MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2583435396 · doi:10.5539/ies.v10n2p26

Factor Structure and Reliability of Test Items for Saudi Teacher Licence Assessment

2017· article· en· W2583435396 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abdullah Alsadaawi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicDiverse Educational Innovations Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfirmatory factor analysisPsychologyItem response theoryTest (biology)Reliability (semiconductor)Differential item functioningTraitTest validityItem analysisStructural equation modelingPsychometricsDevelopmental psychologyStatisticsMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Saudi National Assessment Centre administers the Computer Science Teacher Test for teacher certification. The aim of this study is to explore gender differences in candidates’ scores, and investigate dimensionality, reliability, and differential item functioning using confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory. The confirmatory factor analysis results for 6 371 examinees’ scores of 66 multiple-choice items when grouped into three content domains showed that the test data were unidimensional (ability, trait). The domains were highly correlated (0.883 to 0.949) within this dimension. Data reliability estimated through latent variable modelling was acceptable at 0.848. Gender results for DIF signalled 13 items, five cases against males and eight cases against females; a finding of some balance in DIF direction against males and females. The study results confirm the validity of the Computer Science Teacher Test and support further refinement of multiple forms of the test.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicDiverse Educational Innovations StudiesFrench-language works237,207