MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066219327 · doi:10.1177/0013164403063003007

Is the Test Attitude Survey Psychometrically Sound?

2003· article· en· W2066219327 on OpenAlexaff
Julie M. McCarthy, Richard D. Goffin

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational and Psychological Measurement · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEmployer Branding and e-HRM
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyTest (biology)Test validityPsychometricsPersonalityConvergent validityCriterion validityPersonality testMeasure (data warehouse)Applied psychologyRealmPsychological testingSocial psychologyClinical psychologyConstruct validityInternal consistencyComputer scienceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research in the realm of selection and educational testing has begun to explore test takers' attitudes toward tests. However, valid measurement of test-taking attitudes is required before concrete conclusions may be drawn. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the psychometric properties of a popular measure of test-taking attitudes that may be used in occupational or educational selection testing applications—the Test Attitude Survey (TAS). Participants included 242 undergraduate students, each of whom completed a battery that included personality and test attitude items. Although results indicated adequate convergent validity for scores on the TAS, there is room for improvement to the overall structural validity of scores on this measure.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.055
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.223
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0550.223
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.267
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.075 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducational and Psychological MeasurementSame topicEmployer Branding and e-HRMFrench-language works237,207