Skip to main content

Test Of Science-Related Attitudes (Villafañe & Lewis, 2016)

TOSRA Villafane & Lewis, 2016

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

  • Villafañe, S.M., & Lewis, J.E.
Original publication

  • Villafañe, S.M., & Lewis, J.E. (2016). Exploring a measure of science attitude for different groups of students enrolled in introductory college chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(4), 731-742.
Year original instrument was published 2016
Inventory
Number of items 30
Number of versions/translations 1
Cited implementations 1
Language
  • English
Country United States
Format
  • Response Scale
Intended population(s)
  • Students
  • Undergraduate
Domain
  • Affective
Topic
  • Attitutde
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

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
DISCLAIMER: The evidence supporting the validity and reliability of the data summarized below is for use of this assessment instrument within the reported settings and populations. The continued collection and evaluation of validity and reliability evidence, in both similar and dissimilar contexts, is encouraged and will support the chemistry education community’s ongoing understanding of this instrument and its limitations.
This review was generated by a CHIRAL review panel. Each CHIRAL review panel consists of multiple experts who first individually review the citations of the assessment instrument listed on this page for evidence in support of the validity and reliability of the data generated by the instrument. Panels then meet to discuss the evidence and summarize their opinions in the review posted in this tab. These reviews summarize only the evidence that was discussed during the panel which may not represent all evidence available in the published literature or that which appears on the Evidence tab.
If you feel that evidence is missing from this review, or that something was documented in error, please use the CHIRAL Feedback page.

Panel Review: Test of Science-Related Attitudes (TOSRA)

(Post last updated June 16, 2022)

Review panel summary

The Test of Science-Related Attitudes (TOSRA) is a 24-item, 5-point Likert-scale instrument designed to measure students’ science-related attitudes. The instrument is adapted from a 1978 instrument published by Fraser for use with Australian middle and high school students [1]. The original instrument contained 7 scales [1]. The present version, which has been shortened to only 3 scales (i.e., (1) normality of a scientist’s life, (2) the role of inquiry in scientific discovery, and (3) student interest in a scientific career), has been evaluated in a population of first-term general chemistry students [1]. Evidence for internal structure validity is provided in the form of a 3-factor confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) solution (Normality, Inquiry, and Career as noted above) [1]. An analysis of the modification indices from the CFA along with the evaluation of the wording/redundancy of some of the items resulted in the elimination of 6 items to generate the final 24-item (8 items per factor/scale) instrument [1]. Measurement invariance was analyzed, revealing support for TOSRA score comparisons by gender (male, female) across all 3 scales and by race/ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian) across 2 scales. Invariance was not supported in the Normality scale for individuals identified as Black, therefore, no score comparisons by race/ethnicity were conducted. Structural equation modeling was performed to identify the relation between achievement and Inquiry as well as achievement and Career scales. The evidence for relations to other variables shows a negative correlation between achievement and Inquiry and a positive correlation between achievement and Career. In terms of reliability, Cronbach’s alpha has been used to estimate single administration reliability for both the 30-item and 24-item instruments, and the values were found to be acceptable.

Recommendations for use

The TOSRA was developed to analyze students’ science-related attitudes across three categories (Normality, Inquiry, and Career) [1]. According to the validity and reliability evidence presented, the instrument can be used to compare all three science-related attitudes across genders (male, female) of first-term general chemistry students. However, measurement invariance testing revealed a lack of support for the Normality scale for individuals identified as Black. Therefore, further evaluations are necessary prior to the use of all three categories of the TOSRA when making comparisons between diverse racial and ethnic groups.

Details from panel review

No additional details were discussed by the panel.

References

[1] Villafañe, S.M., & Lewis, J.E. (2016). Exploring a measure of science attitude for different groups of students enrolled in introductory college chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(4), 731-742. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00185D

Versions
Listed below are all versions and modifications that were based on this instrument or this instrument were based on.
Instrument is derived from:
Name Authors
Test Of Science-Related Attitudes (Fraser, 1977)

  • Fraser, B.J.
Citations
Listed below are all literature that develop, implement, modify, or reference the instrument.

  1. Villafañe, S.M., & Lewis, J.E. (2016). Exploring a measure of science attitude for different groups of students enrolled in introductory college chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(4), 731-742.