Communications of Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회지시리즈E:수학교육논문집)

Korean Society of Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Multigroup Generalizability Analysis of Creative Attitude Scale-Korea for Mathematically Gifted and General Students in Middle Schools

수학적 창의성 태도 검사에서 수학영재와 일반학생의 다집단 일반화가능도 분석

  • Received : 2016.08.29
  • Accepted : 2017.01.31
  • Published : 2017.02.15
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relative influence of multiple error sources and to find optimal measurement conditions that obtain a desired level of reliability of a creative attitude test in mathematical creativity. This study analyzed the scores of the Creative Attitude Scale-Korea allowed to access publicly of 125 general students and 109 mathematically gifted students by performing a multivariate generalizability analysis. The main results were as follows. First, based on reliability, the Creative Attitude Scale-Korea was measured less precisely for mathematically gifted students. On the contrary, based on the conditional standard error of measurement, it was measured less precisely for general students. However, the Creative Attitude Scale-Korea showed strong reliability in both groups. Second, the optimal weights should adjust to .3, .3, .4 in mathematically gifted students and .4, .4, .2 in general students with three scoring components of divergent attitude, problem solving attitude, and convergent attitude based on the maximum reliability. Third, to approach desirable reliability, it is possible to use one component of divergent attitude in general students but three components of divergent attitude, problem solving attitude, and convergent attitude in mathematically gifted students. Finally this study proposed application plans for the Creative Attitude Scale-Korea and future directions of research.

본 연구의 목적은 측정학적 이론을 바탕으로 수학영재 집단과 일반학생 집단에서 수학적 창의성 태도 검사 점수에 영향을 미치는 오차 요인들의 상대적인 영향력과 적정 수준의 신뢰도에 도달하는 효율적인 측정 조건을 탐색하는 데 있다. 이를 위해 109명의 중등 수학영재와 125명의 일반 중학생을 대상으로 실시한 수학적 창의성 태도 검사 결과에 다변량 일반화가능도 분석을 수행하였다. 주요 분석 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 수학적 창의성 태도 검사는 신뢰도를 기준으로는 일반학생 집단에서, 조건부 측정 오차를 기준으로는 수학영재 집단에서 좀 더 적합한 것으로 나타났지만, 두 집단에서 모두 시행할 수 있는 신뢰로운 측정도구인 것으로 나타났다. 둘째, 수학적 창의성 태도 검사에서 신뢰도를 높이기 위해서는 수학영재 집단의 경우 수렴적 태도를 높게. 반면에 일반학생 집단의 경우 발산적 태도와 문제해결 태도를 높게 반영하여야 하는 것으로 나타났다. 셋째, 수학영재 집단의 경우 발산적 태도, 문제해결 태도, 수렴적 태도의 다차원적인 요소를 반영하는 경우, 그리고 일반학생 집단의 경우 발산적 태도만으로도 적정 수준의 신뢰도에 도달하는 것으로 나타났다. 마지막으로 이러한 연구결과들을 바탕으로 수학적 창의성 태도 검사 활용 방안 및 향후 연구 방향을 제시하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. 교육과학기술부 (2009). 2009개정 교육과정 총론. 서울: 교육과학기술부. (Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology. (2009). The 2009 curriculum revision. Seoul: Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology.)
  2. 교육부 (2014). 2015 문.이과 통합형 교육과정 총론 주요 사항. 세종: 교육부. (Ministry of Education. (2014). The main particular of 2015 National Curriculum draft for an integration of Arts and Sciences. Sejong: Ministry of Education.)
  3. 권유선.하대현 (2015). 창의성 검사의 측정내용과 지적개방성 투입 국면에 따른 지능과 창의성의 관계. 교육심리연구, 29(4), 817-844. (Kwon, Y. S., & Ha, D. H. (2015). The relationship of the intelligence and creativity according to the creativity measuring contents and O/I model. The Korean Journal of Educational Psychology, 29(4), 817-844.)
  4. 김미숙.이정규.이희권.김언주.맹희주.이상천.정경아.최호진.한수연 (2007). 제1차 영재교육진흥종합계획 평가 및 중장기 전망에 관한 연구. 서울: 한국교육개발원. (Kim, M. S., Lee, J. K., Lee, H. K., Kim, E. J., Meng, H. J., Lee, S. C., Jung, K. A., Choi, H. J., & Han, S. Y. (2007). A study for evaluation and long term prospects of the 1st master plan for the promotion of gifted and talented education. Seoul: Korean Educational Development Institute.)
  5. 김부윤.김철언.이지성 (2005). 수학적 창의성의 평가에 대한 고찰 (II). 한국수학교육학회지 시리즈 E <수학교육 논문집>, 19(1), 241-251. (Kim, B. Y., Kim, C. E., & Lee, J.-S. (2005). A study about the evaluation of mathematical creativity. Communications of Mathematical Education, 19(1), 241-251.)
  6. 김부윤, 이지성(2006). 수학에서의 창의적 태도의 측정도구 개발과 그 적용. 한국수학교육학회지 시리즈 A <수학교육>, 45(1), 25-34. (Kim, B. Y., & Lee, J. S. (2006). Development and its applications of the CAS-K in mathematics. The Mathematical Education, 45(1), 25-34.)
  7. 김성숙.김양분 (2001). 일반화가능도 이론. 서울: 교육과학사. (Kim, S. S. & Kim, Y. B. (2001). Generalizability theory. Seoul: Kyoyookgwahaksa.)
  8. 김성연 (2016). 수학적 창의성 검사의 채점 영역별 가중치 분석. 한국수학교육학회지 시리즈 A <수학교육>, 55(2), 147-169. (Kim, S. Y. (2016). Analysis of weights depending on scoring domains of the mathematical creativity tests. The Mathematical Education, 55(2), 147-169.)
  9. 김성연.최원 (2016). 과학 창의성 검사의 효율적인 측정 조건 탐색. 중등교육연구, 64(1), 49-75. (Kim, S. Y., & Choi. W. (2016). An investigation of efficient measurement conditions of the scientific creativity test. Secondary Education Research, 64(1), 49-75.)
  10. 김성연.한기순 (2013). 관찰.추천제에 의한 수학영재 선발 시 사용되는 교사추천서와 자기소개서 평가에대한 다변량 일반화가능도 이론의 활용. 영재교육연구, 23(5), 671-698. (Kim, S. Y., & Han, K. S. (2013). An application of multivariate generalizability theory to teacher recommendation letters and self-introduction letters used in selection of mathematically gifted students by observation and nomination. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 23(5), 671-698.) https://doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2013.23.5.671
  11. 김영채 (1999). 창의적 문제해결: 창의력의 이론, 개발과 수업. 서울: 교육과학사. (Kim, Y. C. (1999). Creative problem solving: Theory, development, and teaching of creativity. Seoul: Kyoyookgwahaksa.)
  12. 문정화.하종덕 (2003). 또 하나의 교육 창의성. 서울: 학지사. (Moon, J. H., & Ha, J. D. (2003). Another education, creativity. Seoul: Hakjisa.)
  13. 박만구 (2009). 수학교육에서 창의성의 개념 및 신장 방안. 한국수학교육학회지 시리즈 E <수학교육 논문집>, 23(3), 803-822. (Park, M. (2009). The concept of creativity and its enhancement in mathematics education. Communications of Mathematical Education, 23(3), 803-822.)
  14. 박문정 (2008). 수학적 창의성 태도 측정도구의 개발. 부산교육대학교 석사학위논문. (Park, M. J. (2008). The development of a scale for measuring attitudes towards mathematical creativity. (Unpublished master's thesis, Busan National University of Education, Busanl, Korea).)
  15. 박문정.김판수 (2011). 초등학생을 위한 수학적 창의성 태도 측정 도구 개발. 과학영재교육, 3(3), 29-48. (Park, M. J., & Kim, P. S. (2011). Comparing two scales measuring attitudes towards mathematical creativity for elementary students. Journal of Science Education for the Gifted, 3(3), 29-48.)
  16. 박병기 (1998). 창의성 교육의 기반. 서울: 교육과학사. (Park, B. K. (1998). The basis of creativity education. Seoul: Kyoyookbook.)
  17. 박성훈 (2014). 수학영재의 창의성교육에 대한 연구동향 분석. 성균관대학교 석사학위논문. (Park, S. H. (2014). An analysis of research trends on creativity education for mathematically gifted (Unpublished master's thesis, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea).)
  18. 박수연 (1999). 성취수준에 따른 남녀학생의 수학에 대한 태도 연구. 이화여자대학교 석사학위논문. (Park, S. W. (1999). A study of students' attitudes toward mathematics according to achievement grade (Unpublished master's thesis, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea).)
  19. 서예원.이재분.유경재.정영옥.박지은.이경숙 (2012). 제3차 영재교육진흥종합계획 수립 연구. 서울: 한국교육개발원. (Seo, Y. W., Lee, J. B., Yoo, K. J., Jung, Y. O., Park, J. E., & Lee, K. S. (2012). A study for estabilishment of the 3rd master plan for the promotion of gifted and talented education. Seoul: Korean Educational Development Institute.)
  20. 신문승 (2010). 초등학생용 창의적 성향 검사의 개발 및 타당화. 초등교육연구, 23(3), 267-291. (Shin, M. S. (2010). The development and validation of creative personality inventory for children. The Journal of Elementary Education, 23(3), 267-291.)
  21. 이광우 (2014). 교과 교육과정 개발의 방향. 교육부 워크숍 자료. (Lee, K. (2014). A direction of developing subject curriculum. Ministriy of Education Workshop.)
  22. 이규민.황경현 (2007). 초등학교 과학과 수행평가의 총체적 채점과 분석적 채점방식에 대한 일반화가능도 분석. 아동교육, 16(4), 169-184. (Lee, G, M., & Hwang, K. H. (2007). A generalizability theory approach toward investigating the generalizability of scores from holistic and analytic scoring methods in performance assessments of an elementary school science class. The Journal of Child Education, 16(4), 169-184.)
  23. 이동희.김판수 (2010). 수학적 창의성과 태도 및 학업에 미치는 등산학습법의 적용과 효과. 한국초등수학교육학회지, 14(1), 23-41. (Lee, D. H., & Kim, P. S. (2010). The effect of climbing learning method on mathematical creativity and attitude toward mathematical creativity. Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea, 14(1), 23-41.)
  24. 이선영 (2014). 영재성과 창의성 개념 간의 관계를 통해서 본 영재성과 창의성. 영재와 영재교육, 13(1), 107-127. (Lee, S.-Y. (2014). Are the conceptions of giftedness and creativity homogeneous or heterogenous in nature?: Based on analyses of their relationships. The Journal of the Korean Society for the Gifted and Talented, 13(1), 107-127.)
  25. 이선영.김성연.김정하.백근찬.이병윤 (2015). 다변량 일반화가능도 이론을 활용한 창의성 예비검사의 신뢰도 분석. 창의력교육연구, 15(3), 83-107. (Lee, S.-Y., Kim, S. Y., Kim, J. H., Baek, K, C., & Lee, B. Y. (2015). Analyses of the reliability of a preliminary creativity test using the multivariate geveralizability theory. The Journal of Creativity Education, 15(3), 83-107.)
  26. 이영식.신상근 (2004). 다변량 일반화가능도 이론에 의한 말하기 시험의 타당도와 신뢰도에 관한 연구. 외국어교육, 11(2), 249-265. (Lee, Y. S., & Shin, S. K. (2004). An investigation into the dependability of ratings in a German speaking test using the multivariate generalizability theory. Foreign Languages Education, 11(2), 249-265.)
  27. 이종희.김기연 (2007). 창의적 생산력 신장의 교육목표 이해를 위한 수학영재의 수학적 창의성 개념 탐색. 한국수학교육학회지 시리즈 A <수학교육>, 46(4), 445-464. (Lee, J. H., & Kim, K. Y. (2007). A study on the concept of mathematical creativity in the mathematically gifted aspect. The Mathematical Education, 46(4), 445-464.)
  28. 이주현 (2005). 창의성 측정의 신뢰도: 일반화가능도 이론의 응용. 성균관대학교 석사학위논문. (Lee, J. H. (2005). Application of generalizability theory to the reliability issue of creativity measurements (Unpublished master's thesis, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea).)
  29. 이지성 (2006). 수학적 창의성의 창의적 태도에 대한 측정 도구의 개발과 적용. 부산대학교 박사학위논문. (Lee, J. S. (2006). Creative attitude measurement in mathematical creativity: Its development and applications. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pusan National University, Pusan, Korea).)
  30. 정희선 (2012). 수학에서 창의적 태도와 학업성취도의 상관. 과학영재교육, 4(1), 13-27. (Jung, H. S. (2012). The correlation between creative attitude and academic performance in mathematics. Journal of Science Education for the Gifted, 4(1), 13-27.)
  31. 최병훈.방정숙 (2012). 수학적 창의성 교육에 관한 연구 동향 분석. 영재교육연구, 22(1), 197-215. (Choi, B. H., & Bang, J. S. (2012). Analysis of research trends in mathematical creativity education. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 22(1), 197-215.) https://doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2012.22.1.197
  32. 최은선 (2010). 초등수학 영재교육을위한 수학적 창의성 개념 연구. 서울교육대학교 석사학위논문. (Choi, E. S. (2010). A study of the concept of mathematical creativity for the education of mathematically gifted children. (Unpublished master's thesis, Seoul National University of Education, Seoul, Korea).)
  33. 한혜정.박순경.이근호.이승미 (2012). 시.도 교육청 수준 교육과정 지침 실태 분석 및 개선 방안. 서울: 한국교육과정평가원. (Han, H. J., Park, S. K., Lee, K. H., & Lee, S. M. (2012). A study on the improvement of the MPOE curriculum organization & implementation guideline through analyzing its current situation. Seoul: Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation.)
  34. 허경철.김홍원.임선하.김명숙.양미경 (1991). 사고력 신장을 위한 프로그램 개발 연구(V). 서울: 한국교육개발원. (Huh, K. C., Kim, H. W., Im, S. H., Kim, M. S., & Yang, M. K. (1991). A study of thinking ability development program (V) . Seoul: Korean Educational Development Institute.)
  35. 황선욱 외 32인 (2011). 창의 중심의 미래형 수학과 교과내용 개선 및 교육과정 개정 시안 연구. 서울: 한국과학창의재단. (Hwang, S. et al. (2011). Draft of the creativity-focused mathematics curriculum for the future. Seoul: Korea Foundation for the Advancement of Science & Creativity.)
  36. 황혜정, 김홍원, 박경미, 김수환, 김신영, 채선희(1997). 창의력 신장을 돕는 중학교 수학과 학습 평가 방법 연구. 서울: 한국교육개발원. (Hwang, H. J., Kim, H. W., Park, K. M., Kim, S. H., Kim, S. Y., & Chae, S. H. (1997). A study on the evaluation methods in the middle school mathematics to improve the mathematical creativeness. Seoul: Korean Educational Development Institute.)
  37. 齋藤昇(1999). 數學敎育における創造性に關する態度尺度の開發, 全國數學敎育學會誌數學敎育學硏究, 5, 35-46.
  38. Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997-1013. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997
  39. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Colorado: Westview.
  40. Balka, D. S. (1974a). The development of an instrument to measure creative ability in mathematics (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia).
  41. Balka, D. S. (1974b). Creative ability in mathematics. Arithmetic Teacher, 21, 633-636.
  42. Brennan, R. L. (2001a). Generalizability Theory. New York: Springer.
  43. Brennan, R. L. (2001b). Manual for mGENOVA Version 2.1. Iowa City, IA: Center for Advanced Studies in Measurement and Assessment, The University of Iowa.
  44. Brennan, R. L. (2009). Notes about nominal weights in multivariate generalizability theory. CASMA Technical Note, (4).
  45. Brennan, R. L. (2013). A multivariate generalizability analysis of portfolio assessments in dental education (No. 34). CASMA Research Report Series.
  46. Briesch, A. M., Swaminathan, H., Welsh, M., & Chafouleas, S. M. (2014). Generalizability theory: A practical guide to study design, implementation, and interpretation. Journal of school psychology, 52(1), 13-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.11.008
  47. Carlton, V. L. (1959). An analysis of the educational concepts of fourteen outstanding mathematicians, 1790-1940, in the areas of mental growth and development, creative thinking, and symbolism and meaning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University).
  48. Cattell, R. B., & Butcher, H. J. (1968). The prediction of achievement and creativity. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
  49. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
  50. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and individual differences, 13(6), 653-665. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90236-I
  51. Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C., & Nanda, H. Rajaratnam. N. (1972). The dependability of behavioral measurements: theory of generalizability for scores and profiles. New York: Wiley.
  52. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity. New York: Harper Collins.
  53. Davila, T., Epstein, M. J., & Shelton, R. (2006). Making innovation work: How to manage it. Measure It, and Profit from It. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing.
  54. Davis, G., & Rimm, S. (1993). Education of the gifted and talented (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  55. Domino, G. (1970). Identification of potentially creative persons from the Adjective Check List. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 35, 48-51. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029624
  56. Domino, G. (1994). Assessment of creativity with the ACL: An empirical comparison of four scales. Creativity Research Journal, 7(1), 21-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419409534506
  57. Dunbar, S. B., Koretz, D. M., & Hoover, H. D. (1991). Quality control in the development and use of performance assessments. Applied measurement in education, 4(4), 289-303. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324818ame0404_3
  58. Feingold, A. (1992). Gender differences in intellectual abilities: A new look at an old controversy. Reveiw of Educational Research, 62(1), 61-84. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062001061
  59. Fennama, E., & Sherman, J. A. (1976). Fennema-Sherman mathematics attitude scales: Instruments designed to measure attitudes toward the learning of mathematics by females and males. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 7(5), 324-326. https://doi.org/10.2307/748467
  60. Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class. The Washington Monthly, 34(5), 15-25.
  61. Florida, R. (2006). The flight of the creative class: The new global competition for talent. New York.: HaperBusiness.
  62. Hocevar, D. (1979). The development of the creative behavior inventory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association.
  63. Hu, W. (2003). Adolescent scientific creativity development and training. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press.
  64. Krutetskii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in school children. University of Chicago Press.
  65. Lakin, J. M., & Lai, E. R. (2012). Multigroup generalizability analysis of verbal, quantitative, and nonverbal ability tests for culturally and linguistically diverse students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72(1), 139-158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164411408074
  66. Lee, G., Brennan, R. L., & Frisbie, D. A. (2000). Incorporating the Testlet Concept in Test Score Analyses. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 19(4), 9-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2000.tb00041.x
  67. Lee, G., & Frisbie, D. A. (1999). Estimating reliability under a generalizability theory model for test scores composed of testlets. Applied Measurement in Education, 12(3), 237-255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324818AME1203_2
  68. Lee, S., Lee, J., & Youn, C. Y. (2005). A variation of CAT for measuring creativity in business products. The International Journal of Creativity & Problem Solving, 15(2), 143-153.
  69. Li, D., & Brennan, R. L. (2007). A multigroup generalizability analysis of a large-scale reading comprehension test. CASMA Research Report, 25. Iowa City, IA: Center for Advanced Studies in Measurement and Assessment, University of Iowa.
  70. Livingston, J. A. (1999). Something old and something new: Love, creativity, and the enduring relationship. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 63(1), 40-52.
  71. Makel, M. C., & Plucker, J. A. (2008). Creativity. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 247-270). New York: Springer.
  72. Mann, E. L. (2005). Mathematical creativity and school mathematics: indicators of mathematical creativity in middle school students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Connecticut University).
  73. Powers, S., & Brennan, R. L. (2009). Multivariate generalizability analyses of mixedformat exams. In Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA.
  74. Renzulli, J. S., & Hartman, R. K. (1971). Scale for rating the behavioral characteristics of superior students (SRBCSS). Exceptional Children, 38, 243-248. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440297103800309
  75. Rimm, S. B. (1976). GIFT: Group Inventory for Finding Creative Talent. Educational Assessment Service.
  76. Runco, M. A. (2008). Commentary: Divergent thinking is not synonymous with creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(2), 93-96. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.2.2.93
  77. Shavelson, R. J., Baxter, G. P., & Gao, X. (1993). Sampling variability of performance assessments. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30(3), 215-232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1993.tb00424.x
  78. Shavelson, R. J., & Webb, N. M. (1991). Generalizability theory: A primer . London: Sage Publications.
  79. Silvia, P. J. (2008). Discernment and creativity: How well can people identify their most creative ideas?. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(3), 139. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.2.3.139
  80. Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Willse, J. T., Barona, C. M., Cram, J. T., Hess, K. I., Martinez, J. L., & Richard, C. A. (2008). Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(2), 68. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.2.2.68
  81. Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  82. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1993). Creative giftedness: A multivariate investment approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(1), 7-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629303700102
  83. VanTassel-Baska, J. (1989). Factors that characterize the developmental path of eminent individuals. In J. VanTassel-Baska & P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Patterns of influence: The home, the self, and the school (pp. 146-162). New York: Teachers College Press.
  84. Wang, J., & Yu, J. (2011). Scientific creativity research based on generalizability theory and BP_Adaboost RT. Procedia Engineering, 15, 4178-4182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.08.784
  85. Webb, N. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Maddahian, E. (1983). Multivariate generalizability theory. In I. J. Pyans, Jr.(Ed.), Generalizability theory: Inference and practical applications (pp.67-81). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  86. Webb, S. B. (1995). A solution-oriented approach to conflict resolution in a work system. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 23(3), 409-419. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069889508253699
  87. Wieczerkowski, W., & Prado, T. (1993). Programs and strategies for nurturing talents/gifts in mathematics. International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent, 443-451.
  88. Yin, P. (2005). A multivariate generalizability analysis of the Multistate Bar Examination. Educational and psychological measurement, 65(4), 668-686. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164404273940

Cited by

  1. Item Profile Analysis of the Personality Test for Teaching Profession vol.65, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.25152/ser.2017.65.4.705
  2. 교육대학원과 사범대학 예비수학교사의 교직 적성·인성 검사에 대한 측정의 동등성 분석 vol.57, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.7468/mathedu.2018.57.2.179
  3. An Analysis of Measurement Errors and Invariance Properties by Proficiency Level in the Non-cognitive Measures vol.21, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.29221/jce.2018.21.1.153