Comparing exploratory factor models of the Brief Electricity and Magnetism Assessment and the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism

dc.contributor.authorEaton, Philip
dc.contributor.authorFrank, Barrett
dc.contributor.authorJohnson, Keith
dc.contributor.authorWilloughby, Shannon D.
dc.date.accessioned2020-04-01T16:36:56Z
dc.date.available2020-04-01T16:36:56Z
dc.date.issued2019-10
dc.description.abstractWhile numerous studies have analyzed the conceptions probed by the Force Concept Inventory (FCI), assessments dedicated to electricity and magnetism lack similar analyses. This paper investigated the conceptions explored by the Brief Electricity and Magnetism Assessment (BEMA) and the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism (CSEM) using exploratory factor analysis techniques. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed on both assessments using 5368 and 4941 postinstruction student responses for the BEMA and CSEM, respectively. A 6-factor EFA generated model was found for the CSEM, and was fit against another sample of 4964 student responses using confirmatory factor analysis to supply evidence for the possible generalizability of the model. The 5-factor EFA generated model for the BEMA could not be fit against another sample when trying to check for generalizability. The EFA generated factor models for the BEMA and CSEM were then compared and found to be similar in conceptual content, with the exception of one or two factors. Thus, from a factor analysis perspective, the BEMA and CSEM were found to be similar in conceptual content as revealed by student responses. With a better understanding of these electricity and magnetism assessments, future research into this domain of physics will then be able to make stronger conclusions based on students’ results within these assessments.en_US
dc.identifier.citationEaton, Philip, Barrett Frank, Keith Johnson, and Shannon Willoughby. “Comparing Exploratory Factor Models of the Brief Electricity and Magnetism Assessment and the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism.” Physical Review Physics Education Research 15, no. 2 (October 1, 2019). doi:10.1103/physrevphyseducres.15.020133.en_US
dc.identifier.issn2469-9896
dc.identifier.urihttps://scholarworks.montana.edu/handle/1/15839
dc.rightsCC BY: This license lets you distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon this work, even commercially, as long as you credit the original creator for this work. This is the most accommodating of licenses offered. Recommended for maximum dissemination and use of licensed materials.en_US
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcodeen_US
dc.titleComparing exploratory factor models of the Brief Electricity and Magnetism Assessment and the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetismen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
mus.citation.extentfirstpage020133en_US
mus.citation.issue2en_US
mus.citation.journaltitlePhysical Review Physics Education Researchen_US
mus.citation.volume15en_US
mus.data.thumbpage5en_US
mus.identifier.doi10.1103/physrevphyseducres.15.020133en_US
mus.relation.collegeCollege of Letters & Scienceen_US
mus.relation.departmentPhysics.en_US
mus.relation.universityMontana State University - Bozemanen_US

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Eaton_PRPER_2019B.pdf
Size:
264.98 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Comparing exploratory factor models of the Brief Electricity and Magnetism Assessment and the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism (PDF)

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
826 B
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Copyright (c) 2002-2022, LYRASIS. All rights reserved.