Revision and Application of Attitude Scale for Qualitative Research in Psychology among Chinese Undergraduates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building on foreign literature about the attitude toward qualitative methods for psychology and combining with our local experience of teaching qualitative methods to psychology students, we revised and validated the original scale of Attitude towards Qualitative Research in Psychology (AQRP), generating Attitude Scale for Qualitative Research in Psychology (ASQRP). The scale was also applied to evaluate the effect of our course on qualitative methods for psychology. Three studies were conducted to explore, revise and validate the scale. In study 1, we translated and revised the original scale with eighteen items from the previous study. In a sample of 311 students enrolled in psychology courses, we surveyed and conducted a confirmatory factor analysis on four dimensions of the original scale. Among them, there was zero correlation between perceived lack of validity and qualitative orientation, while the two dimensions of the original scale were negatively correlated. The results of the fitness index were slightly away from expectations. In study 2, we added six locally adapted items to the scale and surveyed again to gain a sample of 249 psychology students. Exploratory analysis established a three-dimension structure of the Attitude Scale for Qualitative Research in Psychology (ASQPR) containing “perceived lack of validity,” “capturing the lived experience,” and “time- and resource- intensive,” with twenty-two items remaining and the dimension of “qualitative orientation” in the original scale reduced. Correlations between the ASQPR and Knowledge about Qualitative Research Scale and Psychology as a Science Scale showed acceptable validity. In study 3, the ASQPR was applied to assess students’ learning outcomes who took part in the psychological qualitative methods courses for a semester. We used a pretest-posttest design to track the attitude changes in three samples of students (179 in total). After the course, students increased their knowledge about qualitative research and realized the advantages of qualitative approach (i.e., capturing the lived experience) and quantitative approach. They also generally think of qualitative research as time and resource-demanding. However, the ingrained perception of qualitative research as lacking validity remained unchanged. In sum, the current study developed a tool suitable for Chinese students to assess their attitudes towards qualitative research, which can assist in curriculum reform and construction involving teaching qualitative methods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.100 | 0.165 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".