This study presents initial work to validate a scale designed to measure scientists’ outcome expectations in relation to public engagement. A 20-item survey was administered to a sample of 341 scientists. Graded response models were used to assess the quality of the items. Results suggest that six items provided the strongest measure of outcome expectations, with classically adequate reliability across a wide range of scientists and scores. The findings are presented in relation to the short-term outcomes of public engagement for scientists and the need for validated scales that allow for the continued study of science communication efforts.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
6.
BanduraA. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26.
7.
BauerM. W.AllumN.MillerS. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 79-95.
8.
BesleyJ. C. (2015). What do scientists think about the public and does it matter to their online engagement?Science and Public Policy, 42(2), 201-214. doi:10.1093/scipol/scu042
9.
BesleyJ. C.DudoA. (in press). Climate change communication: Scientists’ views of public engagement. In NisbetM. C. (Ed.), Oxford encyclopedia of climate change communication. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
10.
BesleyJ. C.DudoA.StorksdieckM. (2015). Scientists’ views about communication training. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 199-220.
11.
BesleyJ. C.DudoA.YuanS. (in press). Scientists’ views about communication objectives. Public Understanding of Science.
12.
BesleyJ. C.DudoA.YuanS.Abi GhannamN. (2016). Qualitative interviews with science communication trainers about communication objectives and goals. Science Communication, 38, 356-381.
13.
BesleyJ. C.McComasK. A. (2014). Fairness, public engagement and risk communication. In ArvaiJ. L.RiversL. (Eds.), Effective risk communication (pp. 108-123). New York, NY: Routledge/Earthscan.
14.
BesleyJ. C.OhS. H.NisbetM. (2013). Predicting scientists’ participation in public life. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 971-987.
15.
BrahaJ. (2015). Public engagement with science and informal science education. Informal Learning Review, November/December, 18-23.
16.
DeVellisR. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications (Vol. 26). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
DudoA. (2013). Toward a model of scientists’ public communication activity: The case of biomedical researchers. Science Communication, 35, 476-501.
18.
DudoA.BesleyJ. C. (2016). Scientists’ prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement. PLoS One, 11(2), 1-18.
19.
EmbretsonS. E.ReiseS. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
KenneyM. A.DukesJ. S.LipsK. R.HellmannJ. J. (2016). Engagement 2.0: Increasing our collective impact. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14, 403.
21.
LeshnerA. I. (2003). Public engagement with science. Science, 299, 977-977.
22.
LubchencoJ. (1998). Entering the century of the environment: A new social contract for science. Science, 279, 491-497.
23.
MayhewM. A.HallM. K. (2012). Science communication in a café scientifique for high school teens. Science Communication, 34, 546-554.
24.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998-2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
25.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016a). Communicating science effectively: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
26.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016b). Science literacy: Concepts, contexts, and consequences. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
PoliakoffE.WebbT. L. (2007). What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities?Science Communication, 29, 242-263.
30.
Robertson EviaJ.PetermanK.CloydE.BesleyJ. (2017). Validating a scale that measures scientists’ self-efficacy for public engagement with science. International Journal of Science Education–Part B: Communication and Public Engagement. Retrieved from doi:10.1080/21548455.2017.1377852
31.
SamejimaF. (1968). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. ETS Research Report Series, 1968, i-168.
32.
SamejimaF. (1996). The graded response model. In van der LindenW. J.HambletonR. K. (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 85-100). New York, NY: Springer.
