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. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Niroomand, Naghmeh & Jenkins, Glenn P., 2018. "A comparison of stated preference methods for the valuation of improvement in road safety," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 138-149.
    13. Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2016. "Making the Most of Cheap Talk in an Online Survey," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236171, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Mjelde & Tae-Kyun Kim & Choong-Ki Lee, 2016. "Comparison of Internet and interview survey modes when estimating willingness to pay using choice experiments," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 74-77, January.
    15. Japelj, Anže & Mavsar, Robert & Hodges, Donald & Kovač, Marko & Juvančič, Luka, 2016. "Latent preferences of residents regarding an urban forest recreation setting in Ljubljana, Slovenia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 71-79.
    16. Zhifeng Gao & Lisa A. House & Jing Xie, 2016. "Online Survey Data Quality and Its Implication for Willingness-to-Pay: A Cross-Country Comparison," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(2), pages 199-221, June.
    17. Niskanen, Olli & Tienhaara, Annika & Haltia, Emmi & Pouta, Eija, 2021. "Farmers’ heterogeneous preferences towards results-based environmental policies," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    18. Zander, Kerstin K., 2020. "Unrealised opportunities for residential solar panels in Australia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    19. Kerstin K. Zander & Supriya Mathew & Stephen T. Garnett, 2018. "Exploring Heat Stress Relief Measures among the Australian Labour Force," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-15, February.
    20. 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.

    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.