Psychometric characteristics of the abridged Teachers' Conceptions of Assessment-III are reported. Data are from a study of 525 New Zealand primary school teachers and from a second study of 692 Queensland primary school teachers. The abridged version of 27 statements using a positively packed response scale had good fit characteristics for primary teachers in both New Zealand (χ3112 = 841.02; RMSEA = .057; TLI = .87) and Queensland (χ3112 = 1492.61; RMSEA = .074; TLI = .80). While providing information of similar quality to that of the original the abridged version is more efficient than the full scale.
BrownG. T. L. (2002) Teachers' conceptions of assessment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Auckland: Univer. of Auckland.
3.
BrownG. T. L. (2004a) Teachers' conceptions of assessment: implications for policy and professional development. Assessment in Education: Policy, Principles and Practice, 11, 305–322.
4.
BrownG. T. L. (2004b) Measuring attitude with positively packed self-report ratings: comparison of agreement and frequency scales. Psychological Reports, 94, 1015–1024.
5.
BrowneM. W.CudekR. (1989) Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 445–455.
6.
BrownM. W.CudekR. (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In BollenK. A.LongJ. S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Pp. 136–162.
7.
ByrneB. M. (2001) Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
8.
ChouC-P.BentlerP. M. (1995) Estimates and tests in structural equation modeling. In HoyleR. H. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pp. 37–55.
9.
GableR. K.WolfM. B. (1993) Instrument development in the affective domain: measuring attitudes and values in corporate and school settings. (2nd ed.) Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
10.
HoyleR. H. (1995) The structural equation modeling approach: basic concepts and fundamental issues. In HoyleR. H. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pp. 1–15.
11.
HoyleR. H.DuvallJ. L. (2004) Determining the number of factors in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In KaplanD. (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of quantitative methodology for social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pp. 301–315.
12.
KlemL. (2000) Structural equation modeling. In GrimmL. G.YarnoldP. R. (Eds.), Reading and understanding more multivariate statistics. Washington, DC: APA. Pp. 227–260.
13.
MacCallumR. C. (1995) Model specification: procedures, strategies, and related issues. In HoyleR. H. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pp. 16–36.
14.
State of Queensland. (2004) The New Basics Research Report. Brisbane, Qld., Australia: Department of Education and the Arts, June.
15.
ThompsonB. (2000) Ten commandments of structural equation modeling. In GrimmL. G.YarnoldP. R. (Eds.), Reading and understanding more multivariate statistics. Washington, DC: APA. Pp. 261–283.
