The study compared an ordering-theoretic method of identifying item hierarchies with scalogram analysis in the evaluation of an eight item attitude measure. The attitude measure assessed "progressive" and "traditional" views of education. Data were collected in a survey of a random sample of 178 parents of public school children. The scalogram analysis revealed that the items did not form a unidimensional and cumulative hierarchy. The ordering-theoretic analysis identified a branched, nonlinear hierarchy which had higher reproducibility and scalability than the linear hierarchy identified by the scalogram analysis. The results support the use of ordering theory in defining item hierarchies in attitudinal measures.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Airasian, P. W.The role of evaluation in mastery learning. in J. Block (Ed.) Mastery learning: Theory and Practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971, 77-88. (a)
2.
Airasian, P. W.A method for validating sequential instructional hierarchies. Educational Technology, 1971, 11, 54-56. (b)
3.
Airasian, P. W.A study of behaviorally dependent, classroom taught task hierarchies. Educational Technology Research Report Series, No. 3, 1971 (c)
4.
Airasian, P. W. and Bart, W. M.Ordering theory: A new and useful measurement model . Educational Technology, 1973, 13, 56-60.
5.
Airasian, P. W., Bart, W. M., and Greaney, B. J.An ordering theoretic analysis of a propositional logic game. Paper read at the annual American Educational Research Association meeting, New Orleans, La., February 1973.
6.
Anderson, R. E.A computer program for guttman scaling with the goodenough technique. Behavioral Science , 1966, 2, 235.
7.
Bart, W. M. and Airasian, P. W.The generation of item hierarchies by an ordering-theoretic method and a piagetian example. Paper read at the annual American Educational Research Association meeting, Chicago, Ill., April, 1972.
8.
Bart, W. M. and Krus, D. J.An ordering-theoretic method to determine hierarchies among items. EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 1973, 33, 291-300.
9.
Cox, R. C. and Graham, G. T.The development of sequentially scaled achievement test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1966, 3, 147-150.
10.
Gagné, R. M.The acquisition of knowledge . Psychological Review, 1962, 69, 355-365.
11.
Gagne, R. M.Curriculum research and the promotion of learning. Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation. Chicago : Rand McNally, 1967, 19-38.
12.
Gagne, R. M.Learning hierarchies. Educational Psychologist, 1968, 6, (1).
13.
Gagne, R. M. and Paradise, N. E.Abilities and learning sets in knowledge acquisition . Psychological Monographs, 1961, 75 (whole number 518).
14.
Goodstein, R. L.Boolean algebra. London: Pergamon Press, 1963.
15.
Guttman, L. A.A basis for scaling qualitative data. American Sociological Review, 1944, 9, 139-150.
16.
Guttman, L. A.A basis for scalogram analysis . In Stuffer, et al., Studies in social psychology in World War II, Volume 4, Measurement and prediction. Princeton : University Press, 1950.
17.
Kerlinger, F. N.The first and second order factor structures of attitudes toward education. American Educational Research Journal, 1967, 3, 191-205.
18.
Krus, D. J. and Bart, W. M.An ordering-theoretic method of multidimensional scaling of items. EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 1974, 34, 525-535.
19.
Lazarsfeld, P. F.Latent structure analyses . In Koch (Ed.), Psychology: a study of a science, Vol. 3. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1959.
20.
Lele, K. and Bart, W. M.Preliminary item analysis by ordering theory. University of Minnesota Research and Development Center in Education of Handicapped Children, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1971.
21.
Lingoes, J. C.Mulitiple scalogram analysis: a set theoretic model for analyzing dichotomous items. EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 1963, 23, 501-524.
22.
Torgerson, W. S.Theory and methods of scaling . New York: Wiley, 1958.
23.
Walbesser, H. H.A hierarchically based test battery for assessing scientific inquiry. Paper read at the annual American Educational Research Association meeting, Los Angeles, California, February 1969.
