validity evaluation of the lawson classroom test of scientific reasoning
Clicks: 106
ID: 136160
2018
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
106 views
28 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #21 of 25 articles by views in obesity surgery
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
In science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education there has been increased emphasis on teaching goals that include not only the learning of content knowledge but also the development of scientific reasoning skills. The Lawson classroom test of scientific reasoning (LCTSR) is a popular assessment instrument for scientific reasoning. Through large scale applications, however, several issues have been observed regarding the validity of the LCTSR. This paper will review the literature on the assessment of scientific reasoning and provide a detailed analysis of the current version of LCTSR in regards to its validity and measurement features. The results suggest that the LCTSR is a practical tool for assessing a unidimensional scale of scientific reasoning. The instrument has a good overall reliability for the whole test. However, inspections of individual question pairs reveal a variety of validity concerns for five of the total twelve question pairs. These five question pairs have a considerable amount of inconsistent response patterns. Qualitative analysis also indicates wide ranging question design issues. Therefore, assessment of subskills involved with the five question pairs may have less power due to their questionable validity.
| Reference Key |
bao2018physicalvalidity
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Lei Bao;Yang Xiao;Kathleen Koenig;Jing Han |
| Journal | obesity surgery |
| Year | 2018 |
| DOI |
10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.020106
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.