Premium
A Psychometric Re‐Evaluation of the Design, Engineering and Technology (DET) Survey
Author(s) -
Hong Tao,
Purzer ŞEnay,
Cardella Monica E.
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
journal of engineering education
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.896
H-Index - 108
eISSN - 2168-9830
pISSN - 1069-4730
DOI - 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00037.x
Subject(s) - psychology , confirmatory factor analysis , exploratory factor analysis , variance (accounting) , soundness , reliability (semiconductor) , scale (ratio) , mathematics education , population , test (biology) , goodness of fit , applied psychology , psychometrics , statistics , structural equation modeling , mathematics , clinical psychology , computer science , paleontology , power (physics) , physics , demography , accounting , quantum mechanics , sociology , business , biology , programming language
B ackground Instrument development is an iterative process that requires continuous efforts to ensure the psychometric soundness of the assessment tools. Previous research has provided validity evidence for the design, engineering, and technology (DET) survey in assessing K‐12 teachers' familiarity with and perceptions of engineering. P urpose (H ypothesis ) The purpose of this study was to re‐examine the psychometric soundness of the DET survey with a new data set collected from elementary teachers representing a national population. In addition, details regarding how to appropriately conduct confirmatory (CFA) and exploratory (EFA) factor analyses and item analysis were presented. D esign /M scethod The DET survey was administered to 405 elementary teachers (second through sixth grades) between 2006 and 2010. First, a CFA was conducted to test the factor structure based on a theoretical model. Second, an EFA was used to explore and refine the factor structure. Finally, item analysis was used to evaluate individual item performance and estimate internal reliability. R esults While the CFA conducted using the new sample reported unsatisfactory fit indices to the previous DET model, the EFA proposed a refined four‐factor solution explaining 74% of the total variance. The item analysis revealed problems with several items that possibly contributed to the CFA results. C onclusions The DET is a useful instrument with sufficient reliability and moderate validity evidence. However, we recommend revisions of its scale and several items. We also recommend future research with middle and high school teachers as well as with teachers in different cultural contexts and countries.