- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Evidence of measurement invariance across gender for the Force Concept Inventory

Philip Eaton*

  • School of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Stockton University, Galloway, New Jersey 08205, USA

  • *philip.eaton@stockton.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010130 – Published 26 April, 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.010130

Abstract

A performance gap between the genders has been observed on the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) almost since its introduction. Many studies have sought to characterize this gender gap, however, few have tested the consistency of the factor structure across the genders. This study fills in this gap by offering the first piece of evidence that the genders (male and female due to data constraints) are interacting with the FCI in similar manners. Using multigroup measurement invariance techniques, a preinstruction sample of 6238 males and 2874 females, and a postinstruction sample of 6338 males and 2955 females, the latent variable structure of the FCI was tested for consistency between the genders. As this technique is not often used by the physics education research community, significant time was spent explaining the methodology. It was found that the Eaton and Willoughby five-factor modified (EW5M) model of the FCI factor structure exhibited strict invariance between the genders. Additionally, a single-factor model showed strong invariance and partial strict invariance for the FCI. Latent means from the EW5M model revealed that females underperform compared to males across all of the factors of the FCI, but these gaps in performance decreased over the course of instruction, however, some differences are still large. The results of this study suggest observed performance differences on the FCI between the genders may not be due to gender specific factor structure differences. However, this result is sample dependent and should be verified by other studies using different, independent samples.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (44)

  1. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992).
  2. G. A. Morris, L. Branum-Martin, N. Harshman, S. D. Baker, E. Mazur, S. Dutta, T. Mzoughi, and V. McCauley, Testing the test: Item response curves and test quality, Am. J. Phys. 74, 449 (2006).
  3. G. A. Morris, N. Harshman, L. Branum-Martin, E. Mazur, T. Mzoughi, and S. D. Baker, An item response curves analysis of the Force Concept Inventory, Am. J. Phys. 80, 825 (2012).
  4. M. Ishimoto, G. Davenport, and M. C. Wittmann, Use of item response curves of the force and motion conceptual evaluation to compare japanese and american students? Views on force and motion, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020135 (2017).
  5. M. Planinic, L. Ivanjek, and A. Susac, Rasch model based analysis of the Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 010103 (2010).
  6. J. Wang and L. Bao, Analyzing Force Concept Inventory with item response theory, Am. J. Phys. 78, 1064 (2010).
  7. A. Traxler, R. Henderson, J. Stewart, G. Stewart, A. Papak, and R. Lindell, Gender fairness within the Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010103 (2018).
  8. M. Prince, Does active learning work? A review of the research, J. Eng. Educ. 93, 223 (2004).
  9. R. R. Hake, Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998).
  10. N. Lasry, S. Rosenfield, H. Dedic, A. Dahan, and O. Reshef, The puzzling reliability of the Force Concept Inventory, Am. J. Phys. 79, 909 (2011).
  11. C. Henderson, Common concerns about the Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Teach. 40, 542 (2002).
  12. P. Eaton, B. Frank, and S. Willoughby, Detecting the influence of item chaining on student responses to the Force Concept Inventory and the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020122 (2020).
  13. T. F. Scott, D. Schumayer, and A. R. Gray, Exploratory factor analysis of a Force Concept Inventory data set, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020105 (2012).
  14. T. F. Scott and D. Schumayer, Conceptual coherence of non-Newtonian worldviews in Force Concept Inventory data, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010126 (2017).
  15. M. R. Semak, R. D. Dietz, R. H. Pearson, and C. W. Willis, Examining evolving performance on the Force Concept Inventory using factor analysis, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010103 (2017).
  16. P. Eaton and S. D. Willoughby, Confirmatory factor analysis applied to the Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010124 (2018).
  17. T. F. Scott and D. Schumayer, Students’ proficiency scores within multitrait item response theory, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020134 (2015).
  18. J. Stewart, C. Zabriskie, S. DeVore, and G. Stewart, Multidimensional item response theory and the Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010137 (2018).
  19. P. Eaton and S. Willoughby, Identifying a preinstruction to postinstruction factor model for the Force Concept Inventory within a multitrait item response theory framework, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010106 (2020).
  20. R. Padraic Springuel, M. C. Wittmann, and J. R. Thompson, Applying clustering to statistical analysis of student reasoning about two-dimensional kinematics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020107 (2007).
  21. J. Stewart, M. Miller, C. Audo, and G. Stewart, Using cluster analysis to identify patterns in students? Responses to contextually different conceptual problems, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020112 (2012).
  22. T. F. Scott and D. Schumayer, Central distractors in Force Concept Inventory data, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010106 (2018).
  23. J. Wells, R. Henderson, J. Stewart, G. Stewart, J. Yang, and A. Traxler, Exploring the structure of misconceptions in the Force Concept Inventory with modified module analysis, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020122 (2019).
  24. M. Normandeau, S. Iyengar, and B. Newling, The presence of gender disparity on the Force Concept Inventory in a sample of Canadian undergraduate students, Can. J. Scholarship Teach. Learn. 8, 9 (2017).
  25. R. D. Dietz, R. H. Pearson, M. R. Semak, and C. W. Willis, Gender bias in the Force Concept Inventory?, AIP Conf. Proc. 1413, 171 (2012).
  26. J. Docktor and K. Heller, Gender differences in both Force Concept Inventory and introductory physics performance, AIP Conf. Proc. 1064, 15 (2008).
  27. M. Mears, Gender differences in the force concept inventory for different educational levels in the United Kingdom, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020135 (2019).
  28. H. Wu and R. Estabrook, Identification of confirmatory factor analysis models of different levels of invariance for ordered categorical outcomes, Psychometrika 81, 1014 (2016).
  29. S. Sharma, S. Durvasula, and R. E. Ployhart, The analysis of mean differences using mean and covariance structure analysis: Effect size estimation and error rates, Organ. Res. Meth. 15, 75 (2012).
  30. S. Sharma, S. Durvasula, and R. E. Ployhart, The analysis of mean differences using mean and covariance structure analysis: Effect size estimation and error rates, Organ. Res. Methods 15, 75 (2012).
  31. R. E. Millsap and J. Yun-Tein, Assessing factorial invariance in ordered-categorical measures, Multivariate Behav. Res. 39, 479 (2004).
  32. L. R. Price, Differential functioning of items and tests versus the Mantel-Haenszel technique for detecting differential item functioning in a translated test, in ERIC—Proceedings the Annual Meeting of the American Alliance of Health Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, Boston, MA, April 12–16, 1999 (1999).
  33. Y. Xiao, G. Xu, J. Han, H. Xiao, J. Xiong, and L. Bao, Assessing the longitudinal measurement invariance of the Force Concept Inventory and the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020103 (2020).
  34. T. A. Brown, Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research, 2nd ed. (The Guilford Press, New York, 2015).
  35. J.-i. Yasuda, H. Uematsu, and H. Nitta, Validating a Japanese version of the Force Concept Inventory, Lat. Am. J. Phys. Educ. 1, 6 (2012), http://www.lajpe.org/icpe2011/16_Jun-Ichiro_Yasuda.pdf.
  36. B. P. Chapman, P. R. Duberstein, S. Sörensen, and J. M. Lyness, Gender differences in five factor model personality traits in an elderly cohort, Pers. Individ. Differ. 43, 1594 (2007).
  37. J. Ock, S. T. McAbee, E. Mulfinger, and F. L. Oswald, The practical effects of measurement invariance: Gender invariance in two big five personality measures, Assessment 27, 657 (2020).
  38. A. K. Edossa, U. Schroeders, S. Weinert, and C. Artelt, The development of emotional and behavioral self-regulation and their effects on academic achievement in childhood, Int. J. Behav. Dev. 42, 192 (2018).
  39. L.-t. Hu and P. M. Bentler, Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Struct. Equation Model.: Multidiscip. J. 6, 1 (1999).
  40. A. Alexander Beaujean, Latent Variable Modeling Using R: A Step-By-Step Guide (Routledge, London, 2014).
  41. F. F. Chen, Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance, Struct. Equation Model.: Multidiscip. J. 14, 464 (2007).
  42. S. B. McKagan, Physport, American Association of Physics Teachers, 2011. URL https://www.physport.org.
  43. R Core Team, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2014. URL http://www.R-project.org/.
  44. Y. Rosseel, lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling, J. Stat. Softw. 48, 1 (2012).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010130– Published 26 April, 2021
  • Received 24 November 2020
  • Accepted 19 March 2021
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation