TY - JOUR

T1 - Validity aspects in measuring evolution acceptance

T2 - Evidence from surveys of preservice biology teachers and creationists

AU - Beniermann, Anna

AU - Moormann, Alexandra

AU - Fiedler, Daniela

N1 - Funding Information: We thank our colleagues and collaborating partners in other universities for their help in distributing the survey to their students. Special thanks go to Reinhard Junker for his help in distributing the survey among sympathizers of the Studiengemeinschaft Wort und Wissen e. V. Thank you also to Marvin Borchardt for his help in online survey preparation and data collection, as well as Lara Magnus for her valuable feedback concerning German grammatical issues in the translated instruments. We are very grateful for every preservice biology teacher and Wort und Wissen sympathizer that participated in this study. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of National Association for Research in Science Teaching.

PY - 2023/8

Y1 - 2023/8

N2 - Over the past decades, a large body of research has examined students' magnitudes of evolution acceptance and related measurement issues resulting in questions concerning instruments' validity and operationalization. Until now, several studies investigated validity aspects of often-used evolution acceptance instruments and came to diverging conclusions about instruments' scores comparability. Within the last years, religious identity was identified as a significant predictor for magnitudes of evolution acceptance. However, religious identity can also point to validity issues if aspects of the content under investigation are interpreted differently based on specific religious identity. Additionally, self-identified creationists could serve as a source of validity evidence due to the assumption that creationists should score lower on an evolution acceptance instrument than groups with more scientifically adequate views. Thus, we aim to provide additional validity evidence for often-used evolution acceptance instruments within a European context (i.e., Germany) by comparing two groups of particular interest for research in science education: preservice biology teachers and self-identified creationists. Exploring evidence based on (1) internal structure, (2) relationships with other variables, and (3) test content provides arguments for test interpretations' validity. A total of 286 persons (206 preservice biology teachers and 81 self-identified creationists) participated in a survey comprised of six often-used evolution acceptance measures (i.e., MATE, GAENE, I-SEA, ATEVO, Gallup question, and 100 point questions). Overall, our findings indicate that the six applied instruments demonstrate differences concerning their evidence for sound interpretation. In particular, the DIF and dimensionality analyses lead to the assumption that the GAENE may be multidimensional other than theoretically expected. In general, the multi-item measures were stronger related to each other than to the general public polls. Using an instrument that differentiates between microevolution and macroevolution is advisable for creationist samples or samples with a remarkable share of creationists' views.

AB - Over the past decades, a large body of research has examined students' magnitudes of evolution acceptance and related measurement issues resulting in questions concerning instruments' validity and operationalization. Until now, several studies investigated validity aspects of often-used evolution acceptance instruments and came to diverging conclusions about instruments' scores comparability. Within the last years, religious identity was identified as a significant predictor for magnitudes of evolution acceptance. However, religious identity can also point to validity issues if aspects of the content under investigation are interpreted differently based on specific religious identity. Additionally, self-identified creationists could serve as a source of validity evidence due to the assumption that creationists should score lower on an evolution acceptance instrument than groups with more scientifically adequate views. Thus, we aim to provide additional validity evidence for often-used evolution acceptance instruments within a European context (i.e., Germany) by comparing two groups of particular interest for research in science education: preservice biology teachers and self-identified creationists. Exploring evidence based on (1) internal structure, (2) relationships with other variables, and (3) test content provides arguments for test interpretations' validity. A total of 286 persons (206 preservice biology teachers and 81 self-identified creationists) participated in a survey comprised of six often-used evolution acceptance measures (i.e., MATE, GAENE, I-SEA, ATEVO, Gallup question, and 100 point questions). Overall, our findings indicate that the six applied instruments demonstrate differences concerning their evidence for sound interpretation. In particular, the DIF and dimensionality analyses lead to the assumption that the GAENE may be multidimensional other than theoretically expected. In general, the multi-item measures were stronger related to each other than to the general public polls. Using an instrument that differentiates between microevolution and macroevolution is advisable for creationist samples or samples with a remarkable share of creationists' views.

KW - attitudes toward evolution

KW - creationism

KW - group comparisons

KW - religious beliefs

KW - validity aspects of instruments

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85141437537&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/tea.21830

DO - 10.1002/tea.21830

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:85141437537

VL - 60

SP - 1223

EP - 1265

JO - Journal of Research in Science Teaching

JF - Journal of Research in Science Teaching

SN - 0022-4308

IS - 6

ER -