Skip to main content

Knowledge Integration Framework Rubric

OVERVIEW
Overview
Listed below is general information about the instrument.
Summary
Original author(s)

  • Liu, O.L., Lee, H.-S., Hofstetter, C., & Linn, M.C.
Original publication

  • Liu, O.L., Lee, H.-S., Hofstetter, C., & Linn, M.C. (2008). Assessing knowledge integration in science: Construct, measures, and evidence. Educational Assessment, 13(1), 33-55.
Year original instrument was published 2008
Inventory
Number of items 0
Number of versions/translations 1
Cited implementations 2
Language
  • English
Country United States
Format
  • Rubric
Intended population(s)
  • Students
  • Middle School
  • High School
  • Undergraduate
Domain
  • Cognitive
Topic
  • Knowledge Integration
Evidence
The CHIRAL team carefully combs through every reference that cites this instrument and pulls all evidence that relates to the instruments’ validity and reliability. These data are presented in the following table that simply notes the presence or absence of evidence related to that concept, but does not indicate the quality of that evidence. Similarly, if evidence is lacking, that does not necessarily mean the instrument is “less valid,” just that it wasn’t presented in literature. Learn more about this process by viewing the CHIRAL Process and consult the instrument’s Review (next tab), if available, for better insights into the usability of this instrument.

Information in the table is given in four different categories:
  1. General - information about how each article used the instrument:
    • Original development paper - indicates whether in which paper(s) the instrument was developed initially
    • Uses the instrument in data collection - indicates whether an article administered the instrument and collected responses
    • Modified version of existing instrument - indicates whether an article has modified a prior version of this instrument
    • Evaluation of existing instrument - indicates whether an article explicitly provides evidence that attempt to evaluate the performance of the instrument; lack of a checkmark here implies an article that administered the instrument but did not evaluate the instrument itself
  2. Reliability - information about the evidence presented to establish reliability of data generated by the instrument; please see the Glossary for term definitions
  3. Validity - information about the evidence presented to establish reliability of data generated by the instrument; please see the Glossary for term definitions
  4. Other Information - information that may or may not directly relate to the evidence for validity and reliability, but are commonly reported when evaluating instruments; please see the Glossary for term definitions
Publications: 1 2

General
Original development paper ✔
Uses the instrument in data collection ✔ ✔
Modified version of existing instrument
Evaluation of existing instrument ✔ ✔

Reliability
Test-retest reliability
Internal consistency
Coefficient (Cronbach's) alpha
McDonald's Omega
Inter-rater reliability ✔ ✔
Person separation
Generalizability coefficients
Other reliability evidence

Validity
Expert judgment ✔
Response process
Factor analysis, IRT, Rasch analysis
Differential item function
Evidence based on relationships to other variables
Evidence based on consequences of testing
Other validity evidence

Other information
Difficulty
Discrimination
Evidence based on fairness
Other general evidence
Review
This instrument has not yet been reviewed by the CHIRAL team. If you would like to suggest this instrument to be reviewed, please let us know by using the CHIRAL Feedback page.
Versions
This instrument has not been modified nor was it created based on an existing instrument.
Citations
Listed below are all literature that develop, implement, modify, or reference the instrument.

  1. Liu, O.L., Lee, H.-S., Hofstetter, C., & Linn, M.C. (2008). Assessing knowledge integration in science: Construct, measures, and evidence. Educational Assessment, 13(1), 33-55.

  2. Kat, Cooper A., & Oliver-Hoyo, M.T. (2016). Argument construction in understanding noncovalent interactions: A comparison of two argumentation frameworks. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(4), 1006-1018.