KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / e-Uluslararası Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 15 Sayı: 1

Normatif ve Görünürlük Boyutlarıyla Yenilenen Başarı Hedef Yönelim Ölçeğinin Kimya Dersi İçin Türkçe'ye Uyarlanması / The adaptation of the Renewed Achievement Goal Orientation Scale with Normative and Appearance Dimensions into Turkish for Use in a Chemistry Course

The adaptation of the Renewed Achievement Goal Orientation Scale with Normative and Appearance Dimensions into Turkish for Use in a Chemistry Course / Normatif ve Görünürlük Boyutlarıyla Yenilenen Başarı Hedef Yönelim Ölçeğinin Kimya Dersi İçin Türkçe'ye Uyarlanması

Burak Feyzioğlu(AYDIN ADNAN MENDERES ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-0128-3343
Murat Akyıldız(ANADOLU ÜNİVERSİTESİ, AÇIKÖĞRETİM FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0001-5069-0132
Barış Demirdağ(TC MİLLİ EĞİTİM BAKANLIĞI İZMİR)0000-0003-1474-4951
Sayfa
47–66
Yayın Tarihi
2024-06-30
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Bu sonuçlar, ölçeğin Türkçe formunun kimya dersi için geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik açısından yeterli psikometrik özelliklere sahip olduğunu göstermiştir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Son yıllarda başarı hedef teorisinin performans boyutunun tanımlamasında sosyal karşılaştırmaların da dikkate alınmasıyla bu boyutun tanımlanmasına ve ölçülmesine ilişkin belirsizlikler ortadan kalkmıştır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Bu çalışmanın amacı Lüftenegger, Bardach, Bergsmann, Schober ve Spiel (2019) tarafından geliştirilen performans hedef yönelimini hem normatif hem de görünürlük açısından ele alan Başarı Hedef Yönelim Ölçeğini lise öğrencilerinin kimya dersindeki başarı hedef yönelimlerini ölçmek için uyarlamak ve psikometrik özelliklerini incelemektir.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Bu sonuçlar, ölçeğin Türkçe formunun kimya dersi için geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik açısından yeterli psikometrik özelliklere sahip olduğunu göstermiştir.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:2019 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Kimya dersi · Başarı hedef yönelimi · Normatif performans hedefi

Özet

Son yıllarda başarı hedef teorisinin performans boyutunun tanımlamasında sosyal karşılaştırmaların da dikkate alınmasıyla bu boyutun tanımlanmasına ve ölçülmesine ilişkin belirsizlikler ortadan kalkmıştır. Ancak Türkiye’de kullanılan ölçme araçları, başarı hedef teorisindeki bu boyutları ayırt edemediği için bu konuda yapılan çalışmalar kuramsal sürecin gerisinde kalmıştır. Bu çalışmanın amacı Lüftenegger, Bardach, Bergsmann, Schober ve Spiel (2019) tarafından geliştirilen performans hedef yönelimini hem normatif hem de görünürlük açısından ele alan Başarı Hedef Yönelim Ölçeğini lise öğrencilerinin kimya dersindeki başarı hedef yönelimlerini ölçmek için uyarlamak ve psikometrik özelliklerini incelemektir. Çalışma grubu, farklı devlet okullarında kimya dersine devam eden 1487 lise öğrencisinden oluşmaktadır. Ölçeklerde yer alan alt ölçeklerin yapı geçerliliği doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile test edilmiştir. Güvenilirlik çalışmaları için iç tutarlılık katsayısı Cronbach's alpha (α) değerlerinin yanı sıra McDonald's ω (omega) katsayıları hesaplanmıştır. Ayrıca ölçeklerde yer alan her bir madde için madde-toplam korelasyonları hesaplanmıştır. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonuçları incelendiğinde, uyum indekslerinin Başarı Hedefi Yönelim Ölçeği için uyum iyiliği kriterlerini karşıladığı kabul edilmiştir. Ölçekteki maddelerin faktör yükleri istatistiksel olarak anlamlıdır. Ölçeğin faktör yapısı cinsiyet, lise türü ve yaşanılan il değişkenlerine göre değişiklik göstermemektedir. Bu sonuçlar, ölçeğin Türkçe formunun kimya dersi için geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik açısından yeterli psikometrik özelliklere sahip olduğunu göstermiştir.

Abstract

In recent years, the ambiguities regarding the definition and measurement of this dimension have been eliminated as a result of the incorporation of the achievement goal theory in social comparisons in the definition of the performance dimension. However, since the measurement tools used in our country are unable to distinguish these dimensions in goal theory, studies on this subject have fallen behind the theoretical process. The objective of this study is to adapt the Achievement Goal Orientation Scale, developed by Lüftenegger, Bardach, Bergsmann, Schober, and Spiel (2019), which considers performance goal orientation in terms of both normative and appearance, to measure high school students' achievement goal orientations in chemistry class and to examine its psychometric properties. The study group consists of 1487 high school students attending chemistry courses in different public schools. The construct validity of the subscales in the scales was tested with confirmatory factor analysis. For reliability studies, internal consistency coefficient Cronbach's alpha (α) values as well as McDonald's ω (omega) coefficients were calculated. Additionally, item-total correlations were calculated for each item in the scales. Upon examination of the confirmatory factor analysis results, it was determined that the fit indices met the goodness of fit criteria for the Achievement Goal Scale. The factor loadings of the items in the scale are statistically significant. Furthermore, the factor structure of the scale does not vary according to gender, high school type and city of residence. These results demonstrate that the Turkish form of scale has sufficient psychometric properties in terms of validity and reliability for a chemistry course.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Feyzioğlu, B., Akyıldız, M., Demirdağ, B. (2024). Normatif ve Görünürlük Boyutlarıyla Yenilenen Başarı Hedef Yönelim Ölçeğinin Kimya Dersi İçin Türkçe'ye Uyarlanması / The adaptation of the Renewed Achievement Goal Orientation Scale with Normative and Appearance Dimensions into Turkish for Use in a Chemistry Course. e-Uluslararası Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 1, 47–66. https://doi.org/10.19160/e-ijer.1465371

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (74)

  1. Alivernini, F., Manganelli, S., & Lucidi, F. (2018). Personal and classroom achievement goals: Their structures and relationships. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 36(4), 354–365. doi:10.1177/0734282916679758
  2. Akbulut, C. K., & Uzuntiryaki-Kondakçi, E. (2019). Turkish adaptation of the 3 x 2 goal orientation scale. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 8(3), 839-866. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/buefad/article/517750
  3. Akın, A. (2012). Kendini sabotaj ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Eğitim ve Bilim, 37(164). http://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/view/717
  4. Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1989-03213-001
  5. Bardach, L., Oczlon, S., Pietschnig, J., & Lüftenegger, M. (2020). Has achievement goal theory been right? A meta-analysis of the relation between goal structures and personal achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(6), 1197. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-60501-001
  6. Bardach, L., Yanagida, T., Klassen, R. M., & Lüftenegger, M. (2022). Normative and appearance performance-approach goal structures: Two-level factor structure and external linkages. The Journal of Experimental Education, 90(1), 130-145. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00220973.2020.1729081
  7. Bishop, P. A., & Herron, R. L. (2015). Use and misuse of the Likert item responses and other ordinal measures. International Journal of Exercise Science, 8(3), 297–302. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4833473/
  8. Browne, M.W. & Cudeck, R. (1992) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods and Research, 21, 230-258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005
  9. Büyüköztürk, S., Akgün, Ö. E., Özkahveci, Ö., & Demirel, F. (2004). The validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 4(2). https://www.asosindex.com.tr/index.jsp?modul=makale-detay&alan=benzer&secenek=magazine&Id=wJGg44oBQzmg-9NMX_se
  10. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464-504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
  11. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233-255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
  12. Cho, E., Lee, M., & Toste, J. R. (2018). Does perceived competence serve as a protective mechanism against performance goals for struggling readers? Path analysis of contextual antecedents and reading outcomes. Learning and Individual Differences, 65, 135–147. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2018.05.017
  13. Distefano, C., & Morgan, G. B. (2014). A comparison of diagonal weighted least squares robust estimation techniques for ordinal data. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(3), 425-438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.915373
  14. Edwards, O. V. (2014). Differentiating performance approach goals and their unique effects. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2(2), 134-145. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2014.020205
  15. Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 72(1), 218.
  16. Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2×2 achievement goal framework. Journal Of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.501
  17. Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: critique, illustration, and application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 613. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.613
  18. Elliot, A. J., Murayama, K., & Pekrun, R. (2011). A 3× 2 achievement goal model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 632. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023952
  19. Elmas, C., & Altunoglu, B. D. (2023). The cognitive-affective distinction in achievement goal: The development and validation of the achievement questionnaire for biology learning. Science Education International, 34(3), 177-189. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v34.i3.2
  20. Erduran Tekin, Ö. (2023). Adaptation of motivation for learning in higher education scale (EMAPRE-U) to Turkish, E-International Journal of Educational Research, 14(3), 34-51. https://doi.org/10.19160/e-ijer.1252283
  21. Forero C. G, Maydeu-Olivares A. & Gallardo-Pujol D. (2009) Factor analysis with ordinal indicators: A monte carlo study comparing DWLS and ULS estimation, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(4), 625-641, https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903203573
  22. Gadermann, Anne M., Guhn, Martin & Zumbo, Bruno D. (2019) "Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert-type and ordinal item response data: A conceptual, empirical, and practical guide. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation: Vol. 17, Article 3. https://doi.org/10.7275/n560-j767
  23. Guo, M., Hu, X., & Leung, F. K. (2022). Culture, goal orientations, and mathematics achievement among Chinese students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20(6), 1225-1245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10202-0
  24. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to under parameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods,3, 424-453. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424
  25. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 3, 424-453. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  26. Hulleman, C. S., Schrager, S. M., Bodmann, S. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). A meta-analytic review of achievement goal measures: Different labels for the same constructs or different constructs with similar labels? Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 422. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018947
  27. Hulleman, C., Rhee Bonney, C., Karabenick, S., Elliot, A., Barron, K., Yperen, V. N., & Harackiewicz, J. (2006). Defining and distinguishing mastery-avoidance goals: Definitions, domains, and assessment. Symposium organized for the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Participants: S. Karabenick (chair), A. Elliot, C. Hulleman, C. Rhee Bonney, K. Barron, N. Van Yperen, JM Harackiewicz (discussant),
  28. Jorgensen, T. D., Kite, B. A., Chen, P.-Y., & Short, S. D. (2018). Permutation randomization methods for testing measurement equivalence and detecting differential item functioning in multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 23(4), 708–728. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000152
  29. Kite B. A., Jorgensen T. & Chen P. (2018) Random permutation testing applied to measurement invariance testing with ordered-categorical indicators. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25:4, 573-587. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1421467
  30. Koskey, K. L., Karabenick, S. A., Woolley, M. E., Bonney, C. R., & Dever, B. V. (2010). Cognitive validity of students’ self-reports of classroom mastery goal structure: What students are thinking and why it matters. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(4), 254-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.05.004
  31. Kurt, U., & Tas, Y. (2023). Students engagement in science during COVID-19 pandemic: Role of self-efficacy beliefs and achievement goals. Journal of Science Learning, 6(1), 23-33.
  32. Li, C.-H. (2016). The performance of ML, DWLS, and ULS estimation with robust corrections in structural equation models with ordinal variables. Psychological Methods, 21(3), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000093
  33. Lüftenegger, M., Bardach, L., Bergsmann, E., Schober, B., & Spiel, C. (2019). A citizen science approach to measuring students’ achievement goals. International Journal of Educational Research, 95, 36-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.03.003
  34. Lüftenegger, M., Tran, U. S., Bardach, L., Schober, B., & Spiel, C. (2017). Measuring a mastery goal structure using the TARGET framework. Zeitschrift für Psychologie. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000277
  35. Meade AW, Johnson EC, Braddy PW. (2008). Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2008; 93:568–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.568
  36. Miçooğulları, B. O., & Sever, O. (2023). The role of teacher candidates’ achievement goal orientations in determining motivation and learning strategies in the faculty of education. International Journal of Education Technology and Scientific Researches, 8(25), 2918-2948. http://dx.doi.org/10.35826/ijetsar.678
  37. Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of educational psychology, 93(1), 77. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.77
  38. Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., Maehr, M. L., Urdan, T., Anderman, L. H., Anderman, E., & Roeser, R. (1998). The development and validation of scales assessing students' achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23(2), 113-131. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1998.0965
  39. Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E., & Urdan, T. (2000). Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning scales. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 734-763.
  40. Miller-Rushing, A., Primack, R., & Bonney, R. (2012). The history of public participation in ecological research. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10, 285–290. https://doi.org/10.1890/110278.
  41. Mindrila, D. (2010). Maximum likelihood (ML) and diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) estimation procedures: A comparison of estimation bias with ordinal and multivariate non-normal data. International Journal of Digital Society, 1(1), 60-66.
  42. Muthén B. O.& Kaplan D. (1992). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables: A note on the size of the model. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 45, 19-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1992.tb00975.x
  43. Nye, C. D., & Drasgow, F. (2011). Assessing goodness of fit: Simple rules of thumb simply do not work. Organizational Research Methods, 14(3), 548-570. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110368562
  44. Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of educational Psychology, 95(4), 667. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
  45. Pintrich, P. R., Conley, A. M., & Kempler, T. M. (2003). Current issues in achievement goal theory and research. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(4-5), 319-337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2004.06.002
  46. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). The motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: NCRIPTAL, The University of Michigan.
  47. Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review: DR, 41, 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004
  48. R Core Team (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.
  49. Revelle, W. (2017) psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych Version = 1.7.8.
  50. Rhemtulla M., Brosseau-Liard P. É. & Savalei V. (2012). When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychological Methods, 17, 354-373. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029315
  51. Riesch, H. (2015). Citizen science. In J. D. Wright (Ed.). International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 631–636). Oxford: Elsevier. Ruiz-Pr.
  52. Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
  53. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shavelson, R. J., Li, M., & Schultz, S. E. (2001). On the validity of cognitive interpretations of scores from alternative concept-mapping techniques. Educational Assessment, 7(2), 99-141. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326977EA0702_2
  54. Rutkowski, L. & Svetina, D. (2014). Assessing the hypothesis of measurement invariance in the context of large-scale international surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2014;74:31–57. doi: 10.1177/0013164413498257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413498257
  55. Savalei V. (2021) Improving fit indices in structural equation modeling with categorical data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 56:3, 390-407. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2020.1717922
  56. Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories an educational perspective. Pearson Education, Inc. Senko, C. (2016). Achievement goal theory. Handbook of motivation at school, 75.
  57. Senko, C., & Dawson, B. (2017). Performance-approach goal effects depend on how they are defined: Meta-analytic evidence from multiple educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(4), 574. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000160
  58. Senko, C., & Tropiano, K. L. (2016). Comparing three models of achievement goals: Goal orientations, goal standards, and goal complexes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(8), 1178. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000114
  59. Senko, C., Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2011). Achievement goal theory at the crossroads: Old controversies, current challenges, and new directions. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 26-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538646
  60. Shirk, J., Ballard, H., Wilderman, C., Phillips, T., Wiggins, A., Jordan, R.,. Bonney, R. (2012). Public participation in scientific research: A framework for deliberate design. Ecology and Society, 17(2), 29. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04705-170229.
  61. Şen, Ş. (2015). Süreç odaklı rehberli sorgulayıcı öğrenme ortamında öğrencilerin elektrokimya konusundaki kavramsal anlamaları ve özdüzenleyici öğrenme becerilerinin incelenmesi, (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara, Türkiye.
  62. Toogood, M. (2013). Engaging publics: Biodiversity data collection and the geographies of citizen science: Engaging publics. Geography Compass, 7(9), 611–621. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12067.
  63. Toprakçı, E. (2017). Sınıf yönetimi (3. baskı) Pegem Akademi.
  64. Varoglu, L., Yilmaz, A., & Şen, Ş. (2024). The impact of the 5E learning model improved with concept maps on motivation. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.1504
  65. Wang, J., Bai, B., & Nie, Y. (2023). Examining the role of perceived classroom goal structures and parents’ goals in ESL/EFL learners’ achievement goals, engagement and achievement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 67(5), 820-836. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2022.2070928
  66. Weiner, B. (2004). Social motivation and moral emotions. Attribution theory in the organizational sciences. Theoretical and empirical contributions,2.
  67. Wu, H., & Estabrook, R. (2016). Identification of confirmatory factor analysis models of different levels of invariance for ordered categorical outcomes. Psychometrika, 81(4), 1014–1045. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-016-9506-0
  68. Xia, Y.& Yang, Y. (2018a). RMSEA, CFI, and TLI in structural equation modeling with ordered categorical data: The story they tell depends on the estimation methods. Behav Res 51, 409–428 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1055-2
  69. Xia Y. & Yang Y. (2018b) The influence of number of categories and threshold values on fit indices in structural equation modeling with ordered categorical data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 53:5, 731-755. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2018.1480346
  70. Yüksel, A. O., Çetin, E., & Atasoy, B. (2023). Investigation of higher education students' use of learning strategies in distance education. Instructional Technology and Lifelong Learning, 4(2), 222-253. https://doi.org/10.52911/itall.1376749
  71. Zenorini, R. d. P. C., & dos Santos, A. A. A. (2010). Escala de metas de realização como medida da motivação para aprendizagem [Achievement goals scale as a measure of motivation for learning]. Revista Interamericana de Psicología, 44(2), 291–298.
  72. Forero C. G, Maydeu-Olivares A. & Gallardo-Pujol D. (2009) Factor analysis with ordinal indicators: A monte carlo study comparing DWLS and ULS estimation, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(4), 625-641, https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903203573
  73. Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review: DR, 41, 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004
  74. Shirk, J., Ballard, H., Wilderman, C., Phillips, T., Wiggins, A., Jordan, R.,. Bonney, R. (2012). Public participation in scientific research: A framework for deliberate design. Ecology and Society, 17(2), 29. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04705-170229.