Measurement Invariance of Science Self-Efficacy Scale in PISA

Abstract

The aim of this study is to find out whether the science self-efficacy scale in PISA 2006 and PISA 2015 applications ensure measurement invariance. Sample of the study consists of 4791 students in PISA 2006 and 5071 students in PISA 2015 implementation. Multi-group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFI) was performed to determine invariance of the science self-efficacy scale across year and gender.  Invariance stages were examined by means of the comparison of fit indexes. The results of the study indicated that the science self-efficacy scale satisfied all stages of invariance by gender both in 2006 and 2015. Structural and metric invariance was provided for both gender across years and total group across years.

Keywords

• PISA
• self-efficacy
• gender
• measurement invariance

Measurement Invariance of Science Self-Efficacy Scale in PISA

Öz

The aim of this study is to find out whether the science self-efficacy scale in PISA 2006 and PISA 2015 applications ensure measurement invariance. Sample of the study consists of 4791 students in PISA 2006 and 5071 students in PISA 2015 implementation. Multi-group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFI) was performed to determine invariance of the science self-efficacy scale across year and gender. Invariance stages were examined by means of the comparison of fit indexes. The results of the study indicated that the science self-efficacy scale satisfied all stages of invariance by gender both in 2006 and 2015. Structural and metric invariance was provided for both gender across years and total group across years.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• PISA
• Self-efficacy
• Gender
• Measurement invariance

References

1. Akyıldız, M. (2009). PIRLS 2001 testinin yapı geçerliliğinin ülkelerarası karşılaştırılması. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(1), 18- 47.
2. Andrew, S. (1998). Self-efficacy as a predictor of academic performance in science. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 1998, 27, 596–603, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00550.x.
3. Asil, M. &Gelbal, S. (2012). PISA öğrenci anketinin kültürler arası eşdeğerliği. Eğitim ve Bilim, 37(166), 236-249.
4. Balbağ, M. Z., & Balbağ, N. L. (2016). Öğretmen adaylarının fen ve teknoloji okuryazarlığına ilişkin özyeterlik algıları ile bilgi okuryazarlıkları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Pegem Atıf İndeksi, 429-446.
5. Bandura, A., (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84 (2), 191-215.
6. Bandura, A., (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37 (2), 122-147.
7. Başusta, N. B., & Gelbal, S. (2015). Gruplararası Karşılaştırmalarda Ölçme Değişmezliğinin Test Edilmesi: PISA Öğrenci Anketi Örneği. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(4), 80-90.
8. Borsboom, D. (2006). When does measurement invariance matter? Medical care, 44, 176-181.

9. Britner, S.L. & Pajares, F. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, race, and gender in middle school science. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 7 (4), doi: 10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.v7.i4.10.
10. Bulut, O., Palma, J., Rodrigez, M. C. & Stanke,L. (2015). Evaluating measurement invariance in the measurement of developmental assets in Latino English language groups across developmental stages. SAGE Open, 1–18, doi: 10.1177/2158244015586238.
11. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi elkitabı. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
12. Cheung, G., W., & Rensvold, R., B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233–255, doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
13. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Pegem Akademi.
14. Ercikan, K., & Koh, K. (2005). Examining the construct comparability of the English and French versions of TIMSS. International Journal of Testing, 5, 23-35.
15. Gregorich, S. E. (2006). Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups?: Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework. Medical Care, 44, 78-94.
16. Gülleroğlu, H. D. (2017). PISA 2012 Matematik Uygulamasına Katılan Türk Öğrencilerin Duyuşsal Özeliklerinin Cinsiyete Göre Ölçme Değişmezliğinin İncelenmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 37(1), 151-175.
17. Güzeller, C. (2011). PISA 2009 Öğrenci Anketinde Yer Alan Bilgisayar Tutum Boyutunun Kültürlerarası Eşitliğinin İncelenmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36(162),320-327.
18. Huggings-Manley, A.C. (2016). Psychometric Consequences of Subpopulation Item Parameter Drift. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 77(1), 143–164. doi: 10.1177/0013164416643369
19. Karakoc Alatli, B., Ayan, C., Polat Demir, B., & Uzun, G. (2016). Examination of the TIMSS 2011 Fourth Grade Mathematics Test in terms of cross-cultural measurement invariance. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 66, 389-406. http://dx.doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2016.66.22
20. Kıbrıslıoğlu, N. (2015). PISA 2012 Matematik Öğrenme Modelinin Kültürlere ve Cinsiyete 476 Göre Ölçme Değişmezliğinin İncelenmesi: Türkiye -Çin (Şangay) -Endonezya Örneği. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi
21. Kline, R.B., (2011). Principles and Practices of Structural Equation Modelling. New York, The Guilford Press.
22. Lee, J. (2009). Universals and specifics of math self-concept, math self-efficacy, and math anxiety across 41 PISA 2003 participating countries Learning and Individual Differences 19, 355–365.
23. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1986). Self-efficacy in the prediction of academic performance and perceived career options. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33(3), 265-269.
24. OECDa (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). http://www.oecd.org/
25. OECDb (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). http://www.oecd.org/education/
26. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2015). PISA 2015 Technical Report. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2015-technical-report/
27. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., Artelt, C., Boument, J., & Peschar, J. (2006). OECD’s brief selfreport measure of educational psychology’s most useful affective constructs: cross-cultural, psychometric comparisons across 25 countries. International Journal of Testing, 6 (4), 311-360.
28. Millsap, R. E., & Olivera-Aguilar, M. (2012). Investigating measurement invariance using confirmatory factor analysis. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 380– 392). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
29. Ölçüoğlu, R., & Çetin, S. (2016). TIMSS 2011 Sekizinci Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Matematik Başarısını Etkileyen Değişkenlerin Bölgelere Göre İncelenmesi. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, 7(1), 202-220.
30. Post, P., Stewart, M. A., & Smith, P. L. (1991). Self-efficacy, interest, and consideration of math/science and non-math/science occupations among Black freshmen. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 38(2), 179-186. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(91)90025-H
31. Saracaloğlu, A. S., Yenice, N., & Özden, B. (2013). Fen bilgisi, sosyal bilgiler ve sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının öğretmen öz-yeterlik algılarının ve akademik kontrol odaklarının incelenmesi. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(2), 227-250.
32. Schmitt, N., & Kuljanin, G. (2008). Measurement invariance: review of practice and implication. Human resources management review, 18, 210-222. Scott, A. B., & Mallinckrodt, B. (2004). Parental Emotional Support, Science Self-Efficacy, and Choice of Science Major in Undergraduate Women. The Career Development Quarterly, 53 (3), 263-273, doi: 10.1002/j.2161-0045.2005.tb00995.x
33. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003), Evaluating the Fit of Structural Equation Models: Tests of Significance and Descriptive Goodnessof-Fit Measures, Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8 (2), pp.23-74.
34. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics (5. Eds). Boston: Pearson Education.
35. Uyar. Ş. ve Doğan, N. (2014). PISA 2009 Türkiye örnekleminde öğrenme stratejileri modelinin farklı gruplarda ölçme değişmezliğinin incelenmesi. Uluslararası Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 2, 30-43.
36. Uzun, B., Öğretmen, T. (2010). Fen basarisi ile ilgili bazı değiskenlerin TIMSS-R Türkiye örnekleminde cinsiyete göre ölçme değismezliğinin değerlendirilmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 35(155), 26-35.
37. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E., (2000). A Review and Synthesis of the Measurement Invariance Literature: Suggestions Practices, and Recommendations for Organizational Research. Organizational Research Methods 3 (4), 4-70.
38. Widaman, K. F., & Reise, S. P., (1997). Exploring the measurement invariance of psychological instruments: Applications in substance use domain. The science of prevention: Methodological advances from alcohol and substance abuse research, 281-324.
39. Zedlin, A., L., Britner, S., L., & Pajares, F. (2007). A comparative study of the self-efficacy beliefs of successful men and women in mathematics, science, and technology careers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9),1036–1058.
40. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 82-91.