Comparison of the reliability and validity of scores from two concept‐mapping techniques*

By Maria Araceli Ruiz-Primo, Susan E. Schultz, Min Li, R. Shavelson. 2001

333 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.

On the Validity of Cognitive Interpretations of Scores From Alternative Concept-Mapping Techniques (2001, methodology): “Because this study built on this earlier research (Ruiz-Primo et al., 2001) to provide a cognitive analysis bearing on validity claims, we next describe this earlier study in more detail than would normally be expected.”
Improving the usefulness of concept maps as a research tool for science education (2004, background): “Consequently, students merely ‘fill in the map’ (Shaka and Bitner 1996, Ruiz-Primo et al. 2001), which is indeed the strategy most frequently applied in research (McClure et al. 1999, Ruiz-Primo and Shavelson 1996).”
Comparison of Two Concept-Mapping Techniques: Implications for Scoring, Interpretation, and Use. (2005, methodology): “Ruiz-Primo and Shavelson (1996) raised questions about the reliability and validity of concept maps as assessment tools that have been explored by recent research (e.g., Kinchin, 2000; Klein, Chung, Osmundson, Herl, & O’Neil, 2001; McClure, Sonak, & Suen, 1999; Nicoll, Francisco, & Nakhleh, 2001;…”