Validating Two Questions in the Force Concept Inventory with Sub-Questions
Validating Two Questions in the Force Concept Inventory with Sub-Questions
复制标题
使用子问题验证力概念清单中的两个问题
DOI：
10.1103/physrevstper.9.010113
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J.Yasuda and M.Tachiguchi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J.Yasuda and M.Tachiguchi
在这项研究中，我们评估的结构效度Q.16和Q.7的力量概念量表（FCI）。回答问题16和问题7的受访者是否真正理解问题中测试的物理概念。为了检查受访者的理解水平，我们使用子问题来测试他们认为回答实际FCI问题所需的概念。我们的样本量包括111名受访者，我们得出的假阳性率为预学习者和后学习者，然后统计检验他们之间的差异。我们发现Q.16和Q.7在0.05的显著性水平上存在差异，这意味着后学习者有可能在不理解问题中测试的物理概念的情况下回答这两个问题;因此，Q.16和Q.7的结构无效。在这项研究中，我们只评估这两个FCI问题的有效性，我们不评估以前的研究，比较总FCI分数的有效性。
In this study, we evaluate the structural validity of Q.16 and Q.7 in the Force Concept Inventory (FCI). We address whether respondents who answer Q.16 and Q.7 correctly actually have an understanding of the concepts of physics tested in the questions. To examine respondents’ levels of understanding, we use subquestions that test them on concepts believed to be required to answer the actual FCI questions. Our sample size comprises 111 respondents; we derive false-positive ratios for prelearners and postlearners and then statistically test the difference between them. We find a difference at the 0.05 significance level for both Q.16 and Q.7, implying that it is possible for postlearners to answer both questions without an understanding of the concepts of physics tested in the questions; therefore, the structures of Q.16 and Q.7 are invalid. In this study, we only evaluate the validity of these two FCI questions; we do not assess the validity of previous studies that have compared total FCI scores.