Developing A Science Process Skills Test Regarding The 6th Graders

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/288108603
Developing a Science Process Skills Test Regarding the 6th Graders
Article in International Journal of Assessment and Evaluation · January 2013

DOI: 10.18848/2327-7920/CGP/v19i02/48322
CITATIONS READS
0 1,872
2 authors:
Gamze Tezcan Gursoy Meric

Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi
8 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION 10 PUBLICATIONS 28 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
science lab education View project
Science Process skills determination by grades View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Gamze Tezcan on 08 November 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Typeset Proof Review Checklist
We recommend that you print the typeset proof and proofread it slowly and with great
care. We also suggest that you request a colleague to proofread your paper, as they
may notice errors that you miss due to your familiarity with the content. Remember to
check your typeset proof for:
- Completeness: inclusion of all text, figures, illustrations, and tables

- Correct title and subtitle
- Correct authorship and order of authors
- Current affiliation details
- Heading levels
- Position and size of illustrations and figures
- Ensuring that captions of illustrations and figures match
- Position of tables
- Presentation of quotes
- Presentation of equations
- Inclusion of acknowledgements
- Typesetting or file conversion errors
- Ensure use of Chicago Manual of Style citations; we recommend the author-
date citations and the end-of-article reference list
Examples of Chicago Manual of Style References
In-Text Citation:
(Pollan 2006, 99-100) - when you want to reference specific pages in the text
(Pollan 2006, 99-100; Weinstein 2009) - when a second text is being referenced and
you don’t want to reference specific pages within the second text.
Listing in End-of-Article Reference List:
Book: Pollan, Michael. 2006. The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four
Meals. New York: Penguin.
Article: Weinstein, Joshua I. 2009. “The Market in Plato’s Republic.” Classical

Philology 104:439–58.
More information on Chicago Manual of Style can be found at

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html We prefer author-date
citations (the second tab on this page) to notes and bibliography.
Journal Standard Style
Order of the Paper:
1. Cover page.
2. Copyright/imprint page.
3. Paper: title/subtitle; author names with affiliation; abstract; keywords; body of
paper; acknowledgement (if applicable); reference list; appendix (if any); and
about the author section.
Journal Standard Style:
 Paper title/subtitle and all headings appear in Title Case except the first
header and Reference section, whereby only definite and indefinite articles
(e.g. ‘the’ and ‘a’), conjunctions (e.g. ‘and’), and prepositions (e.g. ‘in’, ‘of’
etc.) appear in lower case.
 No italics in titles and subtitles of the paper.
 Affiliation of the author will include only the name of the author, university or
organization name, and country. Honorifics are not included.
 Abstract will appear in italics as a single paragraph.
 The keyword list should appear in italics and center aligned.
 Avoid footnotes if at all possible.
 The first paragraph of the paper will appear in floating style—the first letter
will appear in capital case and bold.
 Hyphenation cannot be altered.
 No underline will be included.
 Figure captions are centered and italicized below the figure. The figure
number and caption appear on the same line.
 Table titles appear above the table, center aligned, in bold. The table number
and table title appear on the same line.
 About the Author section: Honorifics will be reflected in this section. Contact
details, such as email addresses, will not be included.
Multi-Authored Papers
In the case of multi-authored papers, authors are advised to collaborate when

checking the typeset proof. One author should be nominated to either accept or
submit corrections on behalf of all of the authors of the paper. We can only accept
one set of revisions, or one acceptance of the typeset proof, from the nominated
author. Once an author approves the typeset proof, further revisions may not be
requested.
Replying to Us
After you review the typeset proof that follows, you need to click on the “Author Verify
Typeset Proof” button (available at the link where you downloaded the typeset proof).
You will then need to select the appropriate option to proceed.
Option 1: Accept Typeset Proof
To be selected when your paper is ready for publication
- Please thoroughly check the typeset proof before accepting it. You will not have
further opportunities to make additional changes after the typeset proof has been
accepted.
- Once you have accepted the typeset proof of your paper, it will be ready to be
published. You will be notified when your paper has been published and given
instructions on how to access the published version.
Option 2: Request Resubmission of Typeset Proof
To be selected when your paper requires corrections,
- Please thoroughly check the typeset proof
- The typesetter will receive notification of your requested corrections. Once the
corrections have been completed, you will be notified of the availability of a revised
typeset proof for your approval.
Documenting your Corrections (Option 2)
Changes to the Abstract
If you wish to make changes to the abstract of your paper, please provide the revised
abstract either as a Word document (if there are also changes to the text), or by
entering it in the text box provided when you select Option 2.
Additional Authors
If you need to add a co-author, we require the following information for each
additional author:
1. Name of the co-author

2. Affiliation details
3. Email address of the co-author (Mandatory)
4. Short Biography (limit of 30 words)
5. Long Biography (limit of 200 words, one paragraph only)
Corrections to Text
If you have changes to the text, please complete these in the Word version of your
paper, which is available at the link where you downloaded this PDF (or an existing
word version). You can then upload the revised document for typesetting by selecting
Option 2.
Corrections to Style
You will need to clearly indicate all corrections in the following manner:
Page Number - paragraph number - line number - correction to be made
e.g.: Page 4 - last paragraph, line 4, please put a comma after Tom in the sentence
‘Mary, Tom, Jane and her friends...’
The page number is the actual page of the PDF. As the paper has not been
paginated yet, numbers do not appear on the pages.
Submitting Corrections
Click the ‘Author Verify Typeset Proof’ button (available at the link you downloaded
the typeset proof from) and select Option 2.
Option 2: Request Resubmission of Typeset Proof
- Please upload the corrected Word document, or add your corrections in the
text box provided.
- Note that you can only upload one document, and this document must
contain all of the corrections (and those of your co-authors, if applicable).
- Note that your paper will be limited to two rounds of corrections during the
typesetting process; be sure to include any and all corrections you may have
in one request.
The typesetter will receive notification of your requested corrections. Once the
corrections have been completed, you will be notified of the availability of a revised
typeset proof for your approval.
Bibliographical Details
Full bibliographical details (issue and page numbers) will not be available until final
publication of your paper. Once your paper has been published, you will be able to
obtain these details. We will notify you as soon as your paper is published.
VOLUME 19 2013
The International Journal of
Assessment
and Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________________
Developing a Science Process Skills

Test Regarding the 6th Graders
GAMZE TEZCAN AND GÜRSOY MERIÇ
thelearner.com
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION
http://thelearner.com/
First published in 2013 in Champaign, Illinois, USA

by Common Ground Publishing
University of Illinois Research Park
2001 South First St, Suite 202
Champaign, IL 61820 USA
www.CommonGroundPublishing.com
ISSN: ISSN Pending
© 2013 (individual papers), the author(s)

© 2013 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground
All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under
the applicable copyright legislation, no part of this work may be reproduced by any process without written
permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact
<cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com>.
The International Journal of Assessment and Evaluation is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.
Typeset in CGScholar.
http://www.commongroundpublishing.com/software/
Developing a Science Process Skills Test
Regarding the 6th Graders
Gamze Tezcan, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Turkey
Gürsoy Meriç, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Turkey
Abstract: The main goal of this study is to develop a valid and reliable science process skills
test for 6th graders (SPST-6). Within the scope of these aims, an item pool including 52 multiple
choice test items was prepared. To ensure the content validity, reviews from experts were taken,
and according to their feedbacks, questions were revised and 10 questions were eliminated.
Subsequent to the pilot study conducted with 57 elementary 6th graders, item analyses and
internal consistency reliability analyses were done. Consistent with the results of item analyses,
8 items were extracted from the test. The internal consistency analyses were done. During the
main application, the test was applied to 175 6th grade students. A criteria test was also applied
to 40 of these 175 students, and the correlation coefficient between the SPST-6 scores and cri-
teria scores of this group was calculated 0.727. The final internal consistency analyses (split
half) results showed that the correlation coefficient between forms is 0.729 and the general alpha
coefficients for both halves are 0.74. Moreover, it was found that there is a significant difference
in SPST-6 scores according to school science and technology course grades, gender, and parents’
educational status (p < .05).
Keywords: Science Process Skills, Science Achievement, Validity, Reliability
INTRODUCTION
Science Process Skills
G
agne (1965) identified science process skills as some basic abilities that students should
have for the benefit of conceptual information and principles (as cited in Finley,
1983). According to Rezba et al. (2007), science process skills are the skills used
while doing silence. Abruscato (2000) argued that scientists’ inventions depend on
their ability of using a variety of important skills. Carin and Bass (2001) described
science process skills as the skills that scientists use for solving and explaining the secrets of the
universe, form the basis of thinking and used for solving problems related with science and the
other fields.
Science process skills are the basic skills that facilitate learning in science, provide students
to be more active and enhance the sense of taking responsibility for their own learning, increase
the permanency of learning and also gain ways and methods of research (Çepni et al., 1997).
Gaining these basic skills changes the approach to problems that faced with in lifetime. Science
process skills are very important for meaningful learning, because learning continues in lifetime
and while life is continuing human beings need to find out, interpret and trial the evidences
under different conditions.
There is a variety of information available about what ‘science process skills’ are. Beside the
skills which are common in every resource, there are also some skills which are special to that
resource. Even there are differences in classification of science process skills; each resource in-
The International Journal of Assessment and Evaluation

Volume 19, 2013, http://thelearner.com/, ISSN ISSN Pending
© Common Ground, Gamze Tezcan, Gürsoy Meriç, All Rights Reserved, Permissions:
cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com
cludes skills regarding determining research question, designing the research, collecting and
analyzing evidences and establishing communication (Harlen, 1999).
At the end of the 1950’s, American Association Advancement of Science (AAAS) has intro-
duced ‘Science–A Process Approach (SAPA). SAPA is an elementary school program that students
do science (Sittirug, 1997). SAPA separates science process skills into two groups; namely basic
and integrated (AAAS, 1967). Basic science process skills provide an infrastructure for integrated
science process skills which are more complex (Marshall, 1990).
Basic science process skills consist of observing, classifying, communicating, measuring
metrically, predicting and inferring and integrated science process skills consist of identifying
variables, constructing hypotheses, acquiring and processing data, defining variables operation-
ally, experimenting and constructing models (Gagne, 1965; as cited in Marshall, 1990). The
groups of science process skills and the skills covered by these groups are given in Table 1.
Table 1: Subgroups and Skill of Science Process Skills (SPS)

SPS SUBGROUPS SKILLS
Observing
Classifying
Communicating
BASIC SKILLS
Measuring
Predicting
Inferring
Identifying Variables
Constructing Hypotheses
Acquiring and Processing Data
INTEGRATED SKILLS
Defining Variables Operationally
Experimenting
Constructing Models
Assessing Science Process Skills

Deficiencies in the assessment of students’ knowledge and skill have been one of the most
popular topics of the latest days. Harlen (1993), emphasized that developers of science curricula
have accepted that science process skills may be acquired by experience instead of having genet-
ically, and in this case the question of how well these skills are gained is coming into minds.
The idea of assessment of these skills emerged to find out the answer of this question.
Assessment gives answer to these questions;
• Which has done is the one aimed to be done?

• How can it be done better?
• When it is done? (Oloruntegbe, 2010).
Science education has an important role of developing some skills like communication, thinking
critically, problem–solving, collecting evidence and evaluation. Therefore, evaluation of these
should be included into evaluation of science education (Harlen, 1999).
If objectives and activities which are based on science process skills have been included into
science education program, it is normal to assess also those. However, methods of assessment
TEZCAN: DEVELOPING A SCIENCE PROCESS SKILLS TEST REGARDING THE 6TH GRADERS
in science education always left behind the science education programs. Assessment and evalu-
ation methods are generally contradict with the objectives in the program (Johnson, 1987).
The requirement of evaluating scientific process in science resulted in the requirement of al-
ternative evaluation methods, in addition to traditional evaluation methods. Science process
skills, which depend on applied performances during the process, should be assessed by altern-
ative evaluation methods which are evaluating the process instead of result–oriented traditional
methods. Process evaluation can be more possible with performance evaluation rather than
traditional methods. Performance evaluation is advantageous, but it has some limits also. While
doing a performance evaluation, it is not possible to obtain a general result, but evaluating
items one by one is more meaningful. This situation complicates obtaining item validity in
performance evaluations. Item by item evaluation will not fit to programs that were prepared
for making international comparisons (Harlen, 1999).
Although it has some disadvantages, traditional assessment methods have also important
advantages. It takes less time than other methods and it is easier to ensure the internal consistency
validity (Taylor & Watson, 2000). Moreover, it can assess many level of learning simultaneously,
it can be applied to many people at the same time and it is easy to apply and score (Johnson,
1989a).
When limitations of assessing science process skills of traditional methods, some restrictions
of alternative methods and beside these advantages of traditional methods are considered; tra-
ditional methods should not be removed from science process skills evaluation methods, however
alternative methods should be used beside traditional methods. Kujawinski (1997), by emphas-
izing this requirement, introduced that instead of using paper–pencil tests as the only assessment
instrument; it should be used as primary assessment instrument and used together with different
instruments which assess the performance. The traditional method is rescuer for the studies
which have large samples, such as international evaluation studies.
Traditional methods such as paper–pencil tests can be used for the aim of pre–selection. Since
they do not enable to assess some skills during the assessment process of science process skills,
performance–oriented assessment methods should be used as a complementary. Moreover, for
validity and for ease of large sampling applications, using multiple–choice tests in international
evaluation studies is more reasonable.
By analyzing the tests which were developed for the assessment of science process skills of
elementary students, it can be concluded that most of the tests are multiple–choice and some
of them such as ‘A continuum for Assesing Science Process Skills’ (Beeth et al., 1999)’, ‘The
Bubbles Task’ (Solano Flores, 2000) and ‘Test of Integrated Science Process Skills’ (Shahali &
Halim, 2010) include education program contents; and some of them like Test of Integrated
Process Skills–TIPS (Dillashaw & Okey, 1980), Test of Integrated Process SkillsII–TIPSII (Burns,
Okey & Wise, 1985), Science Process Skills Assessment for Middle School Students (Smith &
Welliver, 1994) are independent from education program contentss.
Content has possibility to influence results while science process skills are assessing. However,
objectives of science education programs covers science process skills and subjects simultaneously
as one within the other. Therefore, science process skills tests which are taking program subjects
as content are required to understand how much these objectives are actualized. The disadvant-
ages of these tests can be overcome by asking many questions about a skill and by providing
questions that they do not need specific information. Harlen (1999) has underlined that con-
ceptual understanding needed when science process skills are related to science topics, and has
emphasized that items related to science topics may be used only when the situations that
conceptual understanding will not prevent the students to use their science process skills.
The major aim of this study is to develop a valid and reliable ‘Science Process Skills Test for
6th Grades (SPST–6)’, which is intended to assess the skills regarding science process skills of
elementary 6th grade science program such as ‘observing, classifying, measuring, predicting,
inferring, identifying variables, constructing hypotheses, acquiring and processing data, defining
variables operationally, experimenting, constructing models’. Moreover, the relationship between

SPST–6 scores and science grades, gender and parents’ educational status were investigated as
minor aims.
Method
Population and Sample

The study’s population consists of all students registered to 6th grade of primary schools in the
city center of Çanakkale province during 2010–2011 academic year.
The sampling group of the study consists of a total 175 students in 6th grade in the city center
of Çanakkale province. All of these 6th grade students selected based on their achievement by
using purposive sampling were included in the sample.
A pilot study was conducted with 57 students out of the sample.
th
Development Process of Science Process Skills Test for the 6 Grades
Test development process involves these stages: test planning, item writing, item analysis and
item selection (Çelik, 2000).
The steps followed during the test development process are indicated in Schema–1.
Schema 1: The Steps Followed During the Test Development Process
Firstly, the content and the structure were decided and test items were prepared. Secondly, expert
opinion was taken to ensure content validity and so the draft test was created. Thirdly, a pilot
study was conducted and the test items were rearranged or removed from the test according
to item analysis. Internal consistency of the test was analyzed and the final version of the test
was constructed. Finally, it was applied again to analyze internal consistency and criterion
validity.
Determination of the Structure
Primarily, scientific process skills to be assessed were determined, objectives regarding these
skills and the 6th grade unit topics of the science education program were examined while de-
termining the structure during the test development process. It was decided that a few of the
test items will be free from the 6th grade science subjects and be related to daily life. Later than
making the decisions about the skills to be assessed and the content of the questions, the object-
ives and the quantity of the questions for each objective were decided.
The 11 skills which are aimed to be assessed by the developed test were determined as: ob-
servation, classifying, measuring, predicting, inferring, identifying variables, constructing hypo-
thesis, acquiring and processing data, defining variables operationally, experimenting and
constructing models. It was decided to develop at least 3 items for each skill.
Creation of the Draft Test Items
Draft test items were developed in three different ways. These ways are: collecting the items
written by the 3rd grade’s candidate classroom teachers who attended in a seminar program
on the relevant subject and are studying in the Elementary Science Teaching Undergraduate
Program in Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University; developing new items if the items written by
the candidate teachers were not enough for a skill; and finally writing and adopting the items
about the daily life.
At first, the candidate teachers developed 25 items related to 6th grade science subjects. In
the second step, the items written by the candidate teachers were classified according to the
skills they assess and unit topics that they are related. It was also checked if there are at least
three items for each skill. In this way, it was aimed that the test will have at least one valid item
for each skill by trying more items (Tan, 2005). 23 new items related to the missing skills were
written by the researcher and the items which are relevant to the unit topics became 48 in total.
Thirdly, items related to daily life were prepared. 5 out of 12 items which are related to daily
life were developed by the researcher. The rest 7 items on the other hand, were developed based
on the Science Achievement Tests of Alberta Education for 6th Grades in Canada (Alberta De-
partment of Education, 1985; 2006; 2008). 1 of these 7adopted items were eliminated from
the test upon expert opinion, while 2 other were removed in accordance with the item analysis
results. 4 of the items which were kept in the final version of SPST–6 are the 29th, 30th, 33rd
and 34th questions.
Content Validity Analysis (Expert Opinion)
Content validity of a test is the degree of test or scale items to represent the conceptual main
mass on a specific purpose (Şencan, 2005).
There are 5 component of content validity according to Gronlund and Linn (1990);
• Determining and describing the content to be assessed,

• Knowledge of the mental model which must be tested,
• Comparison of the assessment results of the known groups,
• Comparison of the results pre and post application,
• Comparison of the results with other assessments.
The written 60 test items were submitted to experts to take their opinions. 2 of these experts
are language specialists to control the language; 2 experts from physics, chemistry and biology
subject area; 2 science and technology teachers and 2 experts from assessment and evaluation
area. Items were firstly examined by the two language experts; spelling mistakes and verbal
errors which prevent understanding the items were corrected and then they were given to the
other experts. Items were removed or changed, if necessary, according to the expert opinions.
The Pilot Application and the Subsequent Studies
The pilot application was carried out with a total of 57 students from one class of 6th grades
in two primary schools located in the city center of Çanakkale province. In practice, students
were given 70 minutes for the 42 questions remained after taking expert opinion.
All analyzes made during the development process of SPST–6 within the scope of validity
and reliability studies were given in Table 2.
Table 2: The Statistical Studies Done During the Validity and Reliability Analysis of SPST–6
STATISTICAL STUDIES METHOD
ITEM ANALYSIS Difficulty and Discrimination
Content Validity Expert Opinion
VALIDITY Criterion Validity Correlation between the SPST–6 results end

the results of Science Process Skills Assessment
For Middle School Students
Internal Consistancy KR–20
RELIABILITY
Split Half Model
Item analysis, construct validity and internal consistency analyzes were made after the pilot
implementation. After the final application, internal consistency and criterion validity analyzes
were carried out. Some questions were eliminated as a result of item analysis which followed.
Internal consistency analysis was made for the remaining questions to examine the reliability
of the test and then the final application was conducted.
The Final Application of SPST–6 and Subsequent Studies

SPST–6 was applied to a total of 175 6th grade students from three schools which were selected
according to their achievement level by using purposive sampling method.
In practice, students were made to sit in the position as they do in the exams and they were
given one lesson time (40 minutes) for 34 questions in the test. It was tried to be ensured that
the students’ attention was not disrupted and they were not affected by each other.
Criterion Validity Studies
Criterion validity is the comparison of the scores obtained from the developed test and the
scores getting from the application of a criterion test which serve to the same target. Criterion
instrument is a valid and reliable tool to assess the function intended to be assessed and the
scores obtained from this instrument are called the criterion (Ellez, 2009).
In addition to SPST–6 test, the criterion test was also applied to the students (40 people) in
one of the three schools in which the final study was conducted. Therefore the concurrent
validity was analyzed.
‘Science Process Skills Assessment For Middle School Students’ test was used as the criterion
which was prepared and developed for the elementary (6th–8th grade) students, by Smith and
Welliver (1994). Since, the skills which were intended to be assessed by the SPST–6 overlapped
with the skills intended to be assessed by the criterion test, the test was seen to be the closest
one to SPST–6 regarding its objectives, among the other tests translated into Turkish.
The translation and adaptation into Turkish of the criterion test was done and the reliability
analysis also conducted by Şenyüz (2008). As a result, Kuder Richardson–20 (KR–20) coefficient
was calculated as 0.86 and it was stated that the test was in average difficulty (0.55) and it was
moderately distinctive (0.25). These results showed that the criterion test is valid and reliable.
Analysis of Internal Consistency
After applying SPST–6, internal consistency analysis for the final version of SPST–6 was repeated.
To calculate the internal consistency, the method of equivalent halves was used and to confirm
the reliability of equivalent halves, split half model was used.
Findings and Discussion
Item Analysis
During the item analysis, discrimination index and difficulty index were calculated for each of
the 42 items included in the draft test. The dispersion of the answers of upper group and lower
group students’ answers according to the choices was analyzed.
The 27% of the students who did best in the pilot study was assigned as upper group while
the 27% of them who did worst in the pilot study was assigned as the lower group. In the
other words, the upper 16 scorer out of 57 respondents of the draft SPST–6 were assigned as
the upper group and also the lower 16 scorer assigned as the lower group.
According to the answers of the upper group and lower group students, the discrimination
(r) and difficulty (p) indexes of the items were calculated. Since, it was expected that the items
would be moderately discriminating and difficult in the SPST–6, the items considered good
whose discrimination index was higher than 0.6 (between 0.6–0.9) and the discrimination index
is higher than 0.2. Therefore, the 8 items which did not meet this criteria were eliminated.
Table 3 includes the discrimination and difficulty indexes of 34 items.
Table 3: The Results of Item Analysis

Items A B C D Discrimination (r) Difficulty (p)
1. Lower Group 4 2 5 5 .625 .625
Upper Group 0 0 1 15
2. Lower Group 1 3 6 6 .438 .594
3. Lower Group 4 7 2 3 .563 .718
4. Lower Group 7 3 2 4 .750 .563
5. Lower Group 4 4 3 5 .438 .468
6. Lower Group 7 6 2 1 .325 .281
Upper Group 2 6 7 1
7. Lower Group 5 6 2 3 .500 .625
8. Lower Group 5 1 4 6 .688 .656
9. Lower Group 5 5 2 4 .563 .594
10. Lower Group 6 2 6 2 .500 .625
11. Lower Group 8 1 1 6 .750 .438
12. Lower Group 8 3 5 0 .313 .656
13. Lower Group 1 2 3 10 .375 .813
14. Lower Group 6 4 3 3 .313 .348
Upper Group 2 2 4 8
15. Lower Group 0 5 11 0 .250 .813
16. Lower Group 4 6 4 2 .500 .625
17. Lower Group 5 0 3 8 .500 .750
18. Lower Group 2 3 7 4 .563 .718

19. Lower Group 4 3 5 4 .688 .656
20. Lower Group 6 3 3 4 .625 .563
21. Lower Group 8 2 2 4 .250 .625
22. Lower Group 3 0 8 5 .500 .750
23. Lower Group 1 4 6 5 .625 .688
24. Lower Group 4 5 3 4 .813 .594
25. Lower Group 4 8 1 3 .500 .750
26. Lower Group 4 4 6 2 .500 .375
27. Lower Group 6 1 7 2 .563 .719
28. Lower Group 4 2 6 4 .625 .688
29. Lower Group 5 2 5 4 .688 .656
30. Lower Group 2 2 5 7 .625 .625
31. Lower Group 3 4 6 3 .375 .438
32. Lower Group 2 4 3 7 .250 .563
33. Lower Group 4 6 2 4 .250 .500
34. Lower Group 3 4 2 7 .313 .594
The Validity Analysis of SPST–6
Content Validity
During the development of SPST–6, to guarantee the content validity, experts’ opinions were
taken. It was expected from experts to advise about such issues; general view of the test, the
adequacy of the number of the items, whether the items have a scientific error, whether the
items require special background knowledge, the clearness of the pictures and figures, simplicity
of the expressions and its applicability to the population. The opinions and suggestions about
each item were analyzed and according to this analyze the items were kept or changed or ex-
cluded from the test.
Table 4: The Dispersion of the 34 Items Covered by SPST–6 According to the Skill that they
Detect and the Area that they take as Content
UNITS
SKİLLS
Observing X 1
Classifying X X X 3
Measuring X X X X 4
Predicting X X 2
Inferring X X 2
Identifying
X X X X 4
Variables
Constructing
X X X X 4
Hypothesis
Acquiring
and
X X X XX 4
Processing
Data
Defining
Variables X X X 3
Operationally
Experimenting X X X 3
Constructing
X X X X 4
Models
TO TAL 3 3 3 3 5 5 4 3 6 34
60 items were submitted to experts and according to their views 42 items were included to the
draft test. At the end of the item analyzes 8 items were also eliminated. In sum, 34 items were
composed to SPST–6. The dispersion of these 34 items according to the skill that they detect
and the area that they take as content is given in Table 4.
When Table 4 is examined, it is seen that SPST–6 includes at least 1 item for each 11 science
process skills. In addition, at least three items take each of the 6th grade science and technology
course units as content. All of these can be accepted as the evidences of content validity.
Criterion Validity
The scope of the criterion validity analysis, the correlation between the SPST–6 scores and
Science Process Skills Assessment For Middle School Students scores of the 40 students, who
were in the sample, was detected.
Table 5 is including the mean of the scores getting from SPST–6 and criterion test ( ),
standard deviation (s) and the correlation between them.
Table 5: The Correlation between the SPST–6 and Criterion Test Scores
TEST Number of Items N s Correlation

SPST–6 34 18.550 5.905
40 0.727*
CRITERION 50 25.475 7.752
*correlation is significant at the .01 level
There is not any consensus about the significance level of correlation in terms of quantity.
However, mostly it is accepted that when the correlation coefficient is between 0.70–1.00, the
correlation is high, when it is between 0.70–0.30, the correlation is moderate and when it is
between 0.30–0.00, the correlation is low (Büyüköztürk, 2009).
When Table 5 is examined, it can be seen that concurrent validity coefficient is between
0.70–1.00 (r=0.727, p<.01). Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a significant and pos-
itive relationship between the SPST–6 scores and criterion test scores. This is an evidence of
the criterion validity of SPST–6.
The Reliability Analysis of SPST–6 (Analysis of Internal Consistency)

During the process of the development of SPST–6, the internal consistency analysis was done
2 times. The first was done after the pilot study and the second was done after the application
of the final version of the SPST–6.
After the pilot study, for the 34 items which was remained according to the item analysis
results the internal consistency was examined by the help of ‘The Split Half Model’. The general
alpha for the first half was found 0.7741 and for the second half it was found 0.7840. Since
these values are higher than 0.70 and close to the each other, it was concluded that the items
were reliable. In addition to Split Half Model, Kuder Richardson–20 coefficient was calculated
as 0.879 by the help of the Excel and SPSS–10. KR–20 reliability coefficient of an instrument
which has more than 50 items should not be less than 0.80 (Şencan, 2005). So that, the reliab-
ility of the test was prooved one more time.
The final version of SPST–6 including these remain 34 items was applied to 175 6th grade
students and the internal consistency analysis was repeated. The results showed that general
alpha for the first half is 0.7443 and for the second half, it is 0.7404. According to the alpha
coefficient, the reliability of the scale is interpreted like that;
• if it is between 0.0 and 0.4, the scale is not reliable,

• if it is between 0.4 and 0.6, the scale’s reliability is low,
• if it is between 0.6 and 0.8, the scale is reliable,

• if it is between 0.8 and 1.0, the scale’s reliability is high (Kalaycı, 2008).
Therefore, since the general alpha coefficient for both halves is between 0.6 and 0.8, it can be
inferred that the final version of SPST–6 is reliable.
Correlation coefficient between the forms is 0.729. It means that there is a significant rela-
tionship between the halves of the test. When the correlation coefficient between two variables
is higher than 0.70, it can be concluded that there is a significant relationship between the
variables (Kalaycı, 2008).
The Results Related to the Minor Aims
The Relationship between the SPST–6 Scores and Course Grades
In Table 6, the descriptive statistics of the SPST–6 scores according to the school science and
technology course grades were given. The relationship between SPST–6 scores and grades was
given in Table 7.
The ANOVA results given in Table 7 show that there is a significant relationship between
the SPST–6 scores and science course grades, F(5,169)= 16.796, p<.05. In other words, the
scores which students took from SPST–6 diverse significantly according to the science and
technology course grades.
Table 6: Descriptive Statistics of the Scores Getting from SPST–6 According to the Science and
Technology Course Grades
Course Grade N s
90–100 44 26.41 4.62

80–89 32 23.59 5.32
70–79 40 22.65 5.13
60–69 36 17.47 5.78
50–59 14 16.64 5.52
Lower than 50 9 16.00 6.25
Table 7: ANOVA Results of the Scores Getting from SPST–6 According to the Science and
Technology Course Grades
The Source of The Variance Sum of Squares sd Mean of Squares F p
Between Groups 2414.838 5 482.968 16.796 0.000
Within Groups 4859.642 169 28.755
Total 7274.480 174
It was found that there is a significant relationship between academic achievement and SPST–6
scores. In the line with this finding, Berman (1996) detected a significant relationship between
the integrated science process skills of high school students and their academic achievement in
biology (r=.629). Sittirug (1997) was conducted a study with 85 pre–service elementary teachers
and found a significant relationship between science process skills and academic achievement.
In this study, it was concluded that science process skills are reasonable indicators of academic
achievement.
The independent samples t test was conducted on the SPST–6 scores to evaluate whether female
and male students’ means were significantly different. Table 8 includes the test results. The
results show that female students’ mean is significantly different from the male students’ mean
(t(173) =2.94, p<.05). The results supported the conclusion that female participants’ SPST–6
scores ( =23.35, sd=6.04) is higher than the male participants’ scores ( =20.53, sd= 6.59).
Table 8: The t Test Results of the SPST–6 Scores According to the Gender
Gender N sd df t P
Female 84 23.35 6.04 173 2.94 0.004

Male 91 20.53 6.59
There are other studies which are supporting this result and found that there is a significant
difference between science process skills of female and male students and females are better
than the males (Aydınlı, 2007; Çakar, 2008; Çakır ve Sarıkaya, 2010). However, White (1999)
detected that male students’ science process skills are at a better level than the level that female
students’ at. Kaur (1972) found that males are better at observing skills; however, worst at
classifying than females.
Multiple Comparisons for SPST–6 Scores among Mothers’ Education Level
Table 9 includes students’ descriptive statistics of SPST–6 scores according to the mothers’
education level. In addition, Table 10 has the ANOVA results of SPST–6 scores according to
the mothers’ education level.
Table 9: Descriptive Statistics of SPST–6 Scores According to the Mothers’ Education Level
Mothers’ Education Level N sd.
University 34 24.44 5.81

High School 52 23.23 6.51
Junior High School 28 21.89 6.67
Elementary School 58 19.34 5.78
Andoned From Elementary School 3 18.33 9.02
Table 10: Multiple Comparisons for SPST–6 Scores among Mothers’ Education Level
The Source of The Variance Sum of Squares df Mean of Squares F p

Between Groups 728.418 4 182.105 4.729 0.001
Within Groups 6546.062 170 38.506
Total 7274.480 174
Table 9 and Table 10 show the results (F(4,170)=4.729, p<.05) which indicate that SPST–6
scores of the students are differentiate according to mothers’ education level at significant level.
Moreover, Tukey test results show that the students whose mothers are alumni of a university
( =24.44, sd=5.80) and the students whose mothers’ education level at high school level
( =23.23, sd=6.51) got better scores from SPST–6 than the students whose mothers’ education
level at elementary level ( =19.34, s=5.78).
Germann (1994) investigated the variables affecting the science process skills and found that
the parents’ education level is a significant determinant. When the position of the mother in
the family is evaluated, it is certainly important for developing children’s science process skills
that mother has a high level of scientific knowledge and respects the science.
Multiple Comparisons for SPST–6 Scores among Fathers’ Education Level
Table 11 includes students’ descriptive statistics of SPST–6 scores and Table 12 has the ANOVA
results of SPST–6 scores according to the fathers’ education level.
When Table 11 and 12 are examined, it can be seen that there is a significant relationship
between SPST–6 scores and father education level, F(4,170)=5.194, p<.05. The Tukey test
results also show that the students whose fathers are alumni of a university ( =25.04, s=5.68)
did better in SPST–6 than those whose fathers’ education level is at high school level( =21.68,
s=6.37), at junior high school level ( =20.24, s=6.13) and at elementary level ( =19.75, s=6.46).
Table 11: Descriptive Statistics of SPST–6 Scores According to the Fathers’ Education Level
Fathers’ Education Level N s
University 49 25.04 5.68

High School 53 21.68 6.37
Junior High School 34 20.24 6.13
Elementary School 36 19.75 6.46
Andoned From Elementary School 3 18.00 7.94
Table 12: Multiple Comparisons for SPST–6 Scores among Fathers’ Education Level
The Source of The Variance Sum of Squares df Mean of Squares F p
Between Groups 792.147 4 198.037 5.194 0.001
Within Groups 6482.333 170 38.131
Total 7274.480 174
Consistent with this result there are other studies which detected that science process skills
differentiated significantly according to father education level (Aydoğdu, 2006; Aydınlı, 2007;
Çakar, 2008).
Conclusion
For the 6th graders, Science Process Skills Test for the 6th Grades (SPST–6) which was a valid
and reliable test, was developed.
Sample test items are given in Appendix–1. The content and criterion validity were examined
during the validity studies of the test, while internal consistency analysis was done during the
reliability studies.
To ensure the content validity, a literature review was done, the structure was defined, the
skills to be assessed and the objectives regarding those skills were identified. Afterwards, more
than one item were developed to assess one of the skills which were determined. Then, an experts’
opinion about the items were taken.
Since there is at least one question for each of 11 skills which are to be assessed and there
are at least 3 questions regarding each 6th grade unit which were taken as the content, it was
pointed out that the test of 34 items which was left after the expert opinion and item analysis,
had the content validity.
For the criterion validity, ‘Science Process Skills Assessment For Middle School Students’ of
which its validity and reliability were determined after SPST–6, was applied to the specific 40
people in the sample and the correlation between the scores which the students got from the
two tests was found. Pearson Correlation coefficient was found as 0.724 which indicates a high
relevance. This shows that SPST–6 has got the criterion validity.
It was seen that the correlation coefficient between the two identical halves of SPST–6 was
0.73 in the internal consistency analysis. Since a correlation coefficient between 0.70 and 1.00
would sign to a high correlation, it can be said that the two identical halves served the same
purpose and this is the indicator of internal consistency. Another indicator of reliability is the
alpha coefficients which were calculated for the two halves and alpha coefficient was 0.74 for
the two halves. So, it is an evidence for the reliability of SPST–6 to have the same alpha coeffi-
cient for the two parts which is bigger than 0.70.
Sub–problems were examined by the data obtained from the implementation of the final
version of SPST–6. As a result, it was found that the scores received from SPST–6 significantly
differentiate according to science grades, to the gender and to the education level of the parents.
Since, science process skills are very important in the common world, it is important to assess
these skills as much as to develop an education program developing science process skills. This
research was conducted to fulfill the requirements of a valid and reliable science process skills
test for six graders. However, there is also a need of such tests for other graders. For further
research, SPST–7 and SPST–8 can be developed.
.
REFERENCES
Abruscato, J. (2000). Teaching Children Science. Needham Heights, M.A: Allyn and Bacon,
37–52.
Aydınlı, E. (2007). 6., 7. ve 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin bilimsel süreç becerilerine ilişkin per-
formanslarının değerlendirilmesi. Unpublished Master Thesis, Gazi Üniversitesi,
Ankara.
Aydoğdu, B. (2006). İlköğretim Fen Ve Teknoloji Dersinde Bilimsel Süreç Becerilerini
Etkileyen Değişkenlerin Belirlenmesi. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Dokuz Eylül
Üniversitesi, İzmir.
Alberta Department of Education (1985). Grade 6 Student Achievement Testing Program,
1985–86 School Year. (ERIC No: ED279553)
Alberta Department of Education (2006). Grade 6, Released 2006 Science Achievement Test.
Retrieved December 30, 2010, from http://education.alberta.ca/media/901228/03
sci6_released 2008 english.pdf.
Alberta Department of Education, (2008). Grade 6, Released 2008 Science Achievement Test.
Retrieved December 30, 2010, from http://education.alberta.ca/media/1153254/02
science 6 released 2009.pdf.
Beeth, M. E., Cross, L., Pearl, C., Pirro, J., Yagnesak, K. & Kennedy, J. (1999). A continuum
for assessing science process knowledge in grades K–6. Educational Resources Inform-
ation Center (ERIC No: ED443665)
Berman W. (1996). Science Process Skill Competency and Academic Achievement in College
Biology: A Correlational Study. Unpublished PhD Thesis, The Temple University
Graduate Board, Philadelphia. (UMI No: 9706941).
Burns, J. C., Okey, J. R. & Wise, K. C. (1985). Development of an Integrated Process Skill
Test: TIPS II. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 22(2), 169–177.
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2009). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı (10. Basım). Ankara: Pegem
A.
Carin, A.A. & Bass, J. E. (2001). Teaching Science as Inquiry. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice
Hall, 41–64.
Çakar, E. (2008). 5. Sınıf Fen ve Teknoloji Programının Bilimsel Süreç Becerisi Kazanımlarının
Belirlirlenmesi. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi, Isparta.
Çakır, N. K. & Sarıkaya M., 2010. An evaluation of science process skills of the science
teaching majors. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1592–1596.
Çelik, D. (2000). Okullarda Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Nasıl Olmalı? İstanbul: Milli Eğitim
Basımevi.
Çepni, S., Ayas, A., Johnson, D. & Turgut, M.F., (1997). Fizik Öğretimi. Ankara: Milli Eğitimi
Geliştirme Projesi Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Eğitimi.
Dillashaw, F. G. & Okey, J. R. (1980). Test of the integrated science process skills for secondary
students. Science Education. 64, 601–608.
Ellez, A. M. (2009). Ölçme araçlarında bulunması gereken özellikler. Tanrıöğen, A. (Ed.), in
Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri (s. 165–190). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
Finley, F. N. (1983). Science processes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 47–54.
Gronlund, N.E. & Linn, R. (1990). Measurement and Evaluation in Teaching (6. Basım). New
York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Germann, P. J. (1994). Testing a model of science process skills acquisition: an ınteraction with
parents’ education, preferred language, gender, science attitude, cognitive development,
academic ability, and biology knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
31(7), 749–783.
Harlen, W. (1993). Teaching and Learning Primary Science. London: Corwin Press, 56–74.
Harlen, W. (1999). Purposes and procedures for assessing science process skills. Assessment in
Education, 6(2), 128–144.
Johnson, J. (1989). Or none of the above. The Science Teacher, 56(4), 57–61.
Johnson, S. (1987). Assessment in science and technology. Studies in Science Education, 14,
83–108.
Kalaycı, Ş. (2008). SPSS Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli İstatistik Teknikleri (3th Edition). Ankara:
Asil Yayın.
Kaur, R. (1972). Evaluation of the Science Process Skills of Observation and Classification.
Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Pensilvania, Philedelphia.
Kujawinski, D. B. (1997). Assessment and evaluation of science process skills in secondary
school biology laboratories. Unpublished PhD Thesis, State University, New York.
(UMI No: 9719141)
Marshall, J. E. (1990). An investigation of the construct validity of the test of basic process
skills in science: A multitrait–multimethod analysis. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University
of South Florida (UMI No: 9101614).
Oloruntegbe, K. O. (2010). Approaches to the assessment of science process skills: a reconcep-
tualist view and option. Journal of Collage Teaching & Learning, 7(6), 11–18.
Rezba, R.J., Sprague, C., McDonnough J. T. & Matkins, J. J. (2007). Learning and Assessing
Science Process Skills. U.S.A: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Sittirug, H. (1997). The predictive value of science process skills, cognitive development, attitude
toward science on academic achievement in Thai teachers institution. Unpublished
PhD Thesis, Missouri University, Colombia. (UMI No: 9842566)
Smith, K. A. & Welliver, P. W. (1994). Science Process Assessments for Elementary and Middle
School Students. Smith and Welliver Educational Services. Retrieved March 20, 2011
from http://www.scienceprocesstests.com/.
Shahali, E. H. M. & Halim, L. (2010). Development and validation of a test of integrated science
process skills. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 142–146.
Solano–Flores, G. (2000). Teaching and assessing science process skills in physics: The “bubbles”
task. Science Activities. 37(1), 31–37.
Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal Davranışsal Ölçümlerde Güvenilirlik ve Geçerlilik. Ankara: Seçkin
Yayıncılık.
Şenyüz, G., (2008). 2000 yılı fen bilgisi ve 2005 yılı fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretim programlarında
yer alan bilimsel süreç becerileri kazanımlarının tespiti ve karşılaştırması. Unpublished
Masters Thesis, Gazi üniversitesi, Ankara.
Tan, Ş. (2005). Öğretimi Planlama ve Değerlendirme (9. Basım). Ankara.
Taylor, A. & Watson, S. B. (2000). The affect of traditional classroom assessment on science
learning and understanding of the processes of science. Journal of Elementary Science
Education, 12(1), 19–32.
White, G. M. (1999). The Development of a Content–Influenced Process Skills Instrument for
General Biology. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Delta State University, Mississippi. (UMI
No: 9932942).
Appendix–I
Arda had gone for a picnic with his family. At the picnic area, he heard echo of his voice, when
he had shouted towards the mountain. But he did not hear any echo when he had turned his
back to the mountain and shouted with the same voice level.
In this case, which inference of the followings can be made?
1. Sound is an energy.
2. Sound waves hit a hard surface and return to our ears.
3. Sound do not spread in the space.
4. Sound spread in waves.
• Osman prepares the following experimental setup by using two thermos bottles to test the
hypothesis of ‘Bright materials heat less by radiation because bright surfaces reflect the
light.’
Osman filled the thermos bottles with cold water and two hours later he measured the temper-
atures of water inside the bottles. He saw that the temperature of the water inside the mat
surfaced thermos bottle is higher.
To exhibit that the experiment supports the hypothesis, which one of the followings should
not be performed by Osman during the experiment?
1. Using same brand of thermos bottle.

2. Using water which is at the same temperature level for each thermos bottle.
3. One of the bottles should be left in direct sunlight and the other should be left in an
shadow area.
4. Temperatures should be measured with the same thermometer.
• Mesut prepares an experimental setup to test the hypothesis of ‘Melting time of an ice cube
thrown into a hot water will reduce if the water temperature is increased.’ Which measure-
ment should Mesut do to collect the data?
1. Measure the water temperature from the moment of throwing ice cubes.
2. Measure heat of the water in the containers with calorimeter before and after melting of
the ice.
3. Measure melting time of the ice cubes in the both containers with chronometer.
4. Measure the temperature of the water after ice–melting.
• Mehmet records following table as measuring dissolving time of his grandmother’s calcium
tablets in different temperatures of water.
Water Temperature(ºC) 40 50 60 70
Dissolving time(s) 45 40 35 30
Predict at which temperature, the water will dissolve a calcium tablet in 20 seconds.
A) 100 B) 90 C) 80 D) 75
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Gamze Tezcan: Gamze Tezcan graduated from the Elementary Science Education Undergraduate
Program in Middle East Technical University in 2008. She wrote her Master thesis on developing
a reliable and valid science process skills test and got her MA degree in 2011. She is a doctoral
student in the Educational Sciences Doctoral Program. She attended to the European Conference
on Educational Research and presented “How Much Green Are the Education Faculties”. In
addition, in 2010, she attended the International Educational Research Association Conference
and presented “Developing an Instrument to Assess the Nature of Science (NOS) Conception
of the Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University Fourth Grade Pre-service Science Teachers”.
Dr. Gürsoy Meriç: Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Turkey

The International Journal of Assessment and
Evaluation is one of ten thematically focused
journals in the family of journals that support The
Learner knowledge community—its journals, book
series, conference and online community. The
journal investigates the dimensions of educational
measurement. It is a section of The International
Journal of Learning.
As well as papers of a traditional scholarly type, this

journal invites presentations of practice—including
documentation of measurement practices and
exegeses of the effects of those practices.
The International Journal of Assessment and Evaluation

is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.
ISSN Pending
View publication stats

Developing A Science Process Skills Test Regarding The 6th Graders

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Developing A Science Process Skills Test Regarding The 6th Graders

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Developing a Science Process Skills Test Regarding the 6th Graders

Article in International Journal of Assessment and Evaluation · January 2013

Gamze Tezcan Gursoy Meric

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

science lab education View project

Science Process skills determination by grades View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

- Completeness: inclusion of all text, figures, illustrations, and tables

Examples of Chicago Manual of Style References

Listing in End-of-Article Reference List:

Article: Weinstein, Joshua I. 2009. “The Market in Plato’s Republic.” Classical

More information on Chicago Manual of Style can be found at

Order of the Paper:

Journal Standard Style:

In the case of multi-authored papers, authors are advised to collaborate when

Option 1: Accept Typeset Proof

To be selected when your paper is ready for publication

Option 2: Request Resubmission of Typeset Proof

To be selected when your paper requires corrections,

- Please thoroughly check the typeset proof

Documenting your Corrections (Option 2)

Changes to the Abstract

1. Name of the co-author

Page Number - paragraph number - line number - correction to be made

Option 2: Request Resubmission of Typeset Proof

The International Journal of

Developing a Science Process Skills

First published in 2013 in Champaign, Illinois, USA

ISSN: ISSN Pending

© 2013 (individual papers), the author(s)

The International Journal of Assessment and Evaluation is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.

Keywords: Science Process Skills, Science Achievement, Validity, Reliability

Science Process Skills

The International Journal of Assessment and Evaluation

Table 1: Subgroups and Skill of Science Process Skills (SPS)

Assessing Science Process Skills

• Which has done is the one aimed to be done?

variables operationally, experimenting, constructing models’. Moreover, the relationship between

Population and Sample

Schema 1: The Steps Followed During the Test Development Process

Determination of the Structure

Creation of the Draft Test Items

Content Validity Analysis (Expert Opinion)

• Determining and describing the content to be assessed,

The Pilot Application and the Subsequent Studies

VALIDITY Criterion Validity Correlation between the SPST–6 results end

The Final Application of SPST–6 and Subsequent Studies

Criterion Validity Studies

Analysis of Internal Consistency

Findings and Discussion

Table 3: The Results of Item Analysis

18. Lower Group 2 3 7 4 .563 .718

The Validity Analysis of SPST–6

TEST Number of Items N s Correlation

The Reliability Analysis of SPST–6 (Analysis of Internal Consistency)

• if it is between 0.0 and 0.4, the scale is not reliable,

• if it is between 0.6 and 0.8, the scale is reliable,

The Results Related to the Minor Aims

The Relationship between the SPST–6 Scores and Course Grades

90–100 44 26.41 4.62

Female 84 23.35 6.04 173 2.94 0.004

Multiple Comparisons for SPST–6 Scores among Mothers’ Education Level