SALG
OVERVIEW
| Summary | |
|---|---|
| Original author(s) |
|
| Original publication |
|
| Year original instrument was published | 2000, 2014 |
| Inventory | |
| Number of items | 46 |
| Number of versions/translations | 3 |
| Cited implementations | 16 |
| Language |
|
| Country | United States, Australia |
| Format |
|
| Intended population(s) |
|
| Domain |
|
| Topic |
|
EVIDENCE
Information in the table is given in four different categories:
- 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
- Reliability - information about the evidence presented to establish reliability of data generated by the instrument; please see the Glossary for term definitions
- Validity - information about the evidence presented to establish reliability of data generated by the instrument; please see the Glossary for term definitions
- 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 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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
VERSIONS
| Name | Authors |
|---|---|
| Student Lab Questionnaire |
|
| Student Assessment Of Their Learning Gains (Computational Mo Theory Module) |
|
| Undergraduate Research Student Self-Assessment |
|
CITATIONS
Seymour, E., Wiese, D., Hunter, A., & Daffinrud, S. M. (2000, March). Creating a better mousetrap: On-line student assessment of their learning gains. Paper presented at the National Meeting of the American Chemical Society (pp. 1-40).
Murthy, P. P. N., Thompson, M., & Hungwe, K. (2014). Development of a Semester-Long, Inquiry-Based Laboratory Course in Upper-Level Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(11), 1909–1917. doi.org/10.1021/ed400119u
Taylor, A.T.S., Olofson, E.L., & Novak, W.R.P. (2017). Enhancing student retention of prerequisite knowledge through pre-class activities and in-class reinforcement. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 45(2), 97-104.
Vishnumolakala, V.R., Southam, D.C., Treagust, D.F., & Mocerino, M. (2016). Latent constructs of the students' assessment of their learning gains instrument following instruction in stereochemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(2), 309-31
Smith, A.L., Paddock, J.R., Vaughan, J.M., & Parkin, D.W. (2018). Promoting Nursing Students' Chemistry Success in a Collegiate Active Learning Environment: "if i Have Hope, i Will Try Harder". Journal of Chemical Education, 95(11), 1929-1938.
Walker, J. P., & Sampson, V. (2013). Argument-Driven Inquiry: Using the Laboratory To Improve Undergraduates’ Science Writing Skills through Meaningful Science Writing, Peer-Review, and Revision. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(10), 1269–1274. doi.org/10.1021/ed300656p
Prescott, S. (2013). Green Goggles: Designing and Teaching a General Chemistry Course to Nonmajors Using a Green Chemistry Approach. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(4), 423–428. doi.org/10.1021/ed300538d
Gron, L. U., Bradley, S. B., McKenzie, J. R., Shinn, S. E., & Teague, M. W. (2013). How To Recognize Success and Failure: Practical Assessment of an Evolving, First-Semester Laboratory Program Using Simple, Outcome-Based Tools. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(6), 694–699. doi.org/10.1021/ed200523w
McClure, C. P., & Lucius, A. L. (2010). Implementing and Evaluating a Chemistry Course in Chemical Ethics and Civic Responsibility. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(11), 1171–1175. doi.org/10.1021/ed1005135
Hopkins, T. A., & Samide, M. (2013). Using a Thematic Laboratory-Centered Curriculum To Teach General Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(9), 1162–1166. doi.org/10.1021/ed300438t
Canelas, D.A., Hill, J.L., & Novicki, A. (2017). Cooperative learning in organic chemistry increases student assessment of learning gains in key transferable skills. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(3), 441-456.
Talbert, L.E., Bonner, J., Mortezaei, K., Guregyan, C., Henbest, G., & Eichler, J.F. (2020). Revisiting the use of concept maps in a large enrollment general chemistry course: Implementation and assessment. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21(1)
Student Assessment of Learning Gains Web site. salgsite.net/
Wood, C., & Breyfogle, B. (2006). Interactive demonstrations for mole ratios and limiting reagents. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(5), 741-748.
Gafney, L., & Varma-Nelson, P. (2007). Evaluating peer-led team learning: A study of long-term effects on former workshop peer leaders. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(3), 535-539.
Tien, L.T., Roth, V., & Kampmeier, J.A. (2002). Implementation of a peer-led team learning instructional approach in an undergraduate organic chemistry course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 606-632.