High scientific literacy is widely considered a public good. Methods of assessing public scientific knowledge or literacy are equally important. In an effort to measure lay scientific literacy in the United States, the National Science Foundation (NSF) science literacy scale has been a part of the last three waves of the General Social Survey. However, there has been debate over the validity of some survey items as indicators of science knowledge. While many researchers treat the NSF science scale as measuring a single dimension, previous work (Bann and Schwerin, 2004; Miller, 1998, 2004) suggests a bidimensional structure. This paper hypothesizes and tests a new measurement model for the NSF science knowledge scale and finds that two items about evolution and the big bang are more measures of a religious belief dimension termed “Young Earth Worldview” than they are measures of scientific knowledge. Results are replicated in seven samples.
BannCMSchwerinMJ (2004) Public Knowledge and Attitudes Scale Construction: Development of Short Forms. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.
3.
BauerMSchoonI (1993) Mapping variety in public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science2(2): 141–155.
4.
BauerMWAllumNMillerS (2007) What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science16(1): 79–95.
5.
BhattacharjeeY (2011) New NSF survey tries to separate knowledge and belief. Science333(6041): 394.
6.
BollenKA (1989) Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: Wiley.
7.
BollenKADavisWR (2009) Two rules of identification for structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal16(3): 523–536.
8.
BrandL (2009) Faith, Reason, and Time, 2nd edn.Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press.
9.
DavisJASmithTWMarsdenPV (2009) General Social Surveys, 1972–2008: Cumulative Codebook. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center.
10.
EllisonCGMusickMAHoldenGW (2011) Does conservative Protestantism moderate the association between corporal punishment and child outcomes?Journal of Marriage and Family73(5): 946–961.
11.
EvansGDurantJ (1995) The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science4(1): 57–74.
12.
EvansJH (2011) Epistemological and moral conflict between religion and science. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion50(4): 707–727.
13.
GauchatG (2011) The cultural authority of science: Public trust and acceptance of organized science. Public Understanding of Science20(6): 751–770.
HaydukLAGlaserDN (2000) Jiving the four-step, waltzing around factor analysis, and other serious fun. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal7(1): 1–35.
16.
HuLBentlerPM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal6(1): 1–55.
17.
KanoY (2001) Structural equation modeling for experimental data. In: CudeckRToitSSörbomS (eds) Structural Equation Modeling: Present and Future. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, pp. 381–402.
KlineRB (2005) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
20.
MillerJD (1983) Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus112(2): 29–48.
21.
MillerJD (1987) Scientific literacy in the United States. In: EveredDO’ConnorM (eds) Communicating Science to the Public. London: Wiley, pp. 19–40.
22.
MillerJD (1998) The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science7(3): 203–223.
23.
MillerJD (2004) Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science13(3): 273–294.
24.
MillerJDKimmelL, ORC Macro and NORC (2009) National Science Foundation surveys of public attitudes toward and understanding of science and technology, 1979–2006 [Computer file]. 3rd Roper Center version. Storrs, CT: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. Available at: http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/data_access/data/datasets/nsf.html#download_data
RafteryAE (1995) Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology25: 111–163.
32.
ReillyTO’BrienRM (1996) Identification of confirmatory factor analysis models of arbitrary complexity. Sociological Methods & Research24(4): 473–491.
33.
SchwarzG (1978) Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics6(2): 461–464.
34.
ShenBSP (1975) Scientific literacy and the public understanding of science. In: DaySB (ed.) Communication of Scientific Information. New York: S. Karger, pp. 44–52.
35.
SherkatDE (2011) Religion and scientific literacy in the United States. Social Science Quarterly92(5): 1134–1150.
36.
SmithTWMarsdenPVHoutMKimJ (2010) General Social Surveys, 1972–2010: Cumulative Codebook. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center.
37.
SteenslandBParkJZRegnerusMDRobinsonLDWilcoxWBWoodberryRD (2000) The measure of American religion: Toward improving the state of the art. Social Forces79(1): 291–318.
38.
SturgisPAllumN (2004) Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science13(1): 55–74.
39.
ToumeyC (2011) Science in the service of citizens and consumers. Nature Nanotechnology6(1): 3–4.
40.
TuckerLLewisC (1973) A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika38(1): 1–10.
41.
WoodTC (2005) A Creationist Review and Preliminary Analysis of the History, Geology, Climate, and Biology of the Galápagos Islands. Issues in Creation. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock.
42.
WoodTC (2010) Baraminological analysis places Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Australopithecus sediba in the human holobaramin. Answers Research Journal3: 71–90.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
