evaluation Research; Teacher Evaluation; Science Education; Teacher Competency Testing; Teacher Competencies; Knowledge Base for Teaching; Natural Sciences; Science Tests

Abstract:
Science teachers' content knowledge is an important influence on student learning, highlighting an ongoing need for programs, and assessments of those programs, designed to support teacher learning of science. Valid and reliable assessments of teacher science knowledge are needed for direct measurement of this crucial variable. This paper describes multiple sources of validity and reliability (Cronbach's alpha greater than 0.8) evidence for physical, life, and earth/space science assessments--part of the Diagnostic Teacher Assessments of Mathematics and Science (DTAMS) project. Validity was strengthened by systematic synthesis of relevant documents, extensive use of external reviewers, and field tests with 900 teachers during assessment development process. Subsequent results from 4,400 teachers, analyzed with Rasch IRT modeling techniques, offer construct and concurrent validity evidence. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Testing Accommodations; Access to Education; Testing; Psychometrics; Test Bias; Standardized Tests; Construct Validity; Test Construction; Test Reliability; Test Validity; Test Theory; Educational Principles; Inferences; Measurement Objectives; Measurement Techniques; Evaluation Methods; Evaluation Problems; Evaluation Research; Student Evaluation; Educational Research; Performance Factors

Abstract:
Standardizing aspects of assessments has long been recognized as a tactic to help make evaluations of examinees fair. It reduces variation in irrelevant aspects of testing procedures that could advantage some examinees and disadvantage others. However, recent attention to making assessment accessible to a more diverse population of students highlights situations in which making tests identical for all examinees can make a testing procedure less fair: Equivalent surface conditions may not provide equivalent evidence about examinees. Although testing accommodations are by now standard practice in most large-scale testing programmes, for the most part these practices lie outside formal educational measurement theory. This article builds on recent research in universal design for learning (UDL), assessment design, and psychometrics to lay out the rationale for inference that is conditional on matching examinees with principled variations of an assessment so as to reduce construct-irrelevant demands. The present focus is assessment for special populations, but it is argued that the principles apply more broadly. (Contains 3 tables, 2 figures, and 2 notes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Disabilities; Mental Retardation; Focus Groups; Interviews; Factor Analysis; Test Construction; Questionnaires; Evaluation Methods; Parent Attitudes; Test Validity; Delivery Systems; Literature Reviews; Test Reliability; Quality Control

Abstract:
Background: Care and service trajectories for people with intellectual disabilities are routes within the health care delivery system that consist of all the steps that people with intellectual disability and their families have to take in order to realize needed care and services. In contrast to the growing body of system-orientated knowledge concerning quality of care delivered through collaborative relationships between care providers, specific user-orientated knowledge is still largely lacking. Aim: This article aims to describe the development and the preliminary validation of a user-orientated questionnaire for parents and/or relatives of people with intellectual disability (QUALITRA-ID-P) to assess the quality of care and service trajectories of their children/relatives with intellectual disability. Methods: First, the phenomenon "care and service trajectories" was conceptualized on the basis of document analysis and semi-structured interviews with key informants. Second, quality of care and service trajectories were operationalized using focus group discussions with parents and relatives as well as an extensive literature review. Third, the QUALITRA-ID-P was constructed using the results of the conceptualization and operationalization. Fourth, the QUALITRA-ID-P was refined in two stages: examination of (i) feasibility, understandability and completeness and (ii) preliminary validation. Results: The final QUALITRA-ID-P is a 49-item scale with good reliability and validity. An exploratory factor analysis resulted in a 3-factor solution with Cronbach's alpha coefficients of 0.98, 0.83 and 0.91. Organizations in the disability sector can use the QUALITRA-ID-P to understand better the experiences of quality of their clients' relatives and as a result improve the quality of trajectories. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Generalizability Theory; Higher Education; Institutional Advancement; Teacher Effectiveness; Writing Evaluation; Measurement Techniques; Student Evaluation; Guides; Data Analysis; Data Collection; Educational Administration; Teacher Evaluation; Teacher Competencies; Teaching Methods; Teacher Influence; Outcomes of Education; Research Utilization; College Faculty; Accountability; Decision Making; Empowerment; Accreditation (Institutions); Case Studies; Benchmarking; Generalization; Theories; Item Response Theory; Scaling; Norms; Test Reliability; Test Validity; Models; Statistical Analysis; Test Construction; Design; Community Colleges; Career Education; Technical Education; Employment Qualifications; Item Analysis; Test Bias; Computer Assisted Testing; Cutting Scores; College Entrance Examinations; Student Placement; Admission (School); Writing Tests; Program Evaluation; Qualitative Research; Evaluation Methods; Surveys; Disabilities; Academic Accommodations (Disabilities); Secondary School Students; English (Second Language); College Students; Ethics

Abstract:
Increased demands for colleges and universities to engage in outcomes assessment for accountability purposes have accelerated the need to bridge the gap between higher education practice and the fields of measurement, assessment, and evaluation. The "Handbook on Measurement, Assessment, and Evaluation in Higher Education" provides higher education administrators, student affairs personnel, institutional researchers who generate and analyze data, and faculty with an integrated handbook of theory, method, and application. This valuable resource brings together applied terminology, analytical perspectives, and methodological advances from the fields of measurement, assessment, and evaluation to facilitate informed decision-making in higher education. Bridging the gap between practice in higher education with advances in measurement, assessment, and evaluation, this book enables educational decision-makers to engage in more sound professional judgment. This handbook provides higher education administrators with both high-level and detailed views into contemporary theories and practices, supplemented with guidance on how to apply them for the benefit of students and institutions. This book is divided into six sections. This book begins with a foreword by Edward J. Yaw. "Improving Institutional Decision-Making Through Educational Measurement, Assessment, and Evaluation," a preface by Charles Secolsky and D. Brian Denison, is included. Section 1, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, begins with an introduction to section 1 by Charles Secolsky and D. Brian Denison and contains the following: (1) Assessing the Quality of a University--Particularly its Teaching (Robert E. Stake, Gloria Contreras, and Isabel Arbesu); (2) Classroom-Level Assessment: Aligning Pedagogical Practices to Enhance Student Learning (Kathryne Drezek McConnell and Peter E. Doolittle); (3) Student Learning Outcomes Assessment at the Program and Institutional Levels (Thomas Judd and Bruce Keith); (4) The Bottom Line: Will Faculty USE Assessment Findings? (Trudy W. Banta and Gary R. Pike); (5) The Perennial Challenges of Accountability (James C. Palmer); (6) Using National, State, and Local Data for Administrative Decision-Making (Sathasivam "Kris" Krishnan, Chengbo Yin, William Mahler, Albertha Lawson, Michael Harris, and Karen Ruedinger); (7) Empowerment Evaluation and Accreditation Case Examples: California Institute of Integral Studies and Stanford University (David Fetterman); and (8) Benchmarking in Higher Education (Jeffrey Seybert, Ellen Weed, and Trudy Bers). Section 2, Theories and Technical Aspects of Educational Measurement, begins with an introduction to section 2 by Charles Secolsky and D. Brian Denison and contains the following: (9) Classical Test Theory and Higher Education: Five Questions (Elizabeth Schaughency, Jeffrey Smith, Jacques van der Meer, and David Berg); (10) Generalizability Theory in Assessment Contexts (Noreen M. Webb, Richard Shavelson, and Jeffrey Steedle); (11) Item Response Theory in Measurement, Assessment, And Evaluation for Higher Education (Steven J. Osterlind and Ze Wang); (12) Scaling, Norming, and Equating (Michael J. Kolen and Amy B. Hendrickson); (13) Reliability (Bruce Thompson and Tammi Vacha-Haase); (14) The Validation of Tests in Higher Education (Kurt Geisinger, Leslie H. Shaw, and Carina McCormick); (15) Statistical Modeling in Measurement, Assessment, and Evaluation for Higher Education (Steven J. Osterlind and Ze Wang); and (16) Issues in the Analysis of Change (D. Betsy McCoach, Karen Rambo, and Megan Welsh). Section 3, Test Construction and Development, begins with an introduction to section 3 by Louise Yarnall and contains the following: (17) Building Content and Statistical Test Specifications (Tawnya Knupp and Deborah Harris); (18) Evidence-Centered Design in Assessment Development (Geneva Haertel, Ellen Wentland, Louise Yarnall, and Robert J. Mislevy); (19) The Assessment of 21st-Century Skills in Community College Career and Technician Education Programs (Louise Yarnall and Jane Ostrander); (20) Item Analysis Procedures for Classroom Assessments in Higher Education (Jerome C. Clauser and Ronald K. Hambleton); (21) Using Content Specialists for Detecting Item and Test Unfairness (Sydell Carlton); and (22) Computer-Based Testing in Higher Education (Robert Dolan and Kelly Burling). Section 4, Testing and Assessment for Decision-Making, begins with an introduction to section 4 by Charles Secolsky and D. Brian Denison and contains the following: (23) Setting and Validating Cut Scores for Tests (Mary J. Pitoniak and Deanna L. Morgan); (24) College Placement Testing of Entering Students (Deanna L. Morgan); (25) Admissions Testing in Higher Education (Rebecca Zwick); (26) Postsecondary Writing Assessment (Peggy O'Neill and Sandra Murphy); (27) Authentic Assessment Validation: A Heuristic Rubrics Cube (Jion Liou Yen and Kevin Hynes); and (28) Cognitive Diagnostic Method: Rule Space, Q-Matrix Theory and Applications (Kikumi Tatsuoka, Anthony E. Kelly, Curtis Tatsuoka, and Michael Dean). Section 5, Approaches to Evaluation in Higher Education, begins with an introduction to section 5 by Thomas E. Grayson and contains the following: (29) Program Evaluation in Higher Education (Thomas E. Grayson); (30) Qualitative Evaluation (Christopher Pondish); (31) Naturalistic Evaluation (David A. Erlandson); (32) Responsive Evaluation (Kelly Godfrey and Doreen B. Finkelstein); (33) Case Studies and Validity (Edith Cisneros-Cohernour); (34) Mixed Methods Specialists in Action: Linking Mixed Methods Research to Learning and Classroom Assessment (Delwyn Harnisch, John Creswell, and Timothy Guetterman); and (35) Survey Use in Academic Contexts: Considerations and Guidelines (Ellen Wentland). Section 6, Issues in Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, begins with an introduction to section 6 by April L. Zenisky and contains the following: (36) Using Data to Find Common Ground Between Secondary and Postsecondary Accommodations for Students with Disabilities (Manju Banerjee and Martha L. Thurlow); (37) Testing and Evaluation of English-Language Learners in Higher Education (Young Yee Kim, James Hart, Jamal Abedi, and Alan Vanneman); (38) Evaluation of Teacher Quality (Stephanie L. Knight); (39) Reporting Assessment Results in Higher Education (April L. Zenisky and Jerold S. Laguilles); (40) Presenting Learning Outcomes Assessment Results to Foster Use (Staci J. Provezis and Natasha A. Jankowski); (41) Revisiting Reliability and Validity in Higher Education Research and Program Evaluation (Margaret D. LeCompte and Dorothy Aguilera-Black Bear); and (42) Ethical Assessment and Institutional Advancement: Connecting Good Practice with the Need to Move Campuses Forward (Ashley Finley). This book ends with concluding remarks from Charles Secolsky and D. Brian Denison. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Physics; Test Construction; Misconceptions; Undergraduate Students; Delphi Technique; College Science; Energy; Scientific Concepts; Science Instruction; Knowledge Level; Statistics; Test Validity; Test Reliability; Graduate Students; Pretests Posttests; Spreadsheets; Educational Technology

Abstract:
Physics education researchers have scientifically established the fact that the understanding of new concepts and interpretation of incoming information are strongly influenced by the preexisting knowledge and beliefs of students, called epistemological beliefs. This can lead to a gap between what students actually learn and what the teacher expects them to learn. In a classroom, as a teacher, it is desirable that one tries to bridge this gap at least on the key concepts of a particular field which is being taught. One such key concept which crops up in statistical physics/solid-state physics courses, and around which the behaviour of materials is described, is Fermi energy ([epsilon][subscript F]). In this paper, we present the results which emerged about misconceptions on Fermi energy in the process of administering a diagnostic tool called the Statistical Physics Concept Survey developed by the authors. It deals with eight themes of basic importance in learning undergraduate solid-state physics and statistical physics. The question items of the tool were put through well-established sequential processes: definition of themes, Delphi study, interview with students, drafting questions, administration, validity and reliability of the tool. The tool was administered to a group of undergraduate students and postgraduate students, in a pre-test and post-test design. In this paper, we have taken one of the themes i.e. Fermi energy of the diagnostic tool for our analysis and discussion. Students' responses and reasoning comments given during interview were analysed. This analysis helped us to identify prevailing misconceptions/learning gaps among students on this topic. How spreadsheets can be effectively used to remove the identified misconceptions and help appreciate the finer nuances while visualizing the behaviour of the system around Fermi energy, normally sidestepped both by the teachers and learners, is also presented in this paper. (Contains 2 tables and 7 figures.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Test Validity; Measures (Individuals); Cultural Awareness; Program Evaluation; Test Construction; Psychometrics; Cultural Pluralism; Evaluators; Knowledge Level; Skill Development; Experience; Gender Differences; Minority Groups; Racial Differences; Age Differences; Training; Predictor Variables; Demography; Educational Attainment; Questionnaires; Test Reliability

Abstract:
No self-report measure of cultural competence currently exists in program evaluation. Adapting items from cultural competence measures in fields such as counseling and nursing, the researchers developed the Cultural Competence of Program Evaluators (CCPE) self-report scale. The goals of this study were to validate the CCPE and to assess differences in level of cultural competence among program evaluators based on various demographic variables. The sample consisted of 174 evaluators. Principal components analyses revealed three factors of the CCPE: cultural knowledge, cultural skills, and cultural awareness. The overall alpha of the CCPE was 0.88, and convergent validity was established via significant positive correlations between the CCPE and the Multicultural Counseling Inventory (MCI). Additionally, individuals who had received cultural competence training scored significantly higher on the CCPE, and receipt of cultural competence training was a significant predictor of scores on the CCPE. (Contains 5 tables and 2 figures.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Higher Education; College Instruction; College Faculty; Teacher Motivation; Questionnaires; Test Construction; Test Validity; Test Reliability; Factor Analysis

Abstract:
A lot of research has been done into the motivations in teachers in primary/secondary education and into student motivation. However, teachers' motivations for teaching in higher education are rarely studied. A growing interest exists though in the professional development of teachers in higher education, of which motivation is an important aspect. This article, therefore, focuses on the development and validation of a Dutch questionnaire for teachers' motivations for teaching in higher education. The questionnaire is based on three earlier developed questionnaires, including the following motivational aspects: efficacy, interest, and effort. Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted with the data of 231 higher education teachers. The results of our explorative study showed that after modifications, including the removal of two out of three efficacy-aspects ("outcome efficacy" and "teaching efficacy"), this instrument is sufficiently reliable and valid to use in educational practice and research. Future research into the use of the questionnaire in different contexts is desirable. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website