RICHARD LAWRENCE LAMB, LEONARD ANNETTA, JEANNETTE MELDRUM

and DAVID VALLETT

MEASURING SCIENCE INTEREST: RASCH VALIDATION

OF THE SCIENCE INTEREST SURVEY
Received: 1 August 2011; Accepted: 3 August 2011

ABSTRACT. Students in the USA have fallen near the bottom in international
competitions and tests in mathematics and science. It is thought that extrinsic factors
such as family, community, and schools might be more influential than intrinsic attitudes
toward science interest. However, there are relatively few valid and reliable measures of
intrinsic factors such as interest relating to science. With the lack of intrinsic measures, it
is difficult to determine the impact of extrinsic factors on the intrinsic construct. A fuller
picture of the factors affecting intrinsic factors such as science interest will allow
interventions to become more refined and targeted. Several studies suggest that student
interest toward science affects the likelihood of the student pursuing advanced courses in
science. The goal of this paper is to establish the validity and reliability of the Science
Interest Survey and to determine if the survey meets the formal requirements of
measurements as defined by the Rasch model. Results using both IRT and CRT analysis
suggest that Science Interest Survey is an adequate measure of the unidimensional
construct known as science interest. Results further suggest the Science Interest Survey is
a valid and reliable measure for assessing science interest levels.

KEY WORDS: Rasch model, Science Interest Survey, USA

INTRODUCTION

The concept of interest strongly affects an individual’s affective functioning

with respect to learning (Bandura, 1997; Hidi, 1990; Kim, 2005). There are
three types of interest which need to be considered in the context of student
learning: individual, situational, and topical (Ainley, Hidi & Berndorff,
1999; Hidi, 2001; Johnson, Alexander, Spencer, Leibham & Neitzel, 2004),
Generalized characteristics of interest are a state of focused attention, flow,
increased cognitive functioning, and increased affective functioning
(Annetta et al., 2009; Ainely, Hidi & Berndorff, 2002; Krapp, Hidi &
Renninger, 1992). Each type of interest is thought to interact with the others
to facilitate learning (Rheinberg & Vollmeyer, 1998; Schiefele, 1998). A
brief definition of each type of interest is needed in order to properly seat the
specific types of interest measured by the authors. Individual interest is the
subject’s existing outlook and arousal triggers, which create the attendance
to individually specific stimuli from objects or events (Hidi, 2006; Krapp,

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education (2012) 10: 643Y668

# National Science Council, Taiwan 2011
644 LAMB ET AL.

2007). Situational interest is similar to individual interest with the exception

that the stimuli are environmental inducted (Fredricks, Alfeld & Eccles,
2010; Huang, 2006). More specifically, these environmentally induced
stimuli are triggers such as task organization, presentation, and thematic
displays (Edgar & Fox, 2006). The final area of interest is a combination of
individual and situational interest. This area of interest is referred to as
topical interest. Topical interest is the arousal response to specific topics
presented to the individual (Schiefele, 1998).
Measuring the construct of interest is important to education researchers
because of its impact on student learning in the topic area and student future
choice in career decisions (Nieswandt, 2006; Boyd, Grossman, Lankford,
Loeb & Michelli, 2006), illustrating the outcomes of lack of science interest.
Students in the USA have fallen near the bottom in international
competitions and tests in mathematics and science (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003; Gonzales, Williams, Jocelyn, Roey, Kastberg &
Brenwald, 2008). Meanwhile, the number of degrees awarded in engineering
in the USA is down to 20% from the peak year of 1985 (Business
Roundtable, 2005; Engineering Workforce Commission, 2008). The USA
continues to struggle “to sustain its scientific and technological superiority”
(p. 1). This paper describes the design and measurement of the Science
Interest Survey (SIS), which is targeted to middle and high school grade
children from varying ethnic backgrounds to ascertain their current and
potential future interest in science. Predictions of future science interest are
possible as individual and topical interest has been shown to be relatively
enduring throughout the individual’s lifetime (Krapp et al., 1992). Further to
this point within the domain of education, there is often a network and
systems of individual interests, which can be positive or negative to learning
(Ainley, 2006). Within the individual and topical system of interests, several
extrinsic factors are present. These factors are such things as family, peers,
teachers, and environments such as the classroom and informal settings
(Blatchford, Baines, Rubie-Davis, Bassett & Chowne, 2006).
Catsambis (1995) suggested that such extrinsic factors as family and
community might be more influential than intrinsic attitudes regarding
interest. The influence of family on the construct interest has been shown to
be of great importance to the success of students in the school and more
specifically the science setting (Schoon, Ross & Martin, 2007; Smetana,
Campione-Barr & Metzger, 2006). The involvement of parents in their
children’s science and math education is proportional to how the students
perform on science and math tests (Smith & Hausafus, 1998). Further, as the
influence of family decreases, the influence of peers tends to increase
(Johnston & Viadero, 2000). This is especially true in the middle grade years.
 CONSTRUCTING AND VALIDATING THE SCIENCE INTEREST SURVEY 645

Many studies have looked at one or two specific factors and tried to find a
relationship between one factor (e.g. family, peers, and school resources) and
student attitudes and/or achievement toward science (Ainley et al., 1999).
Yet, no study to date has examined the factors side by side to understand the
role that each factor plays. This is due, in part, to the lack of a reliable
instrument to measure these relationships as they relate to interest (Churchill,
1979). Taking into consideration intrinsic and extrinsic factors, such as
school, family, and peers, this instrument design sought to measure factors
that contribute to students’ further pursuit of science and the factors that
contribute to student interest. Ultimately, the SIS measures extrinsic factors
across the three domains of interest that provide the most influence on
students’ pursuits of science. Understanding the role that extrinsic factors
play has the potential to inform and assist in the reform of science education,
increase STEM workforce development, and make the USA once again a
leader in science and technology.

Purpose, Research Questions, and Hypothesis

The purpose of the study is to develop an instrument and theoretical
framework capable of measuring the construct of science interest. This
study also seeks to discuss the underlying psychometric properties of the
SIS measure. The research questions addressed in this study are:
1. How many factors underlay the construct of science interest as
measured using the Science Interest Survey?
2. What are the psychometric properties of the Science Interest Survey?
3. Is the Science Interest Survey internally and structurally valid?
Consideration of the research questions and literature supports the
following hypothesis; the Science Interest Survey data provide a proper
fit to the Rasch model. A secondary hypothesis is that the outcomes of
psychometric analysis using classical response theory and item response
theory result in a structurally valid measure of science interest using the
extrinsic factors of family support, teacher support, peer support, informal
science experience, and classroom science experiences.

THEORETIC FRAMEWORK

Middle Grades (Situational Interest)

The middle grades (6 – 9) years, in particular, appear to be the crucial
time in developing student interest in science (Bulunuz & Jarret, 2010;
646 LAMB ET AL.

Harmner & Columba, 2010). In these grades, extrinsic factors begin to

influence the scholastic pathway students will take (Lanzilotti & Montinaro,
2009). Tai, Liu, Maltese & Fan (2006) suggested that student interest and
encouragement in science during the middle grades is related to the
likelihood of pursuing science as a career. A study by Reynolds (1991)
found that student perceptions of classroom context (environmental interest)
could influence the learning of middle school students. High-performing
schools had students report, “their teachers encouraged them to do well in
school” (Cooney, 2001, p. 9). This encouragement helps to increase the level
of interest exhibited by the students in the topical area and can lead to further
involvement in STEM-related activities.

Student Attitudes (Individual Interest)

Student attitudes toward science can also vary depending on how science
topics (topical interest) are presented (Zacharia & Barton, 2004). When
students worked on projects that were related to issues of power, culture,
and ideology, they generally had a positive attitudes and interest toward
science (Zacharia & Barton, 2004). Positive attitudes come from meaningful
experiences helping to raise situational interest (Harackiewicz, Durik,
Barron, Linnenbrink-Garcia & Tauer 2007). When science is taught as an
engaging, hands-on experience, science often becomes the most situational
interesting domain for students, helping to raise arousal to science interest
(Howe & Jones, 1998). The factors of peer, parent, and teacher influences on
a student also help to indicate the success of a student in math and science by
influencing interest and by extension affective attributes.

Peer Influence (Situational Interest)

The relationship between peer and individual attitudes regarding science
interest during the middle grades is one that has been examined by Talton
& Simpson (1985). It was found that “the strength of the relationship
between peer and individual interest attitudes toward science increases
significantly throughout grades 6, 7, and 8 and peaks in grade 9 at the
beginning of the school year” (p. 23). Moreover, individual interest
attitudes may be difficult to discern from peer interest attitudes during the
middle school years (Talton & Simpson, 1985).

Parental Influence (Situational Interest)

Students are more likely to have positive interest attitudes toward science,
when parents participate in their child’s education by talking with their
 CONSTRUCTING AND VALIDATING THE SCIENCE INTEREST SURVEY 647

children about school activities and encouraging their children in science

(George & Kaplan, 1997). However, as previous research has pointed out
(Atwater, Wiggins & Gardner, 1995), there is a decline in parental
involvement during the middle school years, perhaps due to parents
allowing their children to exhibit more autonomy in learning (Spera,
2005).

Teacher Influence (Situational and Topical Interest)

Positive science interest (topical) can often be attributed to the influences
of a quality science teacher (Christidou, 2011). Topical interest arousal
tends to stem from learning interactions because the interest attitudes are
learned and it would make sense to believe attitudes can be taught as well
(Papanastasiou, 2002). Whether or not teachers create an inviting science
classroom (increased situational interest) that encourages students to
engage in science can affect the interest attitudes that students hold about
science (Talton & Simpson, 1986). Students need to feel encouraged to
explore and ask questions, which can help develop an interest in science.
The unfortunate reality is that the idea that science class is “fun” seems to
decline during the middle school years. As students move from
elementary through middle school, science becomes less interesting
(Jones & Eick, 2007; Barton, Tan & Rivet, 2010). Yager & Penick (1986)
suggested that the science classroom environment must make students
feel comfortable and successful, thus helping to increase situational
interest.

Informal Education (Situation and Topical Interest)

“There is no doubt that learning in science and technology occurs outside
of school through real world experiences” (Rennie & Stocklmayer, 2003,
p. 760). While formal classroom education stresses science as knowledge,
informal education integrates the economic and social well-being of
citizens with science as method (Sullenger, 2006). Informal education is
defined for the purposes of this study, as any learning that takes place
outside the formal structure of a classroom. This can be a visit to a
museum, a hike in the woods, or a television program—any place where
there is an opportunity to learn about science through one’s own
experience. From the viewpoint of a constructivist, learning is individ-
ualistic; therefore, no two visitors to a museum will have the same
learning experience (Anderson, Lucas & Ginns, 2003).
The contextual model of learning in informal setting, posited by Falk &
Dierking (2000), takes place within the larger context of free-choice
648 LAMB ET AL.

learning. The model is divided into three major contexts within which such
learning occurs: personal (motivation and expectations, interest, prior
knowledge and experience, and choice and control), sociocultural (with-
group sociocultural mediation, facilitated mediation by others, and culture),
and physical (advance preparation, setting, design, and subsequent reinforc-
ing events and experiences).

Summary
Attitudes are intrinsic in nature, but research by Catsambis (1995) has
shown that extrinsic factors such as families, communities, and the school
environment may be what are contributing to low-level science achieve-
ment.1 In the Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning,
Simpson, Koballa, Oliver & Crawley (1994, p. 211) state, “the key to
successes in education often depends on how a student feels toward
home, self and school.” The role of family and community has long been
shown to be an influential factor in the success of all students, particularly
minority students. Children, who are encouraged by their parents to take
advanced science and math courses and are advised as to the importance
of science and math education, perform better on science and math tests.
If this is the case, then it is alarming to hear that as students get older,
parents become less involved in their child’s education (Johnston &
Viadero, 2000).

METHODS

Rasch Modeling
Rasch measurement provides a theoretical model to create an equal
measure construction of a Science Interest Survey. Rasch constructed
measures are used in the educational, medical, and psychological fields of
study. The model use in these fields is primarily for the evaluation of
validity and development of instruments. The nature of the model is
probabilistic based upon logits (Rasch, 1960). This probabilistic model
allows for an adequate measure of those items that are less likely to be
endorsed. Individuals who exhibit a higher likelihood of exhibiting a
greater endorsement level are more likely to show an increase in science
interest. Consequently, when a high measuring subject does not endorse
items that are ranked lower in the partial credit model, those endorse-
ments are considered unexpected.
 CONSTRUCTING AND VALIDATING THE SCIENCE INTEREST SURVEY 649

The use of the Rasch model provides for the construction of a liner
measure from ordinal observation and provides for the observation and
quantification of the response categories within the survey (Linacre,
1999). The construction of the linear measure from the ordinal data is
accomplished through the transformation of raw scores, to a common
metric of logits (Linacre, 2002). The ordering of the item and response
measure creates an additive relationship allowing for the development of
probabilistic models (Betemps, Smith & Baker, 2003). The probabilistic
models allow for statistical comparisons of the expected responses to the
actual responses within the model. From this comparison of responses, it
is possible to provide an indication of fit to the model. Instruments
developed using Rasch analysis contain items that remain fixed allowing
for the calibration across differing samples. The objective of this study is
to determine SIS item fit against the Rasch model. Comparison of model
fit provides a linear-equal-interval measure for science interest. This study
will examine the quality of the rating scale, assess item quality in
defining science interest dimensions, describe how well the items
represent the interest range, and evaluate item function with regard to
the subjects.
The use of classical test theory (CTT) and Rasch measurement (RM) as
a mixed evaluation approach results in commonality of outcome
regarding the Science Interest Survey. CTT has two conceptual
limitations that are addressed when using RM; the first limitation is the
use of an ordering continuum of items within the unidimensional
constructs and secondly the ability to create an additive scale due to the
fixed nature of the RM characteristics (Prieto, Alonso & Lamarca, 2003).
The use of RM allows for the use of alternative scaling investigations
with a review of the underlying structure of the measure. The use and
comparison of CTT and RM as a confirmatory analysis method
strengthens the outcomes of the analysis and provides for a more robust
picture of the mechanics of the measure. Thus, this paper presents the
parallel reduction designed by Rust & Golombok (2009).

Instrument
The original Science Interest Survey contains 21 items with five response
categories to describe respondent levels of interest in science. Table 1
shows each item and the associated subscale. Reverse items are
designated via the designation Reversed. Response categories are 1
through 5 in an ordinal, Likert-like scale. The rating scale is 1—strongly
disagree, 2—disagree, 3—do not know, 4—agree, and 5—strongly agree.
650 LAMB ET AL.

TABLE 1
Item and subscale assignments

Number Item Subscale

1 My family has encouraged me to study science. F

7 (reversed) People in my family are not interested in science. F
10 My family is enthusiastic about a science career for me. F
13 My family is interested in the science courses I take. F
2 (reversed) My friends do not like science. P
9 My friends view science as nerdy. P
12 (reversed) My friends do not like to watch science programs on TV. P
18a My friends perform science experiments outside of school. P
3 My teachers encourage me to do my best. T
8 My science teachers have encouraged me to learn about T
science.
15 My science teachers make science interesting. T
20 My science teachers are enthusiastic about science. T
4 (reversed) I do not enjoy visiting science museums and science I
centers.
6 Visiting science museums and exhibits makes me I
consider a career in science.
11 Visiting science museums and exhibits makes me I
want to learn more about a science topic.
14a I prefer science class to visiting science museums I
and centers.
5 The topics taught in my science class are S
important in the real world.
16 The topics taught in my science class are boring. S
17 My science classroom has interesting equipment. S
19 (reversed) We do not use most of the equipment in our science S
classroom.
a
Indicate items were dropped from the measure

Subjects are asked to endorse responses that describe their level of

science interest.
The 21 items are broken into five subscales. Subscale designations are:
F (Family Encouragement), P (Peer Attitudes toward Science), T (Teacher
Influence), I (Informal Learning Experiences), and S (Science Classroom
Experiences). Five of the 21 items are reverse scored and embedded
within the five subscales. Teacher encouragement and peer attitudes
toward science are taken and adapted from a measure of interest created
by Simpson & Troost (1982). The study authors developed adequate
statements for informal learning—science learning that takes place
outside of the classroom (i.e. museum and field trips).
 CONSTRUCTING AND VALIDATING THE SCIENCE INTEREST SURVEY 651

Participants
Test data were obtained from 528 students in classes from randomly
selected teachers in grades 5 through 12. Schools selected for the
study are located in several states within the continental USA.
Student data were obtained primarily from Southeastern and
Midwestern states. Twenty-eight students (5.3%) are from the
elementary level, 150 students (28.41%) are from the middle school
level, and 350 students (66.29%) are from the high school level.
Ages ranged from 9 to 18: 2.46% were between the ages of 9 and
11, 44.59% are aged 12 to 14, and the remaining 51.04% are 15 to
18 years old. Table 2 shows the racial distribution of the study
participants.
The research design is a non-randomized intact group, posttest
only research design. The most serious threat to internal validity
within this design is potential selection bias within the grouping and
lack of quantification of changes in interest level. Mitigation of this
effect was accomplished through selection of a sufficiently large pool
of intact classes (n = 18, β = 0.78). Table 3 shows the experimental
design.

Statistical Analysis
Analysis of the measure was accomplished using WINSTEPS (Linacre,
2002) and JMP Statistical Discovery Software. Stability of the measure to
the 99% (±1/2 logit) confidence interval is provided at the 150-subject
threshold (Linacre, 1994). Item misfit results indicate a lack of relation-
ship between the item and other items in the scale. The lack of fit in this
context can be interpreted as statistical interferences and a resulting lesser

TABLE 2
Racial distribution of study participants

Race Frequency Percentage

No response (0) 36 6.82

Caucasian (1) 279 52.84
African-American (2) 126 23.86
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (3) 28 5.30
Asian (4) 54 10.22
American Indian/Alaskan Native (5) 3 0.57
Other (6) 2 0.39
652 LAMB ET AL.

TABLE 3
Experimental design

Assignment Treatment Group Label Treatment Posttest

Intact group Experimental E X O1

quality of measure. Mitigation of the interference created by the outfits

results can be accomplish through a collapse of the choice options or
changes to labeling options which are too closely associated by the
respondents. These changes will assist in the increase in model fit.
Model fit is established with an overall outfit greater than 2.0.
Respondents with outfits greater than 2.0 are identified as subjects
who do not conform to the current model.
Separation indices indicate the step differences that can be
identified in the sample. The Rasch separation coefficient acts a
measure of internal consistency (Wright, 1996). This allows for the
discrimination between individual subject endorsements and subjects
within the sample.
Unidimensional construction of the measure is established through
principal component analysis. Items that share common characteristics
are identified as the primary component, accounting for the vast
majority of the measured variance. Principal components are then
removed, and each successive item is measured accounting for the
remaining variance. The resulting eigenvalues show the underlying
structure of the data. The unidimensional nature of the measure—
science interest—is important in assessing the underlying trait
measured by the constructs (the subscales).
Factor analysis is used to assess the commonality of factors or
observed variables in a measure. For this study, factor analysis was
used to determine the number of factor loadings that conform to the
subset of the five-factor or subscale construction of the Science
Interest Survey. The factor loadings correspond to the correlation
coefficients between the items variables and the factors (subscales).
For the purposes of this study, factor loading ranges from 0.4 as the
lower limit and factor loading above 0.6 are considered high
(Fabrigar, MacCallum, Wegener & Strahan, 1999). Internal consis-
tency is established using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. This
estimation is based on the correlation among variables comprising
the set. Internal consistency coefficients of 0.7 to 0.8 are considered
 CONSTRUCTING AND VALIDATING THE SCIENCE INTEREST SURVEY 653

good while coefficients of 0.6 to 0.7 are considered adequate

(Miller, 1995).

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics
The data from this sample suggest that the Rasch model describes the
internal structure of the measure and associated items. Review of Table 4
indicates that all items were answered with relatively few missing
responses. The largest number of missing responses was for item 14,
and the total percentage of missing responses is 2.65% of the respondents.

TABLE 4
Response frequency and percent by item

No Strongly
response disagree Disagree Do not Strongly
Item (0) (1) (2) know (3) Agree (4) agree (5)

1 1 19 71 102 240 95
2 0 34 328 0 138 27
3 3 8 21 27 234 235
4 3 138 229 72 63 23
5 2 12 34 95 265 120
6 3 53 133 128 156 55
7 0 16 49 172 166 119
8 4 10 31 53 287 143
9 8 40 161 214 73 32
10 1 45 116 214 103 49
11 4 39 90 110 225 60
12 0 53 116 221 109 29
13 9 26 64 167 204 58
14 14 100 185 104 88 37
15 3 45 75 60 245 100
16 8 55 222 102 92 49
17 9 33 76 121 226 63
18 4 90 125 188 95 26
19 0 42 113 121 194 50
20 6 14 10 90 199 209
21 4 42 82 88 225 87
Total 86 914 2,331 2,449 3,627 1,666
endorsements
654 LAMB ET AL.

The least endorsed category is the category strongly disagree (8.25%); the
most frequently endorsed category is agree (32.76%).
Table 5 shows the means, standard deviation, maximum, and minimum
for each of the subscales in the measure. The subscale with the largest
mean is the T subscale 3.947, and the subscale with the lowest mean is
the I subscale with a value of 2.948.

Instrument Reliability
Internal Reliability Statistics. Review of internal reliability for each
subscale indicates an adequate level of internal reliability. While specific
subscales may show a slightly low internal reliability, the overall internal
reliability of the measure is adequate when reviewed (α = 0.72).
Removal of the third response category “do not know” slightly
increased the person separation index from 8.73 to 8.75. The separation
coefficient is analogous to the Fisher discrimination ratio (Wright, 1996).
An 8.75 separation ratio identifies that a total of eight levels of ability or
strata can be discerned from the measure by the test sample. This increase
in item separation results from the increased discrimination between the
item choices. Conversion of the discernable (distinct strata) to a KR-20 or
alpha coefficient places the value 8.75 at about a 0.97 alpha range which
is considerably higher than the Cronbach’s alpha calculations shown in
Table 6. This discrepancy in reliability can be attributed to the non-linear
nature of the transformation of the data associated with the Rasch model
(Fisher, 1992).

Measure Construct
Factor Analysis. The rotated factor matrix shown in Table 6 shows that
five factors account for 89.9% total observed variance. Analysis of factor

TABLE 5
Subscale means and standard deviations

Subscale Mean Standard deviation Min Max

T subscale 3.947 0.74581712 1.00 5.00

S subscale 3.289 0.5399338 0.67 4.67
P subscale 2.756 0.52155445 0.67 5.00
I subscale 2.948 0.83605062 0.67 5.00
F subscale 3.307 0.84290096 1.00 5.00
 CONSTRUCTING AND VALIDATING THE SCIENCE INTEREST SURVEY 655

TABLE 6
Cronbach’s alpha for each subscale

Subscale Cronbach’s alpha

T subscale 0.70
S subscale 0.60
P subscale 0.60
I subscale 0.50
F subscale 0.70
By item coefficient alpha full survey 0.72

loadings results in the suggested subscale descriptions. Factor 1—the T

subscale (items 3, 8, 15, 20) or Teacher influence—consists of items that
relate the subjects’ responses concerning teaching influence on the
interest in science. Factor 2—the S subscale (items 5, 16, 17, 19)—
shows subject endorsement of questions regarding experiences generating
interest in the science classroom. Factor 3—the P subscale (items 2, 9, 12,
18)—consists of items which quantify subject expressions of peer interest
toward science. Factor 4—items 4,6,11, 14—shows the influence of the
informal science education on the generation of interest. Factor 4—the I
subscale (items 4, 6, 11, 15)—and factor 5—the F subscale (items 1, 7,
10, 13, 21)—illustrate informal science education and family influence in
generating interest respectively. Common to all of these subscale factors
is the construct of science interest. Thus, factor analysis suggests and
supports the authors supposition of an overarching unidimensional
construct composed of five subfactors. Factor analysis suggests that
items 14 and 18 are not unique to any particular factor but belong to the
general factor of science interest. However, initially the items were
assigned to factors 3 and 4.
Alternative interpretations of the results of the confirmatory factor
analysis—suggesting subscales—and the Rasch measurement—which
suggests unidimensionality of the construct—can be thought to weaken
the validity and unity of the survey not confirm the overarching construct
of science interest as proposed by the authors. The authors chose to accept
the conception of the unidimensional construct as a means to define the
measure because classical response theory—of which factor analysis is a
key component—creates the conditions of multiple factors measuring
well-defined domains within homogenous content. Item response theory
proposes that single measurable traits (theta) are measured within each
test. The factor analysis supports that there are five subfactors which
656 LAMB ET AL.

exist, and the Rasch analysis confirms that the five factors tie together to
identify one commonality, theta which is the construct called science
interest.
A principal component analysis using a promax rotated solution of
the residuals is used to show the dimensionality of the Science
Interest Survey. The residual loading factor is the remainder after the
underlying trait has been removed. Only items with a loading factor
greater than ±0.30 are recommended for use (Lamoureux, Pallant,
Pesudovs, Hassell and Keefe, 2006). Using the ±0.30 criterion
threshold, the removal of item 14 and item 18 is indicated. The first
factor explained 40.6 units of variance. Results suggest that there is a
unidimensional structure associated, with the measure. Table 7 shows
the factor loading for each of the items.
Figure 1 shows the fraction of the total variance in the data that is
accounted by each of the principal components. The plot shows the

TABLE 7
Factor 1 from principal component analysis of standardized residuals

Item number Loading factor

16 0.76
9 0.66
4 (reverse) 0.63
7 (reverse) 0.55
2 (reverse) 0.55
12 (reverse) 0.55
19 (reverse) 0.55
14 0.09
21 −0.67
15 −0.56
11 −0.54
5 −0.54
13 −0.48
6 −0.48
10 −0.43
8 −0.40
17 −0.38
3 −0.37
20 −0.33
1 −0.32
18 −0.07
 CONSTRUCTING AND VALIDATING THE SCIENCE INTEREST SURVEY 657

Figure 1. Screen plot showing resulting eigenvalues for survey in science items

single underlying dimension (science interest) which that describes

the factor loading seen in Table 8. The unidimensional nature of the
science interest construct provides further evidence for the measure of
science interest and the applicability of the Rasch model to this
measure.

Rasch Analysis. The person item map displayed in Figure 1 shows

subject scores and relative difficulty of items on the Rasch calibrated
scale. The left side of the plot shows participant responses and the
right hand shows item difficulty. Participants exhibiting the highest
level of participation with the most difficult items are shown at the
top. Respondents showing the least level of participation and least
difficult items are displayed at the bottom of the plot. Even
distribution of respondent scoring suggests that there is effective
targeting within the Science Interest Survey. Further to point of
adequate targeting, the subjects showed a marginally higher level of
ability than the scale item shown at 0 and denoted by ++M. The five
most difficult items in order are item 3, item 8, item 20, item 5, and
item 1. The five lease difficult items are item 18, item 14, item 4,
658 LAMB ET AL.

TABLE 8
Rotated promax factor analysis loading

Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

1 0.2727 0.1403 0.1188 0.2524 0.7914

2 0.2262 0.0739 0.65 0.1979 0.2838
3 0.7132 0.2249 0.0639 0.1694 0.2457
4 −0.2206 0.0045 −0.0971 −0.327 −0.2714
5 0.5113 0.4477 0.1714 0.4013 0.2992
6 0.2873 0.1489 0.1723 0.7825 0.406
7 0.2689 0.0824 0.099 0.2396 0.4129
8 0.7256 0.2443 0.0814 0.1846 0.2918
9 −0.0942 0.0442 0.2515 −0.1529 −0.1241
10 0.2937 0.1083 0.1884 0.4373 0.7945
11 0.3438 0.1018 0.1742 0.7367 0.4003
12 0.1032 0.0686 0.5833 0.2193 0.1287
13 0.3593 0.1327 0.1675 0.326 0.7753
14 0.0925 0.0791 0.0353 0.5873 0.1101
15 0.7452 0.2462 0.1879 0.3905 0.3406
16 −0.4059 0.33 −0.1223 −0.3747 −0.2767
17 0.4414 0.6927 0.1666 0.2759 0.2658
18 0.0741 0.2059 0.158 0.2657 0.1495
19 0.3544 0.0856 0.0947 0.1381 0.1456
20 0.7158 0.2006 0.1133 0.2014 0.2481
21 0.3987 0.0848 0.1635 0.5234 0.5203
Percentage 40.6 18.4 17.7 8.1 5.1
of total
variance
Subscale 3, 8, 15, 20 5, 16, 17, 19 2, 9, 12, 18* 4, 6, 11, 14* 1, 7, 10,
13, 21
Items with an asterisk are indicated for removal

item 7, and item 9. Language used in survey items, for example item 9, is
somewhat subjective. However, item responses are psychometrically sound
showing proper infit and outfit statistics (infit 1.10, outfit 1.11 for item 9,
which is considered productive for the measure per Linacre, 1997). Mean
infit and outfit statistics for the total measure are 1.00 and 1.01, respectively,
and show proper functioning of the measure. Chi-square results for model fit
suggest that the SIS measure conforms to the Rasch model as there is no
significant difference between the observed and expected item response
outcomes (p = 0.063).
Figure 2 also illustrates the item order and calibration of the measure of
the science interest variable. The scale uses a range 0–100 and is a
 CONSTRUCTING AND VALIDATING THE SCIENCE INTEREST SURVEY 659

Figure 2. Item person map

transformation of the logit scale. Item locations intricate the location of

items and more importantly subjects on the science interest scale.

Construct Validity
A construct is defined as a postulated attribute of a person, which is
assumed to be reflected in measure performance (Cronbach & Meehl,
1955; Embretson, 1983). This measured construct is defined as a
unidimensional trait denoted by the term Θ (theta). Construct validity is
defined as the degree to which as scale measures with theoretical
psychological constructs (Θ) to which it is proposed to measure. When a
test measures a trait, which is difficult to define such as in an affective test
measuring the construct of science interest, multiple expert reviewers may
rate the individual item relevance to the construct. Table 9 shows the
independent relevance rating of each reviewer for the items contained on
the Science Interest Survey.
Analysis of reviewer agreement of relevance shows that 56.25% of items
were shown to have strong relevance to science interest as rated by expert
reviewers. This percentage relevance corresponds to a construct validity

TABLE 9
Relevance rating for each item on the Science Interest Survey

Reviewer 2

Weakly relevant Strongly relevant

Reviewer 1 Weakly relevant 2, 9, 10, 11, 16 (A) 8 (B)

Strongly relevant 1 (C) 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15 (D)
Numbers correspond to individual items on the Science Interest Survey. Letters correspond to
relevance groupings: A—WRWR, B—WRSR, C—SRWR, and D—SRSR
660 LAMB ET AL.

coefficient of 0.56. This level of construct validity is adequate for an

affective measure. Calculation of the construct validity coefficient is
achieved using Eq. 1 below:
Pn
d ¼ ID = I¼1 I AD ð1Þ

The remaining items show a mixed relevance, i.e., one reviewer

rated the item as strongly relevant and one reviewer rated the same
item as weakly relevant or both reviewers rated the item as weakly
relevant. This does not necessarily mean that the experts feel the item
does not measure any aspect of Θ, just that the item does not
measure as much of theta as the strongly relevant items relatively.
Expert reviewers were selected due to their unique understanding of
the measured items of interest as it relates to science education. Each
of these experts has obtained a Ph.D. in Science Education with
focus areas in Educational Psychology.

Scoring the Science Interest Survey

Researchers using the Science Interest Survey can use the validated date
associated with this study to convert raw scores to Rasch scores without
using the analysis above. This conversion will hold mostly for subjects
who endorse a majority of items (98%) in order to meet the psychological
clinical level cutoff s of the construct of interest. Raw scores are first
calculated by reversing items 4, 7, 2, 12, and 19 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) to (5, 4, 3,
2, 1). Secondly, the response categories must be collapsed from five to
four removing the “do not know” option. This is due to significant
difference between expected−observed and outfit results (0.20 − 0.07,
1.47). The grand mean of the subscales or the average of the subscale
scores gives the Science Interest Survey raw score. The raw score is
related to the Rasch person measure illustrated in Figure 2. The
relationship can be described using the equation:
 
SISðPersonMeasureÞ ¼ 13:01log SISðRawScoreÞ =5  SISðRawScoreÞ þ 31:15
ð2Þ

The equation can be used to convert raw scores to Rasch person

measures in logits. The conversion to logits allows for the equal measure
comparison (Figure 3).
 CONSTRUCTING AND VALIDATING THE SCIENCE INTEREST SURVEY 661

Figure 3. Scoring plot for Science Interest Survey

DISCUSSION

The primary purpose of this study was to design and validate a new
measure of science interest. Secondarily, the study also examines the
underlying factors which make up the construct of science interest. It was
hypothesized that the data obtained using the Science Interest Survey
adequately fits the Rasch model. A secondary hypothesis is the factors of
family influence, peer influence, teacher influence, informal science
experience, and classroom science experiences can be assessed and used
to measure science interest. Confirmation of the hypothesizes would
result in a psychometrically sound measure of science interest using
extrinsic factors.
Solutions for the promax rotated factors analysis show five obliquely
rotated factors (research question 1). This solution reveals a factor
structure which is considered simple with five linearly dependent factors
(Thurstone, 1947). The five suggested factors using classical response
theory show the factors of family support, teacher support, peer support,
informal science experience, and classroom science experiences. Each of
these factors results from extrinsically measured items loading on the
latent trait of science interest. The goal of the Rasch analysis is to
establish the validity and reliability of the Science Interest Survey
662 LAMB ET AL.

questionnaire and determine if the survey meets the formal requirements

of measurements as defined by the Rasch model (research questions 2 and
3). To make the instrument more compliant with the Rasch model, the
response scale was collapsed from five items to four items removing
the “do not know” response. Additional to the collapse if the
response scale, items 14 and 18 were removed from the survey due
to misfit. The resulting Rasch scaled 19-item (originally 21 items)
Science Interest Survey demonstrates a justifiable scale for measuring
perceived interest in science. The survey not only shows very high
reliability and validity but it also shows effective targeting and lack
of differential item functioning.
The use of the Rasch analysis enabled a detailed examination of the
operation of the Science Interest Survey. The partial credit model was
used to evaluate the threshold ordering of the responses. Review of the
ordering suggests that the response scale including the “do not know”
response was not the most optimized version of the measure. This lack of
optimization is indicated through the overlapping seen in the response
categories; this suggests that subjects did not successfully discriminate
between the response item options. The reduction from a five-item
response scale to a four-item response scale relating interest is consistent
with other measures of interest such as in the study conducted by Kind,
Jones & Barmby (2007).
Item 14 shows the largest number of non-response (missing data). Both
item 14 and item 18 show the smallest loading factors suggesting that
there is a lack of correlation with the other factors and items (these two
items were ultimately dropped). This inadequate fit to the expected model
may be due to inability of the subjects classify some outside classroom
experiences as science experiments (item 18) and the relative interest and
variability of conception associated with subject understanding of science
centers, museum, and classroom (item 14). This variability in conception
can lead to a significant level of noise that reduces the overall
effectiveness of the measure.
Items 4, 7, 2, 12, and 19 all show factor loading of 0.55. These results
suggest that the use of a varimax rotation would be inappropriate for
simplification of the factor analysis, as the factors are not orthogonal.
More appropriate for the simplification of the factor analysis would be the
use of a promax oblique rotated solution as used by the authors to
simplify and interpret the results. The high internal consistency
(Cronbach’s alpha) across the subscales and the measure as a whole
supports the author’s accretion that there is one underlying general factor
being measured using classical response theory. The resulting 0.55 for
 CONSTRUCTING AND VALIDATING THE SCIENCE INTEREST SURVEY 663

each of the items indicates that the items show the same residual
correlation on differing subscales this also support the premise of
unidimensionality. Concerns about the resulting similarity of residual
score are not salient because the scores fall below the root ≥1 criterion.
Eigenvalue falling below root ≥1 are not considered important because
the variance each standardized variable contributes to a principal
component extraction equals 1. While the use of inverse items may
supply subconscience cues as to socially desirable responses other
items within the subscale help to assure consistency of answers,
Rasch analysis indicates that the items are functioning appropriately
within the measure. The person item map of the Rasch scaled
Science Interest Survey shows good targeting of the scale, with no
floor or ceiling effect. The adequate targeting of the survey to subject
participation suggests the ability of the respondents to assess their
level of understanding items. The person item map also shows
several items representing the same level of difficulty along the
ability continuum perhaps suggesting that the items could be
removed. However, the Science Interest Survey is a short survey
and the maintenance of the additional items is unlikely to create
undue burden. The additional items may also allow for slightly better
targeting.
The content of the survey suggests the latent trait being sampled.
Externalized factors associate with the actions others take to increase the
subject science interest levels dominate the content of the survey. This
leads to a global construct of environmental factors (situational interest)
that influence the science interest. In addition, confirmation of outcomes
is established through 61.9% of students assessing the survey as correctly
reflecting their interest level. This level of agreement from the subjects
with the survey outcomes adds an addition level of reliability and validity.
This study demonstrates that the application of the Rasch model supports
the 19-item, four-response scale, Science Interest Survey as a valid scale
for assessing science interest levels. A raw score to Rasch person measure
conversion allows researchers to use the Science Interest Survey without
resorting to Rasch analysis.

CONCLUSION

The significance to the science education community is that through the

measurement of extrinsic factors such as peer influence, teacher influence,
family influence, etc., it is possible to assess the level of science interest
664 LAMB ET AL.

exhibited by students on an equal measure scale. Through appropriate

scaling, using the Rasch model, it is now possible to meaningfully
compare student interest between students and across groups of students.
Meaningful measurement of student interest has the potential to lead to
more specific targeting of student interventions which can affect the
student interest outcomes. The 19-item Science Interest Survey is
available upon request to the author.

NOTE
1
The authors of this study acknowledge that extrinsic factors such as ethnicity or
gender can play a role as covariates in response outcomes in an interest survey, and thus,
further investigations of these extrinsic factors as subsets of the general population are
warranted and are addressed in follow-up studies.
2
The authors agree that there is a high correlation between raw scores and Rasch
ability estimates, and the usefulness of the SIS equation is: The ability of researchers to
convert raw scores to Rasch scores without the use of Rasch analysis each time the
instrument is used. The usage of conversion equations for field instruments is commonly
practiced in the clinical arena where practitioners do not necessarily have the time or
expertise to complete fit analyses each time the instrument is used.

REFERENCES

Ainley, M., Hidi, S. & Berndorff, D. (1999). Situational and individual interest in
cognitive and affective aspects of learning. Paper presented at the American Educa-
tional Research Association Meetings. Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Ainely, M., Hidi, S. & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning and the psychological
process that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 545–
561.
Ainley, M. (2006). Connection with learning: Motivation, affect and cognition of interest.
Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 391–405.
Anderson, D., Lucas, K. B. & Ginns, I. S. (2003). Theoretical perspectives on
learning in an informal setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 177–
199.
Annetta, L., Minogue, M., Holmes, S. & Cheng, M. (2009). Investigating the impact of
video games on high school students’ engagement and learning about genetics,
Computers in Education, 53(1), 74–85.
Atwater, M. M., Wiggins, J. & Gardner, C. M. (1995). A study of urban middle school
students with high and low attitudes toward science. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 32, 665–677.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercises of control. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman
and Company.
 CONSTRUCTING AND VALIDATING THE SCIENCE INTEREST SURVEY 665

Barton, A., Tan, E. & Rivet, A. (2010). Creating spaces for engaging school science
among urban middle school girls. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 68–
103.
Betemps, E., Smith, R. & Baker, D. (2003). Measurement precision of the clinician
administered PTSD scale: A Rasch model analysis. Journal of Applied Measurement, 4
(1), 59–69.
Blatchford, P., Baines, E., Rubie-Davis, C., Bassett, P. & Chowne, A. (2006). The effect
of a new approach to group work on pupil–pupil and teacher–pupil interactions. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 750–765.
Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S. & Michelli, N. (2006). Complex by
design. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(2), 155–166.
Business Roundtable (2005). Tapping America’s potential: The education for innovation
initiative. Retrieved December 15, 2006, from http://www.itic.org/archives/TAP%
20Statement.pdf
Bulunuz, M. & Jarret, O. (2010). Developing an interest in science: Background
experience of preservice elementary teachers. International Journal of Environmental &
Science Education, 5(1), 65–84.
Catsambis, S. (1995). Gender, race, ethnicity, and science education in the middle grades.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 243–257.
Churchill, G. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs.
Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73.
Christidou, V. (2011). Interest, attitudes and images related to science: Combining
students’ voices with voices of school, science teachers and popular science. Interna-
tional Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 6(2), 141–159.
Cronbach, L. & Meehl, P. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological
Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302.
Cooney, S. (2001). Closing gaps in middle grades. ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 479 781.
Edgar, K. & Fox, N. (2006). Temperamental contributions to children’s performance in an
emotion-word processing task: A behavioral and electrophysiological study. Brain and
Cognition, 65(1), 22–35.
Embretson, S. (1983). Construct validity: Construct representation versus nomothetic
span. Psychological Bulletin, 93(1), 179–197.
Engineering Workforce Commission (2008) Engineering and technology degrees, 2007
(Washington, DC). www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/pdf/tabc-8.pdf
Falk, J. H. & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from Museums. Walnut Creek, CA:
AltaMira Press. 272 pp.
Fabrigar, L., MacCallum, R., Wegener, D. & Strahan, E. (1999). Evaluation the use of
exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3),
272–299.
Fisher, J. (1992). Changing AIDS-risk behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 111(3), 455–474.
Fredricks, J., Alfeld, C. & Eccles, J. (2010). Developing and fostering passion in academic
and nonacademic domains. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(1), 18–30.
George, R. & Kaplan, D. (1997). A structural model of parent and teacher influences on
science attitudes of eighth graders: Evidence from NELS: 88. Science Education, 82,
93–109.
Gonzales, P., Williams, T., Jocelyn, L., Roey, S., Kastberg, D. & Brenwald, S. (2008).
Highlights from TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and science achievement of U.S. fourth- and
666 LAMB ET AL.

eighth-grade students in an international context (NCES 2009–001). Washington, DC:

National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Depart-
ment of Education.
Harackiewicz, J. Durik, A, Barron, K., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. & Tauer, J. (2007). The
role of achievement goals in the development of interest: Reciprocal relations between
achievement goals, interest, and performance, Journal of Educational Psychology, 100
(1), 105–122.
Harmner, A. & Columba, L. (2010). Engaging middle school students in nanoscale
science, nanotechnology, and electron microscopy. Journal of Nano Education, 2(1),
91–101.
Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of
Educational Research, 60(4), 549–571.
Hidi, S. (2001). Interest, reading and learning: Theoretical and practical considerations.
Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 191–209.
Hidi, S. (2006). Interest: A unique motivational variable. Educational Research Review, 1
(2), 69–82.
Howe, A. & Jones, L. (1998). Engaging children in science (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Huang, M. (2006). Flow, enduring, and situational involvement in the Web environ-
ment: A tripartite second-order examination. Psychology and Marketing, 23(5), 383–
411.
Johnson, K., Alexander, J., Spencer, S., Leibham, M. & Neitzel, C. (2004). Factors
associate with the early emergence of intense interests within conceptual domains.
Cognitive Development, 19(3), 325–343.
Johnston, R. C. & Viadero, D. (2000). Unmet promise: Raising minority achievement.
Edweek.org.
Jones, M. & Eick, C. (2007). Implementing inquiry kit curriculum: Obstacles, adaptations,
and practical knowledge development in two middle school science teachers. Science
Education, 91(3), 492–513.
Kim, H. (2005). Learning implicit user interest hierarchy for web personalization, A
dissertation submitted to Florida Institute of Technology, In Computer Science.
Krapp, A., Hidi, S. & Renninger, K. (1992). The role of interest and learning and
development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Krapp, A. (2007). An educational–psychological conceptualization of interest. Interna-
tional Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 7(1), 5–21.
Lamoureux, E., Pallant, J., Pesudovs, K., Hassell, J. & Keefe, J. (2006). The impact of
vision impairment questionnaire: An evaluation of its measurement properties
using Rasch analysis. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 47(11),
4732–4741.
Lanzilotti, R. & Montinaro, F. (2009). Influence of students’ motivation on their
experience with e-learning systems: And experimental study. Universal Access in
Human and Computer Interaction, 56(16), 63–72.
Linacre, J. M. (1994). Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Measurement
Transactions, 7(4), 324.
Linacre, J. M. (1997). Investigating judge local independence. Rasch Measurement
Transactions, 11(1), 546–547.
Linacre, J. M. (1999). Investigating rating scale category utility. Journal of Outcome
Measurement, 3(2), 103–122.
 CONSTRUCTING AND VALIDATING THE SCIENCE INTEREST SURVEY 667

Linacre, J. (2002). Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness, Journal of Applied

Measurement, 3, 85–106.
Miller, M. B. (1995). Coefficient alpha: A basic introduction from the perspectives of
classical test theory and structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 2
(3), 255–273.
National Center for Education Statistics (2003). Program for International Student
Assessment. http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/pisa2003highlights.asp.
Nieswandt, M. (2006). Student affect and conceptual understanding in learning chemistry.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 908–937.
Papanastasiou, C. (2002). School, teaching and family influence on student attitudes
toward science: Based on TIMSS data for Cyprus. Studies in Educational Evaluation,
28, 71–86.
Prieto, L., Alonso, J. & Lamarca, R. (2003). Classical test theory versus Rasch analysis for
quality of life questionnaire reduction. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1, 27.
Rasch, G. (1960). Studies in mathematical psychology: I. Probabilistic models for some
intelligence and attainment tests, Oxford, England: Nielsen & Lydiche. Xiii, 184.
Rennie, L. J. & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). The communication of science and
technology: Past, present and future agendas. International Journal of Science
Education, 25, 759–773.
Reynolds, A. J. (1991). The middle schooling process: Influences on science and
mathematics achievement from the longitudinal study of American youth. Adolescence,
26, 133–159.
Rheinberg, F. & Vollmeyer, R. (1998). Does motivation affect performance via
persistence. Learning and Instruction, 10(4), 293–309.
Rust, J. & Golombok, S. (2009). Modern psychometrics: The science of psychological
assessment (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Schiefele, U. (1998). Individual interest and learning, what we know and what we don’t
know. In L. Hoffman, A. Krapp, K. Renninger & J. Baumert (Eds.), Interest and
learning: Proceedings of the Seeon Conference on Interest and Gender (pp. 91–104).
Kiel, Germany: IPN.
Simpson, R. D., Koballa, T. R., Oliver, J. S. & Crawley, F. E. (1994). Research on the
affective dimension of science learning. In D. L. Grabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on
science teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan.
Simpson, R. D. & Troost, K. M. (1982). Influences on commitment to and learning of
science among adolescent students. Science Education, 66, 763–781.
Smith, F. M. & Hausafus, C. O. (1998). Relationship of family support and ethnic
minority students’ achievement in science and mathematics. Science Education, 82,
111–125.
Schoon, I., Ross, A. & Martin, P. (2007). Science related careers: Aspirations and
outcomes in two British cohort studies. Equal Opportunities International, 26(2), 129–
143.
Smetana, J., Campione-Barr, N. & Metzger, A. (2006). Adolescent development in
interpersonal and societal contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 255–284.
Spera, C. (2005). A review of the relationship among parenting practices, parenting
styles, and adolescent school achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 17,
125–146.
Sullenger, K. (2006). Beyond school walls: Informal education and the culture of science.
Education Canada, 46, 15–18.
668 LAMB ET AL.

Tai, R. H., Liu, C. Q., Maltese, A. V. & Fan, X. (2006). Planning early for careers in
science. Science, 312(5777), 1143–1144.
Talton, E. L. & Simpson, R. D. (1985). Relationships between peer and individual
attitudes toward science among adolescent students. Science Education, 69, 19–24.
Talton, E. L. & Simpson, R. D. (1986). Relationships of attitudes toward self, family, and
school with attitude toward science among adolescents. Science Education, 70, 365–
374.
Thurstone, L. (1947). Multiple Factor Analysis, Thurstone, LL., University of Chicago
Press: Chicago.
Wright, B. D. (1996). Reliability and separation. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 9(4),
472.
Yager, R. E. & Penick, J. E. (1986). Perceptions of four age groups toward science
classes, teachers, and the value of science. Science Education, 70, 355–363.
Zacharia, Z. & Barton, A. (2004). Urban middle-school students’ attitudes toward a
defined science. Science Education, 88, 197–222.

Richard Lawrence Lamb, Leonard Annetta and David Vallett

George Mason University
Fairfax, VA, USA
E-mail: lambrl9137@gmail.com

Jeannette Meldrum
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC, USA