Chemistry education researchers often rely on quantitative tools such as surveys and inventories to measure constructs that can’t be directly observed (<i>i.e., </i>confidence, understanding, conceptions, etc.). As part of our evaluation of the Cottrell Scholars Collaborative New Faculty Workshop, we intended to measure instructors’ approaches to teaching as measured by the popular Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI). When we were unable to replicate evidence reported previously for instructor-focused and student-focused scales of the ATI, we found evidence for an alternative scale and measured construct. Interested to see if any other researchers had similarly found alternative scales for the ATI, we conducted an extensive review of studies that cited the ATI. In doing so, we uncovered at least 26 unique factor structures for the ATI and have examined psychometric evidence from 39 studies. By compiling results from previous studies and those from our own sample of 267 chemistry faculty, we found that the original 2-factor model proposed by the ATI authors is inconsistently supported across several studies. We will additionally present recommendations on future use of the ATI and valuable lessons we learned from our experiences.<br/>

Evaluating the psychometric evidence of the approaches to teaching inventory and the implications for psychometrics in chemistry education research

253rd National Meeting (2017)

The official archive and repository for all ACS Meetings & Expositions abstracts and select posters or presentations.