Distance Education Attitudes (DEAS) During Covid-19 Crisis: Factor Structure, Reliability and Construct Validity of the
- PDF / 902,054 Bytes
- 19 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 60 Downloads / 168 Views
Distance Education Attitudes (DEAS) During Covid‑19 Crisis: Factor Structure, Reliability and Construct Validity of the Brief DEA Scale in Greek‑Speaking SEND Teachers Sotiria Tzivinikou1 · Garyfalia Charitaki2 · Dimitra Kagkara1 Accepted: 8 November 2020 © Springer Nature B.V. 2020
Abstract The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties (factor structure, reliability and construct validity) of the Brief Distance Education Attitudes (DEA) scale. Four hundred twenty-two SEND teachers filled out socio-demographic data forms and the DEAS. Factors were extracted by EFA (Principal Components Analysis) and confirmed by Analysis of Moment Structures. No floor-ceiling effects were observed. No significant differences of skewness and kurtosis were observed between the two Domains. All goodness of fit indices generated by CFA were found satisfactory (TLI = 0.962 > 0.95, RMSEA = .035 0.05
135 (32%) 287 (68%)
U = 87,453.4, p = 0.644 > 0.05
Gender Female Male Age 18–30 31–45 46–65 Educational level PhD Master Bachelor—Degree Computer certificate (Core): Yes No Computer certificate (Advanced) Yes No
13
13 .411 .006 − .418 .358 − .420 − .179 − .354 − .364 − .497 − .307 .365 .365
− .386 − .145 − .326 − 1.834 − 1.881 − .123 − .172 − .129 − .353 − .160 − .192 − .997 − .997
− .019 .292 .250 .394 .386 .283 .294 .303 .261 .251 .375 .368
.277
.693
3.09
2.19 2.54 3.60 1.41 2.91 2.76 3.23 2.96 3.15 2.90 2.60 2.75
DEAS.1
DEAS.2 DEAS.3 DEAS.4 DEAS.5 DEAS.6 DEAS.7 DEAS.8 DEAS.9 DEAS.10 Domain_1 Domain_2 DEAS_Total
.798 .750 .490 .493 .781 .721 .635 .788 .729 .744 .604 .674
Kolmogorov– Smirnov
Kurtosis
Std. Deviation
Mean
Skewness
Tests of Normality
Descriptive Statistics
Table 2 Descriptive statistics and univariate normality for DEAS
.847 .848 .621 .625 .842 .834 .776 .845 .814 .754 .826
.809
Shapiro–Wilk
.847 .848 .621 .625 .842 .834 .776 .845 .814 .754 .826
.809
Shapiro–Francia
63.82 75.73 64.45 23.12 63.45 83.23 71.83 43.81 42.67 44.92 43.67
74.94
Anderson–Darling
S. Tzivinikou et al.
− .496** .569** .363** − .296** .340** .573** .387** .538** .574**
1
1 − .490** − .428** .323** − .271** − .475** − .293** − .395** − .440**
DEAS.2
1 .280** − .242** .322** .695** .263** .541** .518**
DEAS.3
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
DEAS.2 DEAS.3 DEAS.4 DEAS.5 DEAS.6 DEAS.7 DEAS.8 DEAS.9 DEAS.10
DEAS.1
DEAS.1
Table 3 Correlation analysis of DEAS items
1 − .391** .259** .328** .339** .264** .300**
DEAS.4
1 − .254** − .303** − .302** − .285** − .317**
DEAS.5
1 .415** .232** .353** .294**
DEAS.6
1 .310** .584** .565**
DEAS.7
1 .371** .355**
DEAS.8
1 .640**
DEAS.9
1
DEAS.10
Distance Education Attitudes (DEAS) During Covid‑19 Crisis:…
13
S. Tzivinikou et al.
8 Factor Analysis 8.1 Data Screening Data screening identified no univariate outliers. Exploratory Factor Analysis requires a minimum amount of n = 150 data, estimating 15 questionnaires per questionnaire item. Consequently, our sample size, including n = 422 que
Data Loading...
