The Challenge of Measuring Epistemic Beliefs: An Analysis of Three Self-Report Instruments

By T. Debacker, H. Crowson, Andrea D. Beesley, Stephen J. Thoma, Nita Hestevold. 2008

208 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

A Meta-Analytic Review of the Relationship Between Epistemic Cognition and Academic Achievement (2018, background): “Survey and self-report measures have been scrutinized due to poor reliability and construct validity (Clarebout, Elen, Luyten, & Bamps, 2001; DeBacker et al., 2008; Hofer & Sinatra, 2010; Mason, 2016).”
Understanding and Promoting Thinking About Knowledge (2016, background): “…have been criticized for their failure to replicate posited relations between items and proposed factors (Clarebout, Elen, Luyten, & Bamps, 2001; DeBacker et al., 2008) and for their reliance on response formats (i.e., Likert-type response scales) better suited for the measurement of attitudes…”
Expanding the Dimensions of Epistemic Cognition: Arguments From Philosophy and Psychology (2011, background): “In a study of three frequently used measures of epistemic beliefs, DeBacker, Crowson, Beesley, Thoma, and Nita ( 2008 ) concluded that there are substantial psychometric problems with these instruments, suggesting that there are problems with existing conceptualizations of the domain of personal epi”
Reconsidering Personal Epistemology as Metacognition: A Multifaceted Approach to the Analysis of Epistemic Thinking (2014, background): “This might contribute to the problematic factor structure of these questionnaires (DeBacker et al., 2008).”