Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Previous research has provided evidence for the utility of the Minneapolis Kindergarten
Assessment (MKA), which is a measure of early literacy and numeracy skills. The present
research was undertaken to replicate previous factorial results and evaluate the relative
strength of an alternative parameterization of the measurement model, the bifactor model,
which was posited to correct for anomalies found in the research literature. In addition,
predictive validity evidence was ascertained to evaluate the extent to which two different
factorial structures differed when making predictions about later reading and mathematics
outcomes. Results suggested the bifactor model provided a useful measurement model
conceptualization and also provided a strong predictive model for later reading and
mathematics.
Keywords: early literacy, numeracy, confirmatory factor analysis, bifactor model, structural
equation models
ments intended internal validity and score reliability along with evidence to support predictive validity inferences for later reading and
mathematics outcomes (Betts, Pickart, & Heistad, 2009; Betts et al., 2008; Pickart, Betts,
Sheran, & Heistad, 2005). This previous research found evidence to support the general
structure of the MKA with two dominant and
highly correlated (r .88) factors measuring
early literacy and early numeracy. High levels
of score reliability (r .80) were established
for the assessment as a whole and also across
diverse subgroups of students of differing racial/ethnic backgrounds and diverse nonEnglish home languages. In addition to providing evidence of predictive validity, the early
literacy and numeracy measures have also been
shown to provide significant incremental validity when predicting both reading and mathematics outcomes at the end of second grade.
The MKA was originally developed to have
two correlated factors with simple structure
measuring early literacy and early numeracy
skills (Pickart et al., 2005). Recent evidence has
provided confirmatory evidence that the intended simple structure is supported; however,
it has also suggested an unaccounted level of
residual covariation between subtests within
98
99
Figure 1. Factorial model for the two-factor, correlated model (A) and the bifactor model
(B) with standardized factor loadings.
100
cific factors related to literacy and numeracy independent of each other and independent of the
general factor. Therefore, the bifactor model
might account for the anomalies in the previous
research.
The bifactor model, while potentially accounting for previous results, could also have a
useful implication for research in numerous areas (Lohman, 2000; Mayer, 2000; Wagner,
2000). An interesting theoretical application
could be the evaluation of the effect of environmental effects on ability (Carroll, 1997) such as
education (Buckhalt, 2001). This would be
quite important, as education has been identified
as the second most important variable in the
nexus of g-related variables (Jensen, 1998).
Using the bifactor model allows for the representation of early literacy and numeracy on
their own as group factors and also as composed
of a single general factor underlying all skills
being assessed. This representation of a single
factor could be similar to the metacomponent
(Sternberg, 1997) or general intellectual ability
in previous research (Carroll, 1993; Jensen,
1998; Rummel, 1970). For a general factor to be
supported there would need to be a significant,
positive correlation between all or most of the
skills being evaluated (Carroll, 1997). A general
factor could also be conceived as a component
of the individual learning differences that students bring to the classroom.
Furthermore, the group factors related specifically to literacy and numeracy could relate to
the lower-order factors similar to the performance and knowledge-acquisition components
in the Triarchic theory (Sternberg, 1997) or the
Stratum II components in Carrolls threestratum theory (Carroll, 1993, 1996). These
unique group factors, that is, literacy and numeracy, might then be related to the instructional aspects of literacy and numeracy skills,
specifically, for which the environmental variable of education or schooling has an effect.
Such theories as those of Sternberg and Carroll
are well supported in the literature and would
provide interesting applications to early literacy
and numeracy assessments, but are not immediately applicable to the MKA.
A major reason that theories like Carrolls
would be inappropriate for evaluating the
anomalies found in the MKA is that the model
cannot be specified with only two lower-level,
or stratum II factors, for example, literacy and
101
102
103
104
Table 1
Model Fit Results for Measurement Models Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFAs) and Predictive Validity
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
Correlated residuals
Fit indices
2
df
P
CFI
TLI
RMSEA
Cfit
2(4)
CFI
AIC
BIC
No
373.09
13
.01
.94
.91
.12
.01
114,872
114,956
Yes
17.25
8
.03
.99
.99
.02
.99
355.84
.05
114,526
114,639
Predictive validity
2-factor
Bifactor
2-factor
Bifactor
17.25
8
.03
.99
.99
.02
.99
114,526
114,639
19.64
7
.01
.99
.99
.03
.99
114,530
114,649
317.67
28
.01
.97
.96
.07
.01
145,416
145,512
165.77
27
.01
.99
.98
.05
.54
145,266
145,368
Note. CFI Comparative Fit Index; TLI Tucker-Lewis Index; RMSEA Root Mean Square Error of Approximation;
Cfit closeness of fit; AIC Akaikes Information Criteria; BIC Bayesian Information Criteria. Please note the second
and third columns contain the same results because they represent the same model; the results were carried over to the third
column to allow for ease of comparison.
ure 1A provides a visualization of the standardized factor loadings for the correlated residuals
model. There was a high correlation (r .88)
between the literacy and numeracy factors, and
all factor loadings were significant. In addition,
all residual correlations between variables were
significant (all p .05). Results were similar to
previous research.
Figure 1B provides the standardized solution
for the bifactor model. All model fit indices
(Table 1) suggested excellent fit of the model,
and were quite comparable to the correlated
factor model (Figure 1A). These results indicated that the addition of a general factor accounting for covariation between all the indicator variables was a salient factor.
Overall results suggested that both models fit
the data very well. Little difference was noted
between the model fit indices between the two
models. With respect to the information criteria,
AIC and BIC, the two factor model with correlated residuals appeared to be a slightly better
fitting model. These results suggested that
both the two-factor model with correlated residuals and the bifactor model adequately accounted for the relations found in the data and
provided excellent fit of the data. In addition,
both models appear to have reasonable structure to account for the underlying covariation
between the indicators.
105
106
Russian, Japanese, and so forth When investigating instruments measuring language related
educational aspects, it is very important to evaluate the impact of language status, and this is
not just related to whether or not the students
are of a general ELL category, as different
languages and different levels of exposure to
English instruction can have substantial impacts.
Future research should attempt to evaluate
and replicate the results found here in distinctly
different student population groups in a crossvalidation methodology. This research would at
least entail an evaluation of (a) the invariance of
measurement properties for students of different
home languages, (b) predictive bias related to
later mathematics and reading outcomes, and
(c) any bias related to using scores on the MKA
to assign students to at-risk categories with student populations markedly different from the
present sample in both ethnicity and language
status. These three issues are especially important as they relate to the proper use of test scores
for their intended purposes.
Overall, this research provides evidence to
support the use of the MKA for its intended
purposes. Evidence was also found that suggested a more complex measurement model
might be useful in organizing student responses.
The use of the bifactor model provides a possible direction for organizing and conceptualizing
early literacy and numeracy measurement.
References
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing.
Washington, DC: American Educational Research
Association.
Betts, J., Pickart, M., & Heistad, D. (2009). Construct
and predictive validity evidence for curriculumbased measures of early literacy and numeracy
skills in kindergarten. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27, 8395.
Betts, J., Reschly, A., Pickart, M., Heistad, D.,
Sheran, C., & Marston, D. (2008). An examination
of predictive bias for second grade reading outcomes from measures of early literacy skills in
kindergarten with respect to ELL and ethnic subgroups. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 553
570.
107