SCIENCE EDUCATION

ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS

Designing the Nuclear Energy

Attitude Scale

LAWRENCE CALHOUN
Slippery Rock University, Slippery Rock, PA I6057

ROBERT L. SHRIGLEY
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA I6802

DENNIS E. SHOWERS
State University College at Geneseo, Geneseo, New York

Introduction

In her review of attitude measurement, Blosser (1984) paints a rather

bleak picture of instrument design in science education. Reviewing Gardner
( 1 9 7 9 , Munby (1983), and others, Blosser’s paper identifies measurement
weaknesses: 1) lack of reliability and validity data, 2) inclusion of cognitive
statements that better represent the scientific attitude, 3) double-barreled
and ambiguous statements, and 4) lack of a concise definition of the attitude
object. Summarizing attitude research as “unrelieved gloom,” Schibeci
( 1984) advises journal editors to better scrutinize instrument reliability and
validity. Blosser’s review implies a need for a well defined procedure for
designing attitude scales. The purpose of this study was to refine a procedure
developed by Abdel-Gaid, Trueblood, & Shrigley (1986) and then use it to
design a Likert-type nuclear energy attitude scale.
To date, little research has been done on nuclear attitudes held by Ameri-
cans. Most of the research has been based on public opinion polls. Fur-
thermore, results from studies done before the Three Mile Island accident
are questionable in light of its effect on public attitudes (Nealey, Melber, &
Rankin, 1983).
Nuclear attitudes are central t o national and world events and therefore
they are important to science educators. Shaw and Wright (1967) encourage
improvement of existent scales. However, when examining the literature and
sources listed below, no suitable nuclear scale was located : The Psychological
Corporation, Scholastic Testing Service, Inc., American Guidance Service,
Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., Tests in Print and the Educational Test-
ing Service. Crater’s (1972) Attitude Toward Radioactivity Scale was consid-
ered and rejected because more than one attitude object was represented.

Science Education 72(2): 157-174 (1988)

0 1988 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0036-8326/88/020157-08$04.00
158 CALHOUN, SHRIGLEY, AND SHOWERS

Newcomb's (1986) scale, reported in the literature after this scale was devel-
oped, has similar problems.
Nuclear energy is an attitude object with emotional intensity that can be
effectively quantified by the Likert technique. The use of such an instru-
ment to test treatment effects, such as a persuasive communication delivered
by a credible source, seemed t o be worthy of the effort required to design
the scale. A long form of the scale would encourage paper-and-pencil testing
of large and diverse groups of subjects. Where time was limited, a short form
of the scale could be useful in telephone surveys at polling booths in shop-
ping malls or as a clip-out, mail-in questionnaire printed in local newspapers.
An all-pervasive purpose of the study addresses a concern of many science
educators: a greater inclusion of the affective realm within science classroom
teaching. The majority of students will not enter science as a career, but they
will vote on scientific and technological issues. Therefore, a greater emphasis
on attitude research toward such controversial issues as nuclear power plants
is in order. The beginning point for teaching and testing attitudes is the
development of a procedure for designing valid attitude measurement scales.
The ultimate purpose of this study was to design a valid and reliable
Likert-type scale to test attitudes toward the generation of electricity from
nuclear energy. More specifically, the steps of this study were the following:

(1) Fine-tune the criteria generated by Abdel-Gaid et al. (1986) and estab-
lish a sequence of tests leading t o the design of valid Likert scales.
(2) Generate a pool of 100 trial attitude statements, administer them to a
small sample, select a smaller and more manageable pool of items, and
resubmit them to a larger and more diverse sample.
( 3 ) Apply the tests generated in (l), select two sets of items, a long form
for standard research and a short one t o use where time is a constraint.

Step I : Defining the Attitude Object and Writing Trial Statements

Defining the attitude object and identifying its subconcepts was the first
step in dtsigning the nuclear energy scale. A list of concepts and beliefs that
might be held by citizens regarding nuclear power was categorized into seven
subcomponents. Five judges evaluated the subcomponents: the nuclear
energy department head at a large state university, a senior reactor operator,
an energy education consultant at a large state university, a high school
teacher of social studies, and the manager of Educational Services of the
Atomic Industrial Forum.

The seven subcomponents were:

1) Radiation
2) Safety
3 ) Relative risks of other forms of energy
4) Societal benefits
 NUCLEAR ENERGY ATTITUDE SCALE 159

5) Individuals working in the nuclear industry

6) Future role in the U.S.
7) Future international development of nuclear energy

Later in the process, Subcomponents 4 and 5 seemed so closely related that

they were combined.
To better define and delimit the content of the attitude object, each of
the six subcomponents was accompanied by a belief statement, an attitude
statement and a set of representative issues and sent to a second five member
jury. Thus, each judge made 18 evaluations concerning the authenticity, rep-
resentativeness and completeness of the six subcomponents. Ninety-seven
percent of the decisions made by the judges supported the subcomponents as
valid for the attitude object under investigation. The second panel of judges
included a professor and author of reports on nuclear energy, the manager of
external affairs of the U. S. Department of Energy’s Office for Nuclear
Energy, a researcher from the Battelle Human Affairs Research Center, the
chairman of the American Nuclear Society’s Public Policy Committee, and
the nuclear information coordinator of a western utility company.
Using Edwards’ (1 957) guidelines, the third author, an educational con-
sultant in a university engineering department, wrote 100 trial statements
representing all six subcomponents.

Step I I : The Pilot Study

Forty-one high school juniors and seniors, representing rural and suburban
schools in Pennsylvania, responded to the 100 trial statements. Subjects were
tested by their teachers and data were analyzed by Likert’s method, using
Kohr’s (1973) LIKERT computer program.
Using the criteria listed below, 27 of the 100 trial statements seemed
acceptable:

1) An adjusted item-total correlation above 0.30.

2) Each of the six subcomponents represented by at least three state-
ments.
3) An equal mix of negative and positive statements.

With an orignal goal of six trial statements for each subcomponent of the
attitude object, nine new statements were written to represent subcornpo-
nents that lacked statements.

Step I I I : Testing the Attitude Statements

The pool of 36 items was readministered to a total of 873 subjects that

represented the populations shown in Table I. Selecting 20 of the more valid
160 CALHOUN, SHRIGLEY, AND SHOWERS

TABLE I

-
Groups Responding to the Pool of 36 Items.

Living within 20 miles of a nuclear Plumber o f Subjects

plant
A 112
HIGH
B 68
C 74
D 206
SCHOOL
E 92

Living 100 miles or farther from a

Plant
STUDENTS F
G

COLLEGE *Nuclear Engineering students H 44

STUDENTS Preservice teachers I 86

ADULTS Citizens action group J 25

TOTAL 873

*We have only the d a t a when subjects responded t o 36 t r i a l statements;

d a t a on 20 and six item scales were inadvertently erased,

items involved the use of eight tests generated from the work of Abdel-Gaid
and her colleagues (1 986) (See Table 11). Four tests involved the selection of
items, and four additional tests sought reliability and validity data on the 20
items as a scale.

Test I : Item-Total Correlation.

A more valid item is one where a subject’s response correlates positively

with that subject’s total score on a scale. A high r-value on an attitude item,
adjusted by the Henrysson (1963) formula, was one of the major tests for
selection. On the nuclear scale the item-total correlation r-values of the 20
items ranged from 0.46 to 0.80. (See Tables I1 and 111.)
 NUCLEAR ENERGY ATTITUDE SCALE 161

TABLE I1
Selecting andverifying the 20 Items for the Long Form (N=829).
’Test Purpose Results on Nuclear A t t i t u d e Scale

1. I t e m - t o t a l A t e s t f o r selecting 1; Range o f r-values: 0.46 t o 0.80

correlation more d i s c r i m i n a t e and 2. Mean o f r-values: 0.64
(adj. 1 r e l i a b l e a t t i t u d e items

2 . Evaluative A t e s t o f the emotion- 1. Range o f n e u t r a l response: 19% t o

quality a l i n t e n s i t y o f an 41%
item. 2. Range o f mean scores: 2.37 t o 3.87
3. Range o f standard d e v i a t i o n : 0.93
t o 1.23.

3. S t r a t a A t e s t o f content Stratum 1 = 2 items

representation v a l i d i t y : items should 2 = 4 items
represent a l l known 3 = 2 ftems
dimensions o f an 4 = 3 items
an a t t i t u d e object. 5 = 5 items
6 = 4 items

4. Negative-positive A hedge against r e - 1. 9 negative

balance sponse bias on p a r t 2 . 1 1 positive
o f respondents.

5. I n t e r i t e m A t e s t confirming 1. Range o f r-values: 0.15 t o 0.73

correlation i n t e r n a l consistency 2 . Mean o f r-values: 0.41
o f a pool o f items.

6. C o e f f i c i e n t A t e s t confirming r - v a l u e o f 0.93
a1 pha homogeniety o f a pool
of iterns.

7. Factor a n a l y s i s A t e s t confirming 15 o f 20 items c l u s t e r on two f a c t o r s

content v a l i d i t y o f a
pool o f items.

8. Known group Tests confirming 1. Males scored higher than females

technique construct v a l i d i t y o f 2. Subjects close t o a nuclear
a pool o f items. power p l a n t scored lower than
those f a r t h e r away
3. Nuclear engineering students
scored higher than a n t l -
nuclear c f t i z e n s ’ a c t i o n group
4. Number o f science courses
completed: mixed r e s u l t s .

Test 2: Evaluative Quality

Evaluative quality is the heartbeat of the attitude construct. Therefore, a

valid attitude scale should have items that measure this attribute. (See Tables
I1 and 111). Unlike ability or achievement testing where scoring is undirec-
tional from “none” to “much,” attitude testing must be bipolar, i.e., from
“like” to “neutral” to “dislike,” (Thorndike, 1982).
TABLE 111 w
The 20-Item Scale (N=829: Coefficient alpha=0.93)
Adj.
Fr
I
Item 0
C
Sub- Total Neutral
Item Pos./Neg. component r X S.D. Percent v)
I
* 1. Oil is better than nuclear power for making 0.58 3.10 1.03 41
electricity. **0.51 r
rn
2. Nuclear power produces electricity which 0.54 3.87 0.93 19 -<
is a useful and valuable form of energy. P0
3. The use of nuclear power should be increased to 0.77 2.98
meet energy needs in the United States.
4. Radiation from nuclear plants is worse than 0.46 3.00
chemical pollution, even if they both cause the
same number of deaths.
5. Nuclear energy is beneficial to the American way 0.72 3.20 1.05 32
of life.
* 6 Worldwide use of nuclear energy should be 0.74 2.92 1.16 27
decreased. **0.66
* 7 The use of nuclear power should grow in the 0.80 2.83 1.15 29
United States. **0.72
* 8 I would live near a nuclear power plant. 0.64 2.37 1.23 26
**0.55
9. Our society can prosper without nuclear power 0.62 2.61 1.10 26
plants.
 10. It is better to use nuclear power than oil for t 3 0.68 2.91 1.02 40
electricity.
11. Nuclear power use should be increased world- 6 0.79 2.85 1.14 30
wide to meet energy needs.
12. Using electricity produced from nuclear power 5 0.77 3.26 1.07 30
plants should continue in the United States.
*13. The public blows fear of radiation out of 1 0.6 1 3.18 1.22 23
proportion. **0.53
* 14. Nuclear energy is harmful to the American way 4 0.72 2.96 1.13 29
of life. **0.65
15. Nuclear power should be stopped in the United 5 0.75 3.26 1.17 31
States. z
C
0
16, TMI proved that nuclear power plants cannot 0.63 3.09 1.08 35 I-
rn
be safely operated. D
XI
17. I would be afraid to live near a nuclear power 0.66 2.53 1.23 24 rn
z
plant. rn
n
G)
18. World supplies of oil could be saved by more 6 0.54 3.48 0.96 33
international use of nuclear energy.
19. Poor countries need nuclear energy so that 6 0.57 3.16 1.oo 36
they do not use up their limited resources.
20. Safety assessment has proved that nuclear 2 0.60 3.08 1.03 39 v)
0
energy is unsafe.
?rn
"Statements on six item, short form of the attitude scale. The coefficient alpha for the short form was 0.82.
4
**The adjusted item-total correlation for statement on the short form. Q)
w
164 CALHOUN, SHRIGLEY, AND SHOWERS

Shrigley and Koballa ( 1984) proposed a means of operationalizing evalua-

tive quality. Not only should attitude items be non-factual, but subjects
more favorable toward the attitude object should respond “agree” or “strong-
ly agree” to a positively-worded statement. The opposite is expected of
subjects with an unfavorable attitude. At the same time, a low percentage of
neutral responses to an item can suggest evaluative quality.
Evaluative quality can be observed in the frequency distribution of data
on each of Likert’s five points (strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree,
and strongly disagree) generated by each statement on a scale. The distribu-
tion should be U-shaped and bimodal. The following rules of thumb can be
used:

I ) Mean score in the range from 2.5 to 3.5

2) Standard deviation around 1.O
3) An undecided percent of 25 or lower.

The 20 items selected for this scale generated mean scores ranging from
2.37 to 3.87; two statements were outside the range of means. The range of
standard deviations was 0.93 to 1.23. With a range from 19% to 4176, several
of the items generated neutral responses above the suggested minimum of
2 5%.
Thirty or forty percent of undecided responses is a yellow flag - not a red
one. An intervention that modifies attitudes could swing neutral responses t o
the right and left of center. In other words, one might expect a higher per-
cent of neutral responses on pretests than tests following treatment. A
Chernobyl incident or the inclusion of data from a more heterogenous popu-
lation, e.g., including antinuclear groups, could also lower the number of
neutral responses. Although future data on neutral responses generated by
this scale should be monitored, we suggest that the 20 items are adequately
evaluative.

Test 3: Universe Represented

All six subcomponents of the attitude object are represented. The number
of items representing the subcomponents ranged from two t o five.

Test 4:Negative-Positive Balance

Nunnally (1978) and Oppenheim (1966) recommend that a Likert atti-

tude scale consist of about half negative and half positive items. Statements
representing both poles are a hedge against a response set on the part of
respondents. The scale, having nine negative and eleven positive statements,
meets this requirement.
 NUCLEAR ENERGY ATTITUDE SCALE 165

Step I V : Testing the Validity and Reliability of the Scale

Test 5: lnteritem Correlation

Retaining items with a common attribute is important in the validation

process. Item-total correlation followed by interitem correlation are meas-
ures that test homogeniety. Green et al. (1977) demonstrate that item-total
correlations can be high yet a pool of items can be heterogeneous. Lemke
and Wierswa (1976) claim that content validity can be achieved with a pool
of items having low item-total correlations. Therefore, Scott (1960) suggests
that a pool of items with positive interitem correlations throughout is the
best test for homogeniety. All interitem correlations on the 20 items were
positive with r-values ranging from 0.15 to 0.73.

Test 6: Coefficient Alpha

Test-retest, split-half, and equivalent forms are common tests for the
internal consistency of an attitude scale. With the limitations of the three
techniques as cited by Bohrnstedt (1970) and Cronbach (195 l), the investi-
gators followed Crano and Brewer’s (1973) advice and used the coefficient
alpha to test internal consistency of the nuclear scale. The split-half correla-
tion technique taken to its logical extreme, Cronbach’s alpha assumes each
item on a scale to be a subtest. An average intercorrelation of the 20 sub-
tests-one for each item-was completed. The scale generated a coefficient
alpha of 0.93, well. above a minimum of 0.80 recommended by Crano and
Brewer .

Test 7: Factor Analysis

Converging the interitem correlation matrix into two, three or more clus-
ters, factor analysis serves as a psychometric tool for testing the judgments
made earlier by the jury. Warned that one can easily attribute reality to a
nonexistent factor (Kerlinger, 1965)’ we approached the interpretation of
factor analysis data with caution. The primary purpose for generating six
original subcomponents of nuclear attitudes was to adequately sample the
universe of items that exist under our attitude object. But it also seemed
prudent to analyze the data using a six factor format.
A principal components analysis was used to extract factors that might
account for the variance by the subjects. Our N of 829 subjects was well
beyond the minimum of 10 subjects per variable -in this case 20 statements
-a practice recommended by Nunnally (1978). Table IV shows the eigen-
values and the percent of variance generated by the responses of 829 sub-
jects. The six factors accounted for 67.84% of the variance. The varimax
166 CALHOUN, SHRIGLEY, AND SHOWERS

TABLE IV
Eigenvalue and Percent of Variance for the First Six Factors

Factor Number Eigenvalue Percent of Variance

1 8.60 42.63
2 1.35 6.80
49.43 Total for two-factor analysis

3 1.09 5.44
4 0.99 4.99
59.86 Total for four-factor analysis

5 0.83 4.16
6 0.76 3.82
67.84 Total for six-factor analysis

rotation procedure was chosen because of Comrey’s (1 973) advice that it has
high utility with factors that are orthogonally rotated. Table V shows the
results of the six factor rotation. T o be assigned t o a factor, we chose the
following parameters: items had to correlate with an r-value of 0.50 or
greater with that factor and 0.40 or less with the five other factors, i.e.,
Comrey’s ( 1973) factorial validity test in which absolute values are utilized.
Items 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 1 1, and 12 clustered on Factor 1. (See Table I11 for a
listing of the statements.) The seven items represented not one but four of
the original attitude subcomponents. However, usefulness of nuclear energy
weaves its way throughout the wording of the seven statements. Factor
analysis should probably not be expected t o differentiate such subtle shades
of meaning within a test having six components. Also, the interrelatedness
of the seven items under the rubric of usefulness of nuclear energy suggests
some degree of validity for Factor 1.
Items 14, 15, 16, and 20 clustered under Factor 11. The four items repre-
sented three of the original subcomponents. Here again, a close examination
of the statements reveals safety as the common element. Safety was one of
the original subcomponents and two of the four safety items on the scale
clustered here.
Item 8, another safety statement, factored out under Factor 111. Item 18
factored out under Factor IV, a statement originally written to represent
international use of nuclear energy. Factor V is represented by one item,
No. 4, a statement originally written to represent radiation. Factor VI has
one statement, representing domestic use of nucIear energy. In summary,
15 of the 20 items reached criterion; five did not, and therefore, are not
clearly interpretable by this data.
We rotated six factors in the original analysis. However, there were other
choices. Kim and Mueller (1978) suggest the use of a minimum eigenvalue of
TABLE V
A Varimax Rotation With Six,Four. and Two Factors (N=829)
Two-Fac tor
Item Original Six-Factor Analysis Four-Factor Analysis Analysis
No. Subcomponents I 11 I11 IV V VI I I1 I11 IV 1 I1

1 Relative risks (3) -.47 .27 -.08 .05 .48 .25 .01 .37 -.62
- .06 -.35 .41
2 Future
(domestic (5) .25 -.15 -.03 .12 .10 -.82
- -.20 -.24 .56
- .3 1 .54
- - .20
3 Future
(domestic) (5) .71
I
-.21 -.36 .18 .02 -.14 .44 -.15 .63 .27 -.69 -.39
4 Radiation (1) - .08 .15 .24 -.11 .86
- .04 -.23 .46 -.24 .12 - .08 .56
5 Societal benefits (4) .4 9 -.27 -.18 .25 .02 - .42 .15 - .25 .58
- .39 .6 7
- -.33
6 Future
(international) (6) - .60
- .3 9 .14 -.02 .22 .23 -.21 .40 -.63 - .09 -.51 .55
7 Future
(domestic) (5) .70
- -.20 -.35 .22 -.01 -.21 .43 -.15 .65 .32 ~
.74 -.38
8 Safety (2) .33 -.12 -3 -.02 -.16 -.11 .I6 -.22 .27 .03 .33 - .55
~

9 Societal benefits (2) .66

-- .39 -.lo -.lo .20 -.I1 -.13 .32 -.58
- -.06 - .44 .44
10 Relative risks (3) .6 1
- -.11 -.22 .20 -.18 -.13 .34 -.11 -.58 .21 .6 1
- -.31
11 Future
(international) (6) .75
- -.16 -.30 .19 - .04 - .20 .42 -.11 .70 .28 .75 - .36
TABLE V (continued)
A Varimax Rotation With Six. Four. and Two Factors (N=829)
Two-Factor
Item Original Six-Factor Analysis Four-Factor Analysis Analysis
No. Subcomponents I I1 I11 IV V VI 1 11 111 IV 1 11
12 Future
(domestic) (5) .55
- -.26 -.24 .26 -.08 -.31 .26 -.21 -
.60 .35 .68 -.41
13 Radiation (1) .20 -.25 -.52 .42 -.01 -.04 .53 -.21 .09 .44 .43 -.38
14 Societal benefits (4) - .29 .6 7
- .23 -.13 .06 .22 -.21 -
.64 -.37 -.24 -.36 -
.61
15 Future
(domestic) (5) -.38 -
.6 0 .I3 -.17 .15 .28 -.14 .59 -.46 -.25 - .45 .6 2
16 Safety (2) -.14 -
.I2 .07 -.25 .17 .09 -.09 -
,73 -.I6 -.27 -.22 -
.66
11 Safety (2) -.20 .4 9 .61 -.04 .22 -.05 -.62 .55 -.13 -.06 -.I8 -
.14
18 Future
(international) (6) .08 -.I9 -.07 -
.I4 -.04 -.32 .01 -.19 .15 -
.78 .60 -.07
19 Future
(international) (6) .43 -.05 -.02 .73 -.08 .Ol .20 -.01 .31 -
.6 5 .69 -.03
20 Safety (2) -.18 -
.73 .18 .01 .03 .05 -.15 -
.68 -.19 -.09 -.14 .68
Items Reaching
Criterion 15 13 14
 NUCLEAR ENERGY ATTITUDE SCALE 169

8
7

m 6
al
7
Fi

; 5
C
al
M
$ 4

3
L

1 2 3 4 5 6
F a c t o r Number
Figure 1. The Scree Test

1.0 as a criterion for choosing the number of factors to rotate. In this case,
we have the choice of a four factor rotation, a choice that would have ac-
counted for 59.86% of the variance (See Table IV). The scree test suggests
that we choose the number of variables to rotate by graphing the eigenvalues
(Cattell, 1965). As shown in Figure 1, the diagonal-to-horizontal shift of our
data occurs at the second factor, suggesting that we rotate only two factors.
The percent of variance accounted for in this case would be 49.43.
The results of the two and four factor analysis are shown in Table IV. The
former accounted for 14 items; the latter, 13. A detailed analysis will not be
described here, but it is important to note that the same two elements, use-
fulness of nuclear energy and its safety, seem to influence the grouping of
statements. In the two factor analysis, Factor 1 consisted of positively-
worded statements and all but one of the negatively-worded statements clus-
tered under Factor 11. Clustering here may be due to statement polarity-a
rather trivial criterion.
In summary, the juries’ subcomponents were too narrow in scope to be
supported by factor analysis. Clusters resulting from factor analyses were
broad in scope: usefulness and safety. The three rotations suggest that 13,
14 or 15 of the items represent a fair share of the variance in one broad
170 CALHOUN, SHRIGLEY, AND SHOWERS

domain - presumably the attitude toward the generation of electricity using

nuclear energy. However, Nunnally (1978) writes that “. . . validation is an
unending process” (p. 87), one that requires continued surveillance. We
recommend that other researchers using the scale observe closely the stabil-
ity of factor analysis data generated by other subjects who take the scale.

Test 8: Known-Groups Technique

Testing the validity of the construct, in this case, nuclear attitudes, is a

matter of generating hypotheses describing expected behavior of the scale
and then testing those hypotheses. The known groups technique is one pro-
cedure for testing construct validity. For example, across age groups and
across cultures, females score consistently lower on science-related attitude
scales than males (Schibeci, 1984). Assuming that a nuclear attitude scale
could be classified as science-related, a lower mean score generated by
females than males would suggest that a science attitude scale is behaving as
expected. Data generated by 328 males (x
= 65.42) and 420 females = (x
56.30) when submitted to an analysis of variance, resulted in a statistically
significant F-ratio of 86.20, significant (p < 0.05). The scale behaved as pre-
dicted with females generating a significantly lower mean score than males.
(Calhoun and Shrigley, 1986).
We tested the construct further by submitting the scale to subjects in two
other contrasting groups: secondary school students living less than 20 miles
from a nuclear power plant and those living 100 or more miles from a
nuclear plant. It seemed reasonable to assume that the negative media
reports (Cohen & Lichter, 1983) would influence the nuclear attlitude scores
of nearby subjects more negatively than subjects living farther away.
Data were generated by 440 subjects living within 20 miles (X = 61.4 1)
and 166 subjects living 100 miles or more (X = 65.78) from a nuclear power
plant. When submitted to an analysis of variance, the result was a significant
F-ratio of 10.69 (p < 0.05). The scale behaved as predicted with proximity
to a nuclear power plant affecting data generated by thescale.
Data generated by 44 nuclear engineering students (X = 149.91 * and the
anti-nuclear citizens’ group (fz = 77.58), when submitted to a t-test, genera-
ted a significantly different t-score (t = 24. l l , p < 0.05). Higher scores for
nuclear engineering students than anti-nuclear citizens suggests that the scale
is measuring the construct of nuclear attitudes.

* A t this point in the study, the scale consisted of 36 trial items. Therefore, the mean scores were
affected accordingly. Data for the 20-item scale for the nuclear engineering students were inadvertent-
ly erased. However, the correlation of the 36 and 20 item pools generated an r-value of 0.98 -suggest-
ing a high degree of relatedness and providing some justification for including these data as a part of
the validation procedure.
 NUCLEAR ENERGY ATTITUDE SCALE 171

Step V: Selecting Items for a Short Form

Four criteria were used for selecting six statements from the 20-item
form :

1) Each of the six subcomponents should be represented.

2) An equal mix of three positive and three negative items was necessary.
3) A high adjusted item-total correlation coefficient.
4) Evaluative quality.
Applying the four criteria cited above, the investigators arbitrarily began
with Subcomponent 1 and selected the best item. Thusly, an item was
chosen for all subcomponents.
The data generated by the six items on the short form are noted by a foot-
note on Table 111. The coefficient alpha was 0.82, rather high for a six-item
attitude scale. The interitem correlations were positive and ranged from 0.23
to 0.69. The adjusted item-total correlations ranged from 0.5 1 to 0.72. And
finally, the correlation of the long and short forms generated an r-value of
0.95, suggesting a high degree of relatedness between the two forms. Such
data suggest that the short form is valid for use in attitude research.

Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations

Table I1 summarizes the eight tests for selecting Likert statements for a
scale. The 20-item pool seems to represent one domain: attitudes toward
the use of nuclear energy to generate electricity. Factor analysis did not
support the six subcomponents, but two logical subcomponents, usefulness
and safety, did factor from the data.
The distribution of data on each of the 20 items suggests that the items
have evaluative quality. The scale is reliable and homogenous as indicated by
1) a coefficient alpha of 0.93, 2) positive interitem correlations ranging from
0.15 to 0.73, and 3) adjusted item-total correlations ranging from 0.46 to
0.80.
The scale passed three more validity tests: 1) Subjects living farther from
nuclear power plants generated more positive mean scores than those living
closer, 2) nuclear engineering students scored higher than subjects in an
anti-nuclear citizens’ action group and 3) males scored higher than females.
The six items of the short form were drawn from the 20-item pool. There-
fore, some of its tests for validation are embedded within the long form.
The short form represents the six subcomponents of nuclear attitudes. It has
a coefficient alpha of 0.82, positive interitem correlations ranging from 0.23
to 0.69, and adjusted item-total correlations ranging from 0.51 to 0.72.
The eight tests used in this model fine-tuned the model of Abdel-Gaid and
her colleagues (1 986) by adding a jury of judges to better define the attitude
object. Unidimensionality was explored and used in the Abdel-Gaid study; at
172 CALHOUN, SHRIGLEY, AND SHOWERS

the same time it was questioned. With multidimensionality now playing an

increasingly prominent role in defining the attitude object (Aiken, 1980),
sorting out a strong single dimension played only an indirect role in the eight
tests used in this study. To test construct validity, we used the known-groups
technique; Abdel-Gaid used divergent and convergent validity. All three tests
are recommended. Researchers choosing the latter tests could correlate data
generated by the nuclear scale and Crater’s (1 972) radioactivity scale with a
reasonably high r-value expected. Also, data generated by the Askov-True-
blood Reading Attitude Scale (see Weidler & Askov, 1983), for example,
could be correlated with the nuclear scale with a negligible, if not zero, rela-
tionship predicted.
This attitude scale was designed t o test the attitudes of adults toward the
generation of electrical power with nuclear energy. It is not designed to
measure attitudes toward nuclear proliferation, the use of radioactive iso-
topes in medicine and the like. The scale could probably be used with other
groups of adults, and even junior high school students, but our data were
generated primarily by senior high school and college students in Pennsyl-
vania. A Likert scale of this type can be used to compare group means or to
generate r-values. Likert scales should not be used to test and diagnose the
attitudes of individuals.
As a part of a battery of tests, the short form was used by Showers (1986)
t o test treatment effects of high school students who were exposed to a
videotaped persuasion on the use of nuclear energy to generate electricity.
There were significant differences between the mean scores of experimental
and control groups o r both the posttest and retention test. The results were
predicted by persuasion theory - a finding that further supports construct
validity for the scale. In this study, the six-item version of the scale genera-
ted a coefficient alpha of 0.8 l ,
Subjects must be encouraged to be frank and honest as they respond to
attitude scales. (Thorndike, 1982). Anonymity, therefore, is important. For
adult respondents the latter three or four digits of the social security number
is commonly used. With the SSN as available to college researchers as a
student’s name, we recommend the use of the last four digits of a student’s
home telephone number as a more anonymous form of identification.
And finally, the directions for scoring our five choice scale are illustrated
below.

Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Disagree
Negative
statements 1 pt. 2 3 4 5

Positive
statements 5 pts. 4 3 2 1
 N U C L E A R ENERGY ATTITUDE SCALE 173

References

Abdel-Gaid, S.. Trueblood, C. R. & Shrigley. R. L. (1986). A systematic procedure for

constructing a valid microcomputer attitude scale. Journal o f Research in Science
Teaching, 23, 823-839.
Aiken. L. R. (1980). Attitude measurement and research. In D. A. Payne (Ed.). Recent
developments in affective measurement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Blosser, P. E. (1984). Attitude research in science education. Columbus, Ohio: ERIC
Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Enivronmental Education.
Bohrnstedt. G. W. (1970). Reliability and validity assessment in attitude measurement. In
G. F. Summers (Ed.), Artitude Measurement. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Calhoun, L. & Shrigley, R. L. (1986). Nuclear attitudes of students in Pennsylvania.
School Science and Mathematics, 86, 635-639.
Cattell. R. B. The scientific analysis of personality. (1965) New York: Penquin Books.
Cohen. R. L. & Lichter, S. R. (1983). Nuclear power: The decision-makers speak. AEI
Journal on Government and Society, p. 34-37.
Comrey, A. L. (1973). A first course in factor analysis. New York: Academic Press.
Crano, W. D. & Brewer. M. B. (1973). Principles of research in social psychology. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Crater, H. L. (1972). The identification of factors influencing college students’ attitudes
toward radioactivity. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Texas at Austin. University
Microfilms International.
Cronbach. L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psycho-
metrika, 16, 297-334.
Edwards. A. L. (1957). Techniques of attitude scale construction. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts.
Gardner, P. L. (1975). Attitudes to science: A review. Studies in Science Education, 2,
1-41.
Green, S . M.. Lissitz, R. W., & Mulaik, S. A. (1977). Limitations of coefficient alpha as
an index of text unidimensionality. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 3 7,
827-838.
Henrysson, S. (1968). Correction of item-total correlations in item analysis. Psychomet-
rika, 28, 211-218.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1965). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Kim, J. O., & Mueller, C. W. (1978). Factor analysis statistical methods and practical
issues. Sage University papers on quantitative application in the social sciences. Bever-
ly Hills and London: Sage Publications.
Kohr. R. L. (1973). Likert attitude scale analysis computer program. The Pennsylvania
State University.
Lemke, E. and Wierswa. W. (1976). Principles of psychological measurement. Boston:
Houghton, Mifflin.
Munby. H. (1984). Thirty studies involving the ‘Scientific Attitude Inventory’: What
confidence can we have in this instrument? Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
20, 141-162.
Nealey, S. M., Melber. B. D.. & Rankin, W. L. (1983). Public Opinion andNucIearEn-
ergy. Lexington Books, D. C. Heath and Co. Lexington. MA.
Newcomb. M. D. (1986). Nuclear attitudes and reactions: Associations with depression.
drug use and quality of life. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 906-
920.
174 CALHOUN, SHRIGLEY, AND SHOWERS

Nunnally, J. C . (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Oppenheim, A. N. (1966). Qziestionnaire design and attitude measurement. New York:
Basic Books.
Schibeci, R. A. (1984). Attitudes to science: An update. Studies in Science Education,
11, 26-59.
Scott, W. A. (1960). Measure of test homogeneity. Educational and PsychologicalMeas
urement, 20, 75 1-757.
Shaw, M. E. & Wright, J. M. (1967). Scales for measurement of attitudes. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Showers, D. E. (1986). The study of the effects of informational and persuasive messages
on the attitudes of high school students toward the use of nuclear energy for electrical
production. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA.
Shrigley, R. L. & Koballa, T. R., Jr. (1984). Attitude measurement: Judging the emo-
tional intensity of Likert-type science attitude statements. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 21, 11 1-1 18.
Thorndike, R. L. (1982). Applies psychometrics. Bostons: Houghton-Mifflin.
Weidler, S. D. & Askov, E. N. (1983). An investigation of preservice teachers’ attitudes
toward reading. Presentation at the annual conference of the American Reading
Forum, Sarasota, Florida.

Accepted for publication 8 October 1987