Part V commentary: Possible new directions in the measurement of student engagement

Handbook of Research on Student Engagement

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 805-811

  Samuelsen, Karen M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84881010367     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_39     Document Type: Chapter

References (16)

1. Ackerman, T. A. (1992). A didactic explanation of item bias, item impact, and item validity from a multidimensional perspective. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29(1), 67-91.
2. Andrich, D. (1978). Application of a psychometric model to ordered categories which are scored with successive integers. Applied Psychological Measurement, 2 581-594.
3. Appleton, J. J. (2012). Systems consultation: Developing the assessment-to-intervention link with the Student Engagement Instrument. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 725-741). New York: Springer.
4. Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44 427-445.
5. Betts, J. E. (2012). Issues and methods in the measurement of student engagement: Advancing the construct through statistical modeling. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 783-803). New York: Springer.
6. Betts, J. E., Appleton, J. J., Reschly, A. L., Christenson, S. L., & Huebner, E. S. (2010). A study of the factorial invariance of the Student Engagement Instrument (SEI): Results from middle and high school students. School Psychology Quarterly, 25(2), 84-93.
7. Bingham, G. E., & Okagaki, L. (2012). Ethnicity and student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 65-95). New York: Springer.
8. Clauser, B. E., & Mazor, K. M. (1998). Using statistical procedures to identify differentially functioning test items. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(1), 31-44.
9. Finch, H. (2005). The MIMIC model as a method for detecting DIF: comparison with Mantel-Haenszel, SIBTEST, and the IRT likelihood ratio. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 278-295.
10. Glanville, L., & Wildhagen, T. (2007). The measurement of school engagement: Assessing dimensionality and measurement in variance across race and ethnicity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 6 1019-1041. doi: 10. 1177/0013164406299126.
11. Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47 149-174.
12. Moreira, P. A. S., Vaz, F. M., Dias, P. C., & Petracchi, P. (2009). Psychometric properties of the Portuguese version of the Student Engagement Instrument. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 24(4), 303-317.
13. Penfield, R. D., Gattamorta, K., & Childs, R. A. (2009). An NCME instructional module on using differential step functioning to refine the analysis of DIF in polytomous items. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(1), 38-49.
14. Portes, P. R. (2011). Examining the problem of cultural validity in psychological measures: The case of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and implications for practice. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association 2011 Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA.
15. Schmitt, D. P., & Allik, J. (2005). Simultaneous administration of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale in 53 nations: Exploring the universal and culture-specific features of global self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(4), 623-642.
16. Zwick, R., & Thayer, D. T. (1996). Evaluating the magnitude of differential item functioning in polytomous items. Journal of Educational Statistics, 21(3), 187-201.