The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Development and Validation of Instruments to Measure Learning of Expert‐Like Thinking
Abstract
This paper describes the process for creating and validating an assessment test that measures the effectiveness of instruction by probing how well that instruction causes students in a class to think like experts about specific areas of science. The design principles and process are laid out and it is shown how these align with professional standards that have been established for educational and psychological testing and the elements of assessment called for in a recent National Research Council study on assessment. The importance of student interviews for creating and validating the test is emphasized, and the appropriate interview procedures are presented. The relevance and use of standard psychometric statistical tests are discussed. Additionally, techniques for effective test administration are presented.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests
Cronbach, L. J. (1951) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02310555 · Cited by 43,931
Discovering Statistics Using SPSS
Field, A. P., & Miles, J. N. V. (2000) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 28,265
Vygotsky, L. S. (1964) · Bulletin of the Orton Society · doi:10.1007/bf02928399 · Cited by 20,704
(1999) · Cited by 12,812
Hake, R. R. (1998) · American Journal of Physics · doi:10.1119/1.18809 · Cited by 6,072
Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory
Crocker, L. M., & Algina, J. J. (1986) · Cited by 5,090
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992) · The Physics Teacher · doi:10.1119/1.2343497 · Cited by 3,235
The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance
(2006) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511816796 · Cited by 3,158
Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing
(2007) · Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics · doi:10.4135/9781412952644.n432 · Cited by 3,126
Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment
Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. A. (2013) · Cited by 2,402
Cited by
The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education
Taber, K. S. (2018) · Research in Science Education · doi:10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2 · Cited by 10,679
Stains, M., & Vickrey, T. (2017) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.16-03-0113 · Cited by 177
Educational data augmentation in physics education research using ChatGPT
Kieser, F., Wulff, P., Kuhn, J., & Küchemann, S. (2023) · Physical Review Physics Education Research · doi:10.1103/physrevphyseducres.19.020150 · Cited by 108
Zhang, H., Perry, A., & Lee, I. (2025) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-024-00398-x · Cited by 75
Inter-brain coupling reflects disciplinary differences in real-world classroom learning
Chen, J., Qian, P., Gao, X., Li, B., Zhang, Y., & Zhang, D. (2023) · npj Science of Learning · doi:10.1038/s41539-023-00162-1 · Cited by 36
Metadata
- Authors
- Adams, W. K., & Wieman, C. E.
- Venue
- International Journal of Science Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2010-10-27
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1289-1312
- ISSN
- 0950-0693 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5289
- OpenAlex
- W1989017401
- Cited by
- 451
- References
- 35
- FWCI
- 52.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Development and Validation of Instruments to Measure Learning of Expert‐Like Thinking. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/09500693.2010.512369
- The paper
- Adams, W. K., & Wieman, C. E. (2011). Development and Validation of Instruments to Measure Learning of Expert‐Like Thinking. International Journal of Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.512369
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
