IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v12y2022i2p21582440221094602.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Development of Epistemological Understanding Revisited: Enhancing Reliability of the Tool by Using Only Abstract Items

Author

Listed:
  • Natalia Å»yluk
  • Karolina Karpe
  • Mariusz UrbaÅ„ski

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to describe the process of modification of the research tool designed for measuring the development of personal epistemology— Standardized Epistemological Understanding Assessment (SEUA). SEUA was constructed as an improved version of the instrument initially proposed by Kuhn et al. SEUA was proved to be a more reliable instrument than its predecessor; however, further changes were necessary to obtain better reliability and easier to administer form. During further research, we observed that test items used in this tool could be divided into abstract and concrete, which were approached differently by a subset of our participants. In their cases, the inability to suppress personal preferences in responding to concrete items threatened the tool’s validity, as the instrument may measure preferences rather than epistemological beliefs in this situation. SEUA was therefore modified to create a full-abstract version (SEUA-A). Both versions were administered in an online form. The performance of two versions of the tool was compared. The study results allow us to conclude that our online SEUA-A, which consists of only abstract items, is the most reliable version of the tool.

Suggested Citation

  • Natalia Å»yluk & Karolina Karpe & Mariusz UrbaÅ„ski, 2022. "The Development of Epistemological Understanding Revisited: Enhancing Reliability of the Tool by Using Only Abstract Items," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(2), pages 21582440221, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:12:y:2022:i:2:p:21582440221094602
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440221094602
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440221094602
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440221094602?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jill Windle & John Rolfe, 2011. "Comparing Responses from Internet and Paper-Based Collection Methods in more Complex Stated Preference Environmental Valuation Surveys," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 83-97, March.
    2. Nir Madjar & Michael Weinstock & Avi Kaplan, 2017. "Epistemic beliefs and achievement goal orientations: Relations between constructs versus personal profiles," The Journal of Educational Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 110(1), pages 32-49, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kelvin Balcombe & Michail Bitzios & Iain Fraser & Janet Haddock-Fraser, 2014. "Using Attribute Importance Rankings Within Discrete Choice Experiments: An Application to Valuing Bread Attributes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(2), pages 446-462, June.
    2. Kevin J. Boyle & Mark Morrison & Darla Hatton MacDonald & Roderick Duncan & John Rose, 2016. "Investigating Internet and Mail Implementation of Stated-Preference Surveys While Controlling for Differences in Sample Frames," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(3), pages 401-419, July.
    3. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    4. Tobias Börger, 2016. "Are Fast Responses More Random? Testing the Effect of Response Time on Scale in an Online Choice Experiment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(2), pages 389-413, October.
    5. Kiriaki M. Keramitsoglou & Katja Lozar Manfreda & Charalampia Anastasiou & Knut Kalgraff Skjak & Konstantinos P. Tsagarakis, 2018. "Mode comparison study on willingness to buy and willingness to pay for organic foods: paper-and-pencil versus computerized questionnaire," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 587-603, September.
    6. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 5(4), pages 309-351, September.
    7. Yunzhen Liang & Liling Ren & Chun Wei & Yafei Shi, 2023. "The Influence of Internet-Specific Epistemic Beliefs on Academic Achievement in an Online Collaborative Learning Context for College Students," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-22, June.
    8. Ding, Ye & Nayga Jr, Rodolfo M. & Zeng, Yinchu & Yang, Wei & Arielle Snell, Heather, 2022. "Consumers’ valuation of a live video feed in restaurant kitchens for online food delivery service," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    9. Gillespie Rob & Kragt Marit E., 2012. "Accounting for Nonmarket Impacts in a Benefit-Cost Analysis of Underground Coal Mining in New South Wales, Australia," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-29, May.
    10. Punel, Aymeric & Stathopoulos, Amanda, 2017. "Modeling the acceptability of crowdsourced goods deliveries: Role of context and experience effects," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 18-38.
    11. Liebe, Ulf & Glenk, Klaus & Oehlmann, Malte & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2015. "Does the use of mobile devices (tablets and smartphones) affect survey quality and choice behaviour in web surveys?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 17-31.
    12. Rolfe, John & Gregg, Daniel, 2012. "Valuing Beach Recreation Across a Regional Area: The Great Barrier Reef in Australia," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124433, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    13. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mourato, Susana, 2016. "Modeling individual preferences for energy sources: The case of IV generation nuclear energy in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 37-58.
    14. Melinda Pénzes & Márta Bakacs & Zoltán Brys & József Vitrai & Gergely Tóth & Zombor Berezvai & Róbert Urbán, 2021. "Vaping-Related Adverse Events and Perceived Health Improvements: A Cross-Sectional Survey among Daily E-Cigarette Users," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-15, August.
    15. Tyllianakis, Emmanouil & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Ziv, Guy & Chapman, Pippa J. & Holden, Joseph & Cardwell, Michael & Fyfe, Duncan, 2023. "A window into land managers’ preferences for new forms of agri-environmental schemes: Evidence from a post-Brexit analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    16. Zhihua Xu & Jingmei Li & Jingzhu Shan & Wensi Zhang, 2021. "Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior to understand residents’ coping behaviors for reducing the health risks posed by haze pollution," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 2122-2142, February.
    17. John Rolfe & Jill Windle, 2012. "Distance Decay Functions for Iconic Assets: Assessing National Values to Protect the Health of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 53(3), pages 347-365, November.
    18. Kerstin K. Zander & Stephen Garnett, 2020. "Risk and experience drive the importance of natural hazards for peoples’ mobility decisions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(3), pages 1639-1654, October.
    19. Börger, Tobias & Hattam, Caroline & Burdon, Daryl & Atkins, Jonathan P. & Austen, Melanie C., 2014. "Valuing conservation benefits of an offshore marine protected area," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 229-241.
    20. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2012. "Testing benefit transfer of reef protection values between local case studies: The Great Barrier Reef in Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 60-69.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:12:y:2022:i:2:p:21582440221094602. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.