Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 97 references

Decoding physics identity: A Spanish-language adaptation on an instrument and its correlation with STEM achievement

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A 14-item Spanish-language instrument validly measures physics identity in Mexican STEM students, and the subconstruct of interest in physics—not overall identity—predicts physics course grades.

desk verdict The Spanish adaptation fills a real gap, but the reported validation fit is inflated because items were deleted on the same sample used to test the model. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15392 v1 pith:S73C4QKT submitted 2024-11-23 physics.ed-ph

O. I. González-Peña , G. Morán-Soto , B. M. Rodríguez-Lara This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ed-ph
keywords physicsidentityinstrumentadaptationSpanish-languagesurveySTEMeducationconfirmatoryfactoranalysisCronbach'salphaMexicanstudentsgendergapin
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a Spanish-language adaptation of an existing English physics identity survey can validly and reliably measure physics identity in Mexican STEM students. After translation, cultural focus groups, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and Cronbach's alpha checks on data from 334 students, the final 14-item instrument shows good fit indices (CFI=0.967, TLI=0.958, RMSEA=0.056) and high internal consistency (alpha between 0.86 and 0.93 across four subconstructs). Using the validated instrument with 200 engineering students, the paper finds that the interest-in-physics subconstruct, and gender, correlate with physics course grades, while overall physics identity does not consistently predict grades. If correct, this gives Spanish-speaking researchers a validated tool and shifts attention to interest, recognition, and gender as key levers for Latino students' physics trajectories.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the adapted 14-item Spanish instrument itself, organized around the four identity subconstructs: recognition, competence/performance, physics interest, and science interest. It is produced by a sequence of translation by five bilingual STEM professors, cultural focus groups with students and professors, exploratory factor analysis with promax rotation to remove weak items, confirmatory factor analysis with Satorra-Bentler-corrected fit indices to prune further items, and Cronbach's alpha reliability checks. This machinery carries the claim because the paper's first conclusion—that the instrument is valid for Spanish-speaking Mexican STEM students—rests entirely on these psychometric results.

What would settle it

Run the same regressions on data from a single engineering major taking a single physics course with a larger sample; if the gender and physics-interest coefficients shrink or vanish, the paper's correlation claims are artifacts of pooling across majors, whereas if they persist, those claims survive the threat.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the four-subconstruct model of physics identity—recognition, competence/performance, physics interest, and science interest—survives translation and cultural adaptation for Mexican STEM students. The validation is the central discovery: 14 of the originally selected items remain after removing items that did not load cleanly or weakened model fit, and the retained items form a coherent instrument with acceptable psychometric properties. In the second dataset, the paper finds that the type of physics course is the dominant predictor of grades, that gender predicts grades when course type is omitted, and that interest in physics topics predicts grades in the linear model; recognition, competence/performance, and science interest do not. The paper also reports that engineering students' average physics identity is medium-high at 3.8 on a 0 to 6 scale and varies by major, with mechatronic, chemical, and mechanical engineering students scoring highest.

Load-bearing premise

The study assumes that final grades from physics courses in seven different engineering majors are comparable enough to combine into one outcome variable, even though the courses differ in content and difficulty; the paper itself flags this in its limitations section.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Spanish-speaking STEM educators and researchers can use the 14-item instrument as a validated starting point for physics identity measurement without relying on direct translation.
  • The finding that physics interest, not overall identity, correlates with course grades implies that interventions targeting interest in physics topics may be more directly tied to performance than attempts to raise identity as a whole.
  • The observed gender differences in physics grades and passing rates point to recognition and belonging as concrete targets for course-level and pre-college interventions.
  • If the instrument is reused in other Spanish-speaking populations, the paper requires rechecking cultural equivalence because even same-language contexts may differ.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • One implicit consequence is that the surviving items are school-anchored (labs, classes, discussions), while items about hobbies and extracurricular science did not survive; a testable extension is whether this pattern reflects Mexican students' limited access to out-of-school science activities rather than lack of interest.
  • The paper's pooling of seven engineering majors into one regression is a genuine threat to the gender and interest results; a natural next study is to collect data from one major, one course, and a larger sample, and to test whether the coefficients replicate.
  • Because the instrument uses a 0 to 6 anchored scale instead of the original Likert format, comparing absolute identity scores across versions requires care; an equivalence study could show whether the scale format changes the measured identity level.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a Spanish-language adaptation of the PRiSE physics identity instrument for Mexican STEM students. The authors translated and culturally adapted 28 items (ending with 29 after splitting one item), collected a validation sample of 334 students split into EFA and CFA halves, and after removing 15 items propose a 14-item, four-subconstruct instrument (recognition, competence/performance, physics interest, science interest). They then use this instrument with a separate sample of 200 engineering students to relate the subconstructs to physics course grades through multivariate linear and logistic regressions. The paper reports acceptable CFA fit indices (CFI=0.967, TLI=0.958, RMSEA=0.056) and Cronbach's alphas between 0.86 and 0.93, and identifies gender, physics-related course, and physics interest as significant correlates of grades.

Significance. If the instrument's validity evidence were trustworthy, this would be a useful contribution: a validated Spanish-language physics identity measure for Latino STEM students is genuinely missing, and the paper's mixed-methods translation process (five expert translators, focus groups with students and professors) is a strength. The separate validation and correlation datasets, and the use of accepted EFA/CFA procedures on split halves, are also positive features. However, the central validity claim is weakened by post hoc item deletion on the same CFA sample, which makes the reported fit and reliability indices optimistic, and the regression analysis pools physics course grades across majors with different content and difficulty—an issue the authors themselves acknowledge. With these caveats addressed, the instrument could become a valuable resource, but as presented the evidence for 'structural integrity' is overstated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Confirmatory Factor Analysis; Section IV, Results] The CFA is not a confirmatory test of the final 14-item model. After the EFA removed six items, the paper states that 'items with the lowest factor loadings in the EFA results were systematically removed' one by one and a new CFA was run after each deletion, with nine additional items removed on the same CFA half (n=167). The reported CFI=0.967, TLI=0.958, RMSEA=0.056 and the Cronbach's alphas are computed on the same data used to make those deletion decisions. This is post hoc model modification: the fit statistics are conditional on the item-selection rule and do not provide independent confirmation of the factor structure. The dismissal of the significant chi-square (p<0.001) as 'expected due to the sample size' is not convincing, given n=167 and nine data-driven deletions. The authors should either confirm the final model on a fresh sample (or the EFA half), or explicitly present the 14-item model as provisional and report the full deletion path with modification indices and the resulting fit at each step.
  2. [Section V, Limitations and future work; Tables III–VI] The regression analyses pool physics course grades across seven engineering majors that take different physics courses with different content and difficulty, as the authors acknowledge: 'analysing students' performance in physics-related courses with different difficulty levels could have created discrepancies in the statistic test results that may influence these research findings.' Despite this, the abstract and Discussion present conclusions about gender and interest effects on physics grades that depend on this pooled outcome. Table III shows that 'Physics-related course' is the dominant predictor (B=-1.207, p<0.001), and the follow-up models in Tables IV and VI remove that variable rather than modeling the multilevel structure. This is a load-bearing problem for the second objective. The authors should reanalyze the data with a single course, or with a multilevel model treating major/course as a random effect, or substantially weaken the relational claims to descriptive within-course observations.
  3. [Section IV, Tables III and IV; Section V, Discussion] The estimated coefficient for Physics interest is negative and statistically significant in both linear regression models (B=-2.349, p=0.015 in Table III; B=-2.376, p=0.016 in Table IV), which is opposite to the hypothesized positive direction. The Discussion, however, states that 'having an intrinsic interest in physics-related experiments and topics could have a positive effect on students grades' and uses this to recommend promoting interest. This internal inconsistency needs to be resolved. The authors should either explain the negative coefficient (for example, as an artifact of pooling courses of differing difficulty) or reclassify the finding as not supporting the expected positive relationship; the current interpretation is not supported by the reported results.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Linear Regressions] The methods text says 'the physics-related course grades as an independent variable' but then immediately describes the same variable as 'the dependent variable' in the multivariate linear regression. Please correct this inconsistency.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typographical and formatting issues: 'radio' should be 'ratio' in the sample-size justification, 'F igure' and 'T able' appear with odd spacing, and 'EF A'/'CF A' are inconsistently spaced. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  3. [Section IV, Multivariate Linear Regression] The transition 'After further analysis of the Table III' does not explain what prompted the second model with the physics-related course variable removed. The rationale for this specification should be stated before presenting Tables IV and VI, especially because those tables change the substantive conclusions.
  4. [Figure 2] The final Spanish-language instrument is shown in Figure 2, but the paper does not provide an English back-translation or item-level descriptive statistics (means, SDs) for the 14 retained items. Adding these would help readers evaluate content coverage and interpret the regression results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: validation and correlation analyses use separate datasets, and the post-hoc item-deletion issue is a statistical overfitting concern rather than a definitional circularity.

full rationale

The paper's two objectives use independent samples: the Fall 2020 dataset (n=334) is used for factor analyses and Cronbach's alpha, while the Spring 2021 dataset (n=200) is used for the linear and logistic regressions with physics-course grades. No parameter estimated on the grade data is fed back into the identity instrument, and the identity subconstruct scores are not used to construct the grade outcome, so the correlational claims are not circular. The PRiSE/Hazari framework is external prior work, and the only same-author citation ([2]) concerns industry visits in sustainability classes and is not load-bearing. The main validity threat is that the CFA half (n=167) was used both to delete items 'one by one' and then to report the final fit indices, so the CFI=0.967, TLI=0.958, and RMSEA=0.056 are optimistic and do not provide independent confirmation of the 14-item structure. This is a genuine post-hoc model-selection or capitalization-on-chance problem, but it is not circularity in the constructional sense: the item deletions do not force the reported fit indices by definition, and the reported fit indices are empirical outcomes rather than re-statements of the deletion criterion. The paper's own limitation about pooling physics courses of different difficulty levels across majors is acknowledged in Section V and affects the secondary correlational objective, but it does not create a circular derivation. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation, so no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard psychometric assumptions and on the transferability of the English factor structure to Mexican students. No free parameters or invented entities are used.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The four-factor structure of physics identity (recognition, competence/performance, physics interest, science interest) measured by the English PRiSE instrument transfers to Mexican STEM students.
    The adaptation assumes the same latent constructs exist and are measurable in the new population. This is tested via EFA and CFA, but the final factor structure is derived from the same sample used to validate it.
  • domain assumption Self-reported Likert responses can be treated as approximately interval and can be analyzed with linear factor models and regressions.
    The authors check normality and use robust corrections, but the interval treatment of Likert scales is a standard but unproven assumption in this analysis.
  • domain assumption Physics course grades are a valid and comparable measure of academic achievement across different courses and majors.
    Used as the dependent variable in the regressions; the paper itself acknowledges that course difficulty differs across majors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Decoding physics identity: A Spanish-language adaptation on an instrument and its correlation with STEM achievement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S73C4QKT

@misc{pith2026241115392,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Decoding physics identity: A Spanish-language adaptation on an instrument and its correlation with STEM achievement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S73C4QKT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15392}
}
read the original abstract

The representation of Spanish-speaking students in STEM identity literature, particularly in physics identity, is conspicuously minimal. This study addresses this gap with a two-pronged approach. First, a physics identity instrument was adapted for Spanish-speaking STEM students to promote inclusivity in educational research. Data from 334 Mexican STEM students was collected and analysed for validation through factor analyses and Cronbach's alpha, confirming the structural integrity and reliability of the adapted instrument. Second, the instrument was employed to examine the correlation between physics identity and academic performance in a separate dataset from 200 engineering students, using multivariate linear and logistic regressions. The findings underscore gender's impact on physics course grades. Notably, variations in physics identity among engineering students indicated a potential link with their chosen field. Despite the importance of physics in engineering, physics identity was lower than expected, and performance in physics courses did not consistently correlate with a strong physics identity. However, the `interest in physics topics` subconstruct did correlate with physics course grades. This research fills a critical void by providing an adapted instrument for assessing physics identity in Spanish-speaking students and underscores the need for pedagogical shifts to enhance physics identity and STEM outcomes for Latino students.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15392 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Identity framework [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Final version of the instrument to assess physics identity of Mexican STEM students. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Model of resulting CFA. All paths shown are significant at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adapt an existing instrument to assess the physics identity of STEM Mexican students in the Spanish language and test the validity of the data collected with this instrument

  2. [2]

    No, not at all

    Analyse the correlation between STEM students’ physics identity and their grades in physics-related courses. By adapting this instrument to collect more accurate assessments of physics identity among students in the Mexican context, we aim to expand the tools available to Spanish- speaking STEM educators. This adaptation is especially important for future...

    2007

  3. [3]

    A. Rico, E. Agirre-Basurko, A. Ruiz-Gonz´ alez, I. Palacios-Agundez, and D. Zuazagoitia, In- tegrating mathematics and science teaching in the context of education for sustainable devel- opment: Design and pilot implementation of a teaching-learning sequence about air quality with pre-service primary teachers, Sustainability 13, 4500 (2021)

    2021

  4. [4]

    C. A. P. Cass, Z. Hazari, J. Cribbs, P. M. Sadler, and G. Sonnert, Examining the impact of mathematics identity on the choice of engineering careers for male and female students, Proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE , 1 (2011)

    2011

  5. [5]

    UNESCO, Resoluci´ on Aprobada por la Asamblea General 70/1. Transfor- mar Nuestro Mundo: La Agenda 2030 para el Desarrollo Sostenible (2015), https://www.gob.mx/agenda2030/documentos/resolucion-de-las-naciones-unidas-para-la- adopcion-de-la-agenda-2030-para-el-desarrollo-sostenible?state=published (accessed on 13 January 2020)

    2015

  6. [6]

    O. I. Gonz´ alez-Pe˜ na, M. O. Pe˜ na-Ortiz, and G. Mor´ an-Soto, Is it a good idea for chemistry and sustainability classes to include industry visits as learning outside the classroom? An initial perspective, Sustainability 13, 1 (2021)

    2021

  7. [7]

    S. J. Basu, How students design and enact physics lessons: Five immigrant Caribbean youth 27 and the cultivation of student voice, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 45, 881 (2008)

    2008

  8. [8]

    N. W. Brickhouse, P. Lowery, and K. Schultz, What kind of a girl does science? The con- struction of school science identities, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37, 441 (2000)

    2000

Show all 97 references
  1. [9]

    Godwin, G

    A. Godwin, G. Potvin, Z. Hazari, and R. Lock, Identity, Critical Agency, and Engineering: An Affective Model for Predicting Engineering as a Career Choice, Journal of Engineering Education 105, 312 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    K. L. Tonso, Student engineers and engineer identity: Campus engineer identities as figured world, Cultural Studies of Science Education 1, 10.1007/s11422-005-9009-2 (2006)

    2006 doi

  3. [11]

    M.-T. Wang, J. S. Eccles, and S. Kenny, Not lack of ability but more choice: Individual and gender differences in choice of careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, Psychological Science 24, 770 (2013)

    2013

  4. [12]

    Hazari, G

    Z. Hazari, G. Sonnert, P. M. Sadler, and M. Shanahan, Connecting high school physics ex- periences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 47, 978 (2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    B. M. Capobianco, B. F. French, and H. A. Diefes-Du, Engineering identity development among pre-adolescent learners, Journal of Engineering Education 101, 698 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    H. M. Matusovich, B. E. Barry, K. Meyers, and R. Louis, A multi-institution comparison of identity development as an engineer, in American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition (Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2011)

    2011

  7. [15]

    R. H. Tai, C. Q. Liu, A. V. Maltese, and X. Fan, Planning early for careers in science, Science 312, 1143 (2006)

    2006

  8. [16]

    H¨ aussler and L

    P. H¨ aussler and L. Hoffmann, An intervention study to enhance girls’ interest, self-concept, and achievement in physics classes, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39, 870 (2002)

    2002

  9. [17]

    Varelas, Identity construction and science education research: Learning, teaching, and being in multiple contexts (Sense Publishers Rotterdam, 2012)

    M. Varelas, Identity construction and science education research: Learning, teaching, and being in multiple contexts (Sense Publishers Rotterdam, 2012)

    2012

  10. [18]

    Potvin and Z

    G. Potvin and Z. Hazari, The development and measurement of identity across the physical sciences, in Proceedings of the Physics Education Research Conference (Portland , OR, 2013) pp. 281–284

    2013

  11. [19]

    S. L. Turner, J. C. Steward, and R. T. Lapan, Family factors associated with sixth-grade adolescents’ math and science career interests, The Career Development Quarterly 53, 41 (2004). 28

    2004

  12. [20]

    K. A. Robinson, T. Perez, J. H. Carmel, and L. Linnenbrink-Garcia, Science identity de- velopment trajectories in a gateway college chemistry course: Predictors and relations to achievement and STEM pursuit, Contemporary Educational Psychology 56, 180 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    H. W. Marsh, K. Hau, and C. Kong, Multilevel causal ordering of academic self-concept and achievement: Influence of language of instruction (English compared with Chinese) for Hong Kong students, American Educational Research Journal 39, 727 (2002)

    2002

  14. [22]

    N. A. Fouad and P. L. Smith, A test of a social cognitive model for middle school students: Math and Science, Journal of Counseling Psychology 43, 338 (1996)

    1996

  15. [23]

    J. S. Brotman and F. M. Moore, Girls and science: A review of four themes in the science education literature, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 45, 971 (2008)

    2008

  16. [24]

    Kahn and D

    S. Kahn and D. Ginther, Women and STEM, National Bureau of Economic Research (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    Chen and M

    X. Chen and M. Soldner, STEM Attrition: College Students’ Paths Into and Out of STEM Fields Statistical Analysis Report, National Center for Education Statistics (2013)

    2013

  18. [26]

    R. Dou, Z. Hazari, K. Dabney, G. Sonnert, and P. Sadler, Early informal STEM experiences and STEM identity: The importance of talking science, Science Education , 1 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Cleaves, The formation of science choices in secondary school, International Journal of Science Education 27, 471 (2012)

    A. Cleaves, The formation of science choices in secondary school, International Journal of Science Education 27, 471 (2012)

    2012

  20. [28]

    W. K. Adams, K. K. Perkins, N. S. Podolefsky, M. Dubson, N. D. Finkelstein, and C. E. Wieman, New instrument for measuring student beliefs about physics and learning physics: The Colorado learning attitudes about science survey, Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Educati...

    2006

  21. [29]

    P. W. U. Chinn, Asian and Pacific Island er women scientists and engineers: A narrative exploration of model minority, gender, and racial stereotypes, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39, 302 (2002)

    2002

  22. [30]

    are correlated to students’ choice of physics-related majors and their persistence in this major. As physics identity encompasses different dimensions of motivation [12], it provides a lens to understand how students see themselves in the field of physics, and how they navigat...

    2018

  23. [31]

    H. B. Carlone and A. Johnson, Understand ing the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 44, 1187 (2007)

    2007

  24. [32]

    Cwik and C

    S. Cwik and C. Singh, Not feeling recognized as a physics person by instructors and teaching assistants is correlated with female students’ lower grades, Physical Review Physics Education 29 Research 18, 010138 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    physics person

    explored differences in engineering identity between lower and upper-division students, revealing that physics recognition is higher among upper-division students, while lower- division students exhibit higher math interest. While Whitcomb et al. [34] focused on the progressio...

  26. [34]

    R. M. Lock, Z. Hazari, and G. Potvin, Impact of out-of-class science and engineering activities on physics identity and career intentions, Physical Review Physics Education Research 15, 20137 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    M. M. Bleeker and J. E. Jacobs, Achievement in math and science: Do mothers’ beliefs matter 12 years later?, Journal of Educational Psychology 96, 97 (2004)

    2004

  28. [36]

    Enyedy, J

    N. Enyedy, J. Goldberg, and K. M. Welsh, Complex dilemmas of identity and practice, Science Education 90, 68 (2005)

    2005

  29. [37]

    Prybutok, A

    A. Prybutok, A. D. Patrick, M. J. Borrego, C. C. Seepersad, and M. J. Kirisits, Cross-sectional survey study of undergraduate engineering identity, in ASEE 2016 Annual Conference & Exposition (New Orleans, Louisiana, 2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    K. M. Whitcomb, A. Maries, and C. Singh, Progression in self-efficacy, interest, identity, sense of belonging, perceived recognition and effectiveness of peer interaction of physics majors and comparison with non-majors and Ph.D. students, Research in Science Education 53, 525 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Verd ´ ın and A

    D. Verd ´ ın and A. Godwin, Physics identity promotes alternative careers for first-generation college students in engineering, in ASEE 2017 Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    Stiles-Clarke and K

    L. Stiles-Clarke and K. MacLeod, Demystifying the scaffolding required for first-year physics student retention: Contextualizing content and nurturing physics identity, Canadian Journal of Physics 96, 10.1139/cjp-2017-0225 (2018)

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    Hazari, D

    Z. Hazari, D. Chari, G. Potvin, and E. Brewe, The context dependence of physics identity: Examining the role of performance/competence, recognition, interest, and sense of belonging for lower and upper female physics undergraduates, Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 1 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Z. Y. Kalender, E. Marshman, C. D. Schunn, T. J. Nokes-Malach, and C. Singh, Gendered patterns in the construction of physics identity from motivational factors, Physical Review Physics Education Research 15, 20119 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Doucette and C

    D. Doucette and C. Singh, Why are there so few women in physics? Reflections on the experiences of two women, The Physics Teacher 58, 297 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Herrera, I

    S. Herrera, I. A. Mohamed, and A. R. Daane, Physics from an underrepresented lens: What I wish others knew, The Physics Teacher 58, 294 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    M. A. Beasley and M. J. Fischer, Why they leave: the impact of stereotype threat on the at- trition of women and minorities from science, math and engineering majors, Social Psychology of Education 15, 427 (2012)

    2012

  38. [46]

    Bottomley, V

    E. Bottomley, V. Wild, P. J. Miles, K. I. Mavor, and A. Kohnle, Gender and the social cure in undergraduate physics students: Physics identity, self-efficacy, belonging, and wellbeing, International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 22, 721 (2024). 30

    2024

  39. [47]

    Seyranian, A

    V. Seyranian, A. Madva, N. Duong, N. Abramzon, Y. Tibbetts, and J. M. Harackiewicz, The longitudinal effects of STEM identity and gender on flourishing and achievement in college physics, International Journal of STEM Education 5, 10.1186/s40594-018-0137-0 (2018)

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    Z. Y. Kalender, E. Marshman, C. D. Schunn, T. J. Nokes-Malach, and C. Singh, Why female science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors do not identify with physics: They do not think others see them that way, Physical Review Physics Education Research15, 20148 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    Dawson, Upper primary boys’ and girls’ interests in science: Have they changed since 1980?, International Journal of Science Education 22, 557 (2000)

    C. Dawson, Upper primary boys’ and girls’ interests in science: Have they changed since 1980?, International Journal of Science Education 22, 557 (2000)

    2000

  42. [50]

    M. G. Jones, A. Howe, and M. J. Rua, Gender differences in students’ experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists, Science Education 84, 180 (2000)

    2000

  43. [51]

    Weinburgh, Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: A meta-analysis of the literature from 1970 to 1991, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 32, 387 (1995)

    M. Weinburgh, Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: A meta-analysis of the literature from 1970 to 1991, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 32, 387 (1995)

    1995

  44. [52]

    J. E. Jacobs, L. L. Finken, N. L. Griffin, and J. D. Wright, The career plans of science-talented rural adolescent girls, American Educational Research Journal 35, 681 (1998)

    1998

  45. [53]

    Speering and L

    W. Speering and L. Rennie, Students’ perceptions about science: The impact of transition from primary to secondary school, Research in Science Education 26, 283 (1996)

    1996

  46. [54]

    B. E. Woolnough, M. J. Almeida, T. Ryu, Z. Wang, and D. Young, Factors affecting student choice of career in science and engineering: Parallel studies in Australia, Canada, China, England , Japan and Portugal, Research in Science & Technological Education15, 105 (1997)

    1997

  47. [55]

    U. Kessels, Fitting into the stereotype: How gender-stereotyped perceptions of prototypic peers relate to liking for school subjects, European Journal of Psychology of Education 20, 309 (2005)

    2005

  48. [56]

    Walther, Understand ing interpretive research through the lens of a cultural verfremdungsef- fekt, Journal of Engineering Education 103, 450 (2014)

    J. Walther, Understand ing interpretive research through the lens of a cultural verfremdungsef- fekt, Journal of Engineering Education 103, 450 (2014)

    2014

  49. [57]

    Temple and A

    B. Temple and A. Young, Qualitative research and translation dilemmas, Qualitative Research 4, 161 (2004)

    2004

  50. [58]

    M. A. Oliveros, Panorama of teaching in higher education institutions under science, technol- ogy, engineering and mathematics (STEM) programs, Revista Cient ´ ıfica40, 2 (2021)

    2021

  51. [59]

    J. Wang, Q. Li, and Y. Luo, Physics identity of Chinese students before and after gaokao: The effect of high-stake testing, Research in Science Education 10.1007/s11165-020-09978-y 31 (2020)

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    Hernandez-Matias, P

    L. Hernandez-Matias, P. A. Llerand i Rom´ an, L. P´ erez-Donato, N. Calzada-Jorge, S. Mendoza, F. Laureano-Torres, A. V. Washington, and M. Borrero, Spanish-language version of the science identity survey (SISE): Translation, cultural adaptation, and evaluation, In Lopatto 45 (2019)

    2019

  53. [61]

    J. W. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Research (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 2009)

    2009

  54. [62]

    L. M. Ch´ avez and G. Canino, Toolkit on translating and adapting instruments, Human Ser- vices Research Institute (2005)

    2005

  55. [63]

    R. C. Team, R: A language and environment for statistical computing , Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.r-project.org/ (2012)

    2012

  56. [64]

    R. F. DeVellis, Scale development: Theory and applications (Sage Publications, 2016)

    2016

  57. [65]

    Andrews and J

    P. Andrews and J. Diego-Mantec´ on, Instrument adaptation in cross-cultural studies of stu- dents’ mathematics-related beliefs: Learning from healthcare research, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 45, 545 (2015)

    2015

  58. [66]

    R. L. Gorsuch, Factor analysis, 2nd ed. (Erlbaum, 1983)

    1983

  59. [67]

    Kline, An easy guide to factor analysis (Routledge, 1994)

    P. Kline, An easy guide to factor analysis (Routledge, 1994)

    1994

  60. [68]

    Cattell, The scientific use of factor analysis (Plenum, 1978)

    R. Cattell, The scientific use of factor analysis (Plenum, 1978)

    1978

  61. [69]

    H. F. Kaiser, A second generation little jiffy, Psychometrika 35, 401 (1970)

    1970

  62. [70]

    G. D. Hutcheson and N. Sofroniou, The multivariate social scientist: Introductory statistics using generalized linear models (Sage Publications, 1999)

    1999

  63. [71]

    Curran, S

    P. Curran, S. West, and J. Finch, The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis, Psychological Methods 1, 16 (1996)

    1996

  64. [72]

    Fabrigar, D

    L. Fabrigar, D. Wegener, R. MacCallum, and E. Strahan, Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research, Psychological Methods 4, 272 (1999)

    1999

  65. [73]

    W. C. Lee, A. Godwin, and A. L. Hermundstad, Development of the engineering student integration instrument: Rethinking measures of integration, Journal of Engineering Education 107, 30 (2018)

    2018

  66. [74]

    Revelle, The “psych” package

    W. Revelle, The “psych” package. Documentation available at CRAN , http://cran.r- project.org/web/packages/psych/index.html (2014)

    2014

  67. [75]

    B. G. Tabachnick and L. S. Fidell, Using multivariate statistics (Pearson, 2001). 32

    2001

  68. [76]

    T. A. Brown, Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research, 2nd ed. (Guilford Press, 2015)

    2015

  69. [77]

    Fern´ andez, J

    M. Fern´ andez, J. Ben ´ ıtez, M. Pichardo, E. Fern´ andez, F. Justicia, T. Garc ´ ıa, A. Garc ´ ıa- Berb´ en, A. Justicia, and G. Alba, An´ alisis factorial confirmatorio de las subescalas del PKBS- 2 para la evaluaci´ on de las habilidades sociales y los problemas de conduct...

    2010

  70. [78]

    Byrne, Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic concepts, appli- cations, and programming (Sage Publications, 1994)

    B. Byrne, Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic concepts, appli- cations, and programming (Sage Publications, 1994)

    1994

  71. [79]

    Hu and P

    L. Hu and P. M. Bentler, Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Con- ventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6, 1 (1999)

    1999

  72. [80]

    MacCallum, M

    R. MacCallum, M. Browne, and H. Sugawara, Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling, Psychological Methods 1, 130 (1996)

    1996

  73. [81]

    Satorra and P

    A. Satorra and P. M. Bentler, Scaling corrections for statistics in covariance structure analysis (UCLA Statistics Series 2) (1988)

    1988

  74. [82]

    Batista-Foguet, G

    J. Batista-Foguet, G. Coenders, and J. Alonso, An´ alisis factorial confirmatorio. Su utilidad en la validaci´ on de cuestionarios relacionados con la salud, Medicina Cl ´ ınica122, 21 (2004)

    2004

  75. [83]

    R. M. Thorndike and T. Thorndike-Christ, Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education, 8th ed. (Pearson, 2010)

    2010

  76. [84]

    Collett, Modelling Binary Data (Chapman and Hall, 1991)

    D. Collett, Modelling Binary Data (Chapman and Hall, 1991)

    1991

  77. [85]

    A. F. Hayes, Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach, Methodology in the social sciences (Guilford Press, 2013)

    2013

  78. [86]

    J. Hair, W. Black, B. Babin, , and R. erson, Multivariate data analysis (Pearson Education Limited, 2014)

    2014

  79. [87]

    R. A. Peterson, A meta-analysis of variance accounted for and factor loadings in exploratory factor analysis, Marketing Letters 11, 261 (2000)

    2000

  80. [88]

    Walther, N

    J. Walther, N. W. Sochacka, and N. N. Kellam, Quality in interpretive engineering education research: Reflections on an example study, Journal of Engineering Education 102, 626 (2013)

    2013

  81. [89]

    J. Chen, Q. Zhao, and Y. Huang, Research on the correlation between mathematics and physics of the senior high school students, Mathline: Jurnal Matematika Dan Pendidikan Matematika 6, 70 (2021)

    2021

  82. [90]

    hidden variable

    D. E. Meltzer, The relationship between mathematics preparation and conceptual learning 33 gains in physics: A possible “hidden variable” in diagnostic pretest scores, American Journal of Physics 70, 1259 (2002)

    2002

  83. [91]

    P. H. Hsieh, J. R. Sullivan, D. A. Sass, and N. S. Guerra, Undergraduate engineering students’ beliefs, coping strategies, and academic performance: An evaluation of theoretical models, Journal of Experimental Education 80, 196 (2012)

    2012

  84. [92]

    B. D. Jones, M. C. Paretti, S. F. Hein, and T. W. Knott, An analysis of motivation constructs with first-year engineering students: Relationships among expectancies, values, achievement, and career plans, Journal of Engineering Education 99, 319 (2010)

    2010

  85. [93]

    A. M. Casta˜ no, M. A. Lubiano, and A. L. Garc ´ ıa-Izquierdo, Gendered beliefs in STEM un- dergraduates: A comparative analysis of fuzzy rating versus Likert scales, Sustainability 12, 6227 (2020)

    2020

  86. [94]

    Hazari, R

    Z. Hazari, R. H. Tai, and P. M. Sadler, Gender differences in introductory university physics performance: The influence of high school physics preparation, Science Education 91, 847 (2007)

    2007

  87. [95]

    J. S. Hyde and M. C. Linn, Gender similarities in mathematics and science, Science 314, 599 (2006)

    2006

  88. [96]

    P. M. Sadler and R. H. Tai, Success in introductory college physics: The role of high school preparation, Science Education 85, 111 (2001)

    2001

  89. [97]

    Singer, G

    A. Singer, G. Montgomery, and S. Schmoll, How to foster the formation of STEM identity: Studying diversity in an authentic learning environment, International Journal of STEM Ed- ucation 7, 10.1186/s40594-020-00254-z (2020). 34

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.