Making the Grade: Evaluating the Construct Validity of MyPsychLab as a Measure of Psychology Mastery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Publishers of resources for secondary and post-secondary education are becoming more innovative in developing tools for mastery of the course material. Pearson Education Inc.’s MyPsychLab is an example of such a tool. MyPsychLab consists of online exercises, flashcards, and demonstrations; but also includes pretest and posttest assessment tools (which can be taken repeatedly until mastery is reached). Given this tool promotes material mastery, it is expected that MyPsychLab performance would be related to course performance in more traditional formats. The present study investigated the relation between MyPsychLab, and five additional means of course assessment in a large sample of students enrolled in an introductory Psychology course. Results indicated that MyPsychLab was significantly correlated with all other measures of course performance. Moreover, performance on MyPsychLab was the highest loading item on both a latent component and factor assessing overall course performance and psychology mastery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".