心理发展与教育 ›› 2016, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (1): 73-80.doi: 10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2016.01.10

• 教与学习理学 • 上一篇    下一篇

识字能力的单维性检验研究

温红博, 唐文君, 刘先伟   

  1. 北京师范大学教育学部, 北京 100875
  • 出版日期:2016-01-15 发布日期:2016-01-15
  • 通讯作者: 唐文君,E-mail:twenjun@yeah.net;温红博,E-mail:whb@bnu.cdu.cn E-mail:twenjun@yeah.net;whb@bnu.cdu.cn
  • 基金资助:

    北京市社会科学基金项目(14WYB014).

Unidimensional Assessment for Ability of Literacy

WEN Hongbo, TANG Wenjun, LIU Xianwei   

  1. Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
  • Online:2016-01-15 Published:2016-01-15

摘要: 本研究以义务教育阶段学生识字量测验为工具,综合运用探索性结构方程建模(ESEM)以及非参数项目反应理论中的摩根量表(Mokken量表)和DETECT分析方法,探讨了识字能力的维度。探索性结构方程建模结果显示,识字的单维性模型优于多维模型,多维的结果更多的体现出一个难度维度的特征,即字频的作用。Mokken量表分析结果显示,1~2年级和3~9年级测验更倾向于单维量表的特征。DETECT分析结果显示,两个测验的D值趋近于零,表明识字能力是单维能力。结合三种分析方法,识字能力具有单维性。

关键词: 识字能力, 单维性检验, 探索性结构方程建模, 非参数项目反应理论

Abstract: Comparability of test scores are affected by the test's dimensionality, before estimating student's scores, we need to estimate literacy's dimensionality. The study aims to analyze dimensionality of literacy ability based on dichotomous items scale for compulsory education phase students. We assume that literacy is unidimensional. The tool is Chinese character quantity test for compulsory education stage students, the test is constructed of two editions; the first edition is used for 1 to 2 grade students, and is consisted of 36 Chinese characters. The second edition is used for 3 to 9 grade students, and is consisted of 45 Chinese characters. And the test's reliability and validity are good, can be used to analyze dimensionality of literacy ability. More than 1300 students, from one to eight grades students, are selected randomly. Using exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) and nonparametric item response theory (NIRT), including the MSP and DETECT, to analyze literacy dimensionality. At first, do exploratory structural equation modeling analysis, using Mplus6.0. The model fit analysis results show, the model fit index for unidimensional model and multidimensional model are all acceptable, and the multidimensional model is better than unidimensional model, but considering of terseness of model, the unidimensional model is more appropriate. The eigenvalue analysis results show, the largest eigenvalue divide the second eigenvalue is 2.62 for 1~2 edition, and 5.35 for 3~9 edition test. According to the criterion, the 3~9 edition test is one-dimensional test, and the 1~2 edition is not. For factor loading analysis, in 1~2 edition test, in single factor model, the factor loading are above than 0.4 for all, except the 8 item. In double factors model, in despite of the 23 item is less than 0.4, the 1 item to 11item and 14 item are all belong to the factor 1, others are belong to the factor 2. Because items are assigned according to the word frequency from high to low, the results indicate, word frequency influenced literacy, but it is just a difficult dimensionality rather than an ability dimensionality. The 3~9 edition test shows similar results. In a word, the unidimensional model is superior to the multidimensional model, and in multidimensional model, didn't find differences between sound and meaning of literacy. The multidimensional results reflect a difficult dimensionality characteristics, is the role of word frequency. Second, nonparametric item response theory analysis is conducted, using Mokken scale to test dimensionality with MSP 5 procedure, the results find, 1~2 test and 3~9 test show unidimensional scale features as c increasing. At last, using DETECT to test dimensionality with DETECT v.2.1, the results show, D<0.2 for 1~2 test and 3~9 test, that is to say, 1~2 test and 3~9 test show unidimensional scale features. For three methods, the literacy ability tends to accept unidimensional hypothesis. We can draw the conclusion, the literacy ability tend to be unidimensional ability, but would be affected by word frequency. So teachers should pay attention to recreate literacy teaching, let students read more, improve students' familiarity of literacy, in order to help students to increase quantity of literacy. But there are some aspects need to improve, for example, at selecting participants, this study selects participants only from eight grades, from nine grades would be better; and the number of 1to 2 grade students is only 253, increasing the number would be better.

Key words: literacy ability, unidimensional assessment, exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM), nonparametric item response theory (NIRT)

中图分类号: 

  • G442

Gregory, C., Wang, M., & Jacqueline, F. (1995). The effects of dimensionality on equating the law school admission test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32(1), 79-96.

Hemker, B. T., Sijtsma, K., & Molenaar, I. W. (1995). Selection of unidimensional scales from a multidimensional item bank in the polytomous Mokken IRT model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19(4),337-352.

Jang, E. E., & Roussos, L. (2007). An investigation into the dimensionality of TOEFL using conditional covariance~based nonparametric approach. Journal of Educational Measurement, 44(1), 1-22.

Kim, H.R. (1994). New techniques for the dimensionality assessment of standardized test data. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Statistics, University of Illinois at Urbana~Champaign.

Marsh, H. W., Liem, G. A. D., Martin, A. J., Morin, A. J. S.,& Nagengast, B. (2011). Methodological measurement fruitfulness of exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM):New approaches to key substantive issues in motivation and engagement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4), 322-346.

Mokken, R. J.(1971). A theory and procedure of scale analysis.The Hague:Mouton/Berlin:De Gruyter.

Roussos, L.A., & Ozbek, O. (2006). Formulation of the DETECT population parameter and evaluation of DETECT estimator bias. Journal of Educational Measurement, 43(3), 215-243.

Roussos, L. A., Stout, W. F., & Marden, J. I. (1998). Using new proximity measures with hierarchical cluster analysis to detect multidimensionality. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35(1), 1-30.

Sass, D. A., & Schmitt, T. A. (2011). Introduction to the special issue:Moving beyond traditional psychometric approaches. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4), 299-303.

Schmitt, T. A. (2011). Current methodological considerations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4), 304-321.

Slocum, S.L. (2005). Assessing unidimensionality of psychological scales:Using individual and integrative criteria from factor analysis. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of British Columbia, Canada.

Wiley, E.W., Shavelson, R.J., & Kurpius, A.A.(2014). On the factorial structure of the SAT and implications for next~generation college readiness assessments. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74(5), 859-874.

Zhang, J. (1996). Some fundamental issues in item response theory with applications. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana~Champaign, Department of Statistics.

Zhang, J. (2007). Conditional covariance theory and detect for polytomous items. Psychometrika, 72(1), 69-91.

Zhang, J., & Stout, W. (1999). The theoretical DETECT index of dimensionality and its application to approximate simple structure. Psychometrika, 64(2), 213-249.

艾伟.(1949).汉字问题.上海:上海中华书局.

陈立伟.(2011).艾伟的《阅读心理-汉字问题》研究.聊城大学学报(社会科学版), (2),152-153.

洪俪瑜,王琼珠,张郁雯,陈秀芬. (2008).学童识字量评估测验之编制报告.测验学刊, 55(3),489-508.

教育部.(2012).全日制义务教育语文课程标准(2011年版).北京:北京师范大学出版社.

雷新勇.(2007).用非参数项目反应理论模型研究大规模教育考试维度的问题.华东师范大学学报(教育科学版),25(3),57-69.

李虹,舒华.(2009).学前和小学低段不同识字量儿童的认知能力比较.心理发展与教育,(3),1-8.

钱文.(1998).影响汉字识记的基本因素的研究.教育科学研究,(1),45-49.

王孝玲.(1992).汉字频度与小学生认识率的相关性.上海教育科研,64(4),21-22.

王孝玲,陶保平.(1996).小学生识字量测试题库及评价量表.上海:上海教育出版社.

温红博,唐文君,刘先伟.(2015).义务教育阶段学生识字量的测验编制.语言文字应用,(3),88-100.

张军.(2010).非参数项目反应理论在维度分析中的运用及评价.心理学探新,30(3),80-83.

张军.(2014).非参数项目反应理论在小规模测验中的运用.考试研究,(1),56-61.
[1] 王明忠, 王梦然, 王静. 父母冲突损害青少年学业成绩:努力控制与课堂参与的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(4): 434-442.
[2] 高瑞彦, 牛美心, 杨涛, 周新林. 4~8年级学生分数数量表征的准确性及形式[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(4): 443-452.
[3] 张婕, 黄碧娟, 司继伟, 官冬晓. 乡镇小学生的数学焦虑与数学成绩:数学自我效能感和数学元认知的链式中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(4): 453-460.
[4] 池丽萍, 宗正, 辛自强, 陈英和. 建构主义教学与元思维的关系:认知压力的解释[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(2): 181-190.
[5] 洪伟, 刘儒德, 甄瑞, 蒋舒阳, 金芳凯. 成就目标定向与小学生数学学习投入的关系:学业拖延和数学焦虑的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(2): 191-199.
[6] 刘影, 柴晓运, 龚少英, 桑标. 父母参与作业的自主动机与小学生积极作业情绪:学生作业自主动机与教师支持的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2017, 33(5): 577-586.
[7] 马小凤, 周爱保, 杨小娥. 线索强度:检验提取练习效应内部机制的重要变量[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2017, 33(3): 313-320.
[8] 蒋虹, 吕厚超. 青少年未来时间洞察力与学业成绩的关系:坚韧性的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2017, 33(3): 321-327.
[9] 魏淑华, 宋广文, 张大均. 不同职业认同水平教师对职业生活事件的社会认知加工特征[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2017, 33(1): 45-55.
[10] 王道阳, 陆祥, 殷欣. 流动儿童消极学业情绪对学习自我效能感的影响:情绪调节策略的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2017, 33(1): 56-64.
[11] 潘斌, 张良, 张文新, 纪林芹. 青少年学业成绩不良、学业压力与意志控制的关系:一项交叉滞后研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2016, 32(6): 717-724.
[12] 张晓辉, 赵宏玉. 政策满意度、教师支持对免费师范生职业认同的作用:从教动机的中介效应[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2016, 32(6): 725-732.
[13] 李利平, 伍新春, 熊翠燕, 程亚华, 阮氏芳. 元语言意识和快速命名对小学生汉字听写的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2016, 32(6): 698-705.
[14] 王翠翠, 徐琴芳, 陶沙. 干预-应答模式鉴别学习障碍的有效性及其调节因素:20年研究的元分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2016, 32(6): 706-716.
[15] 王玉鑫, 谢和平, 王福兴, 安婧, 郝艳斌. 多媒体学习的图文整合:空间邻近效应的元分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2016, 32(5): 565-578.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!