449436 JPAXXX10.

1177/0734282912449436TeoJournal of Psychoeducational Assessment

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

Examining the Psychometric 31(1) 7279

2013 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission:
Properties of the Epistemic sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734282912449436

Belief Inventory (EBI) http://jpa.sagepub.com

Timothy Teo1

Abstract
The psychometric properties of the scores on the Epistemic Belief Inventory were examined
using an exploratory factor analysis (principal axis factor) and confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) on a total sample of 1,242 elementary school teachers. Results of the EFA supported the
hypothesized five-factor model but the items had loaded on different factors. Overall, the results
showed that the five-factor model did not fit the data and that the EBI was not interpretable
with the sample in this study.

Keywords
Psychometrics; beliefs; teachers ; CFA; EFA

Introduction
The Epistemic Belief Inventory (EBI) was developed by Schraw, Dunkle, and Bendixen (1995)
who also produced evidence in support of the instruments use and interpretation in 2002.
Comprising 32 items, the EBI aimed to measure five dimensions of epistemological beliefs:
simple knowledge (8 items), certain knowledge (7 items), omniscient authority (5 items), innate
ability (7 items), and quick learning (5 items). The score for each dimension is obtained by adding
the items scores. Since its development, the Cronbach alphas for the EBI have been reported in
research, ranging from .67 to .87 (Bendixen, Schraw, & Dunkle, 1998) and .66 to .83 for the
subscales (Ravindran, Greene, & DeBacker, 2005).
Toward greater precision in measurement and factorial validity, Schraw, Bendixen, and
Dunkle (2002) recommended examining its psychometric properties of the EBI using modern
techniques such as confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). In using CFA, the hypothesized number
of underlying factors and the interfactor relationships are specified a priori, either from knowl-
edge of the literature or from theoretical hypothesizing (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham,
2006). The aim of the present study is to investigate the psychometric properties of the Epistemic
Belief Inventory (Schraw et al., 1995) on a sample of school teachers from a culture different
from the original sample. The findings of this study can provide evidence of the instruments
cross-cultural validity.

1
University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Corresponding Author:
Timothy Teo, University of Auckland, Faculty of Education, Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1010, New Zealand
Email: t.teo@auckland.ac.nz

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at BEIJING FOREIGN STUDIES UNIV on December 20, 2015
Teo 73

Method
Participants and Procedure
The total number of participants in this study was 1,242 teachers from 32 elementary schools.
Of these, 613 and 629 participants were used for the EFA and CFA respectively. Eighty-three
percent (n = 1,036) were females and the majority of them had between 1 and 3 years of teach-
ing service (n = 387, 31.2%). One hundred schools were invited and a total of 32 schools (32%)
agreed to participate. These were sent the URL of an online questionnaire comprising the EBI
and questions to capture various demographic details. The estimated response rate was 39 per
school. On average, participants spent about approximately 15 min to complete the EBI ques-
tionnaire and each school was represented by about 38 participants. As English is used as the
official language in Singapore, all items in the EBI were presented in English.

Instrument
The 32-item EBI (Schraw et al., 1995) was employed in this study. Participants were asked to
indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each item by using a 6-point scale
(1 = strongly disagree; 6 = strongly agree). All items were worded in the same direction except
for seven of the 32 items (items 2, 6, 14, 20, 24, 30, 31) and these were reverse-coded at the data
analysis stage. A high score on a particular subscale indicates a high level of belief of the factor.

Results
Descriptive Statistics and Test of Univariate Normality

The combined data (n = 1,242) were examined for out-of-range responses (i.e., responses greater
than 6), and none were detected. As the data were collected using an online form that prevented
submission of uncompleted forms, no missing data were found. The means and standard devia-
tions for each of the 32 items ranged from 2.06 to 5.05 and .96 to 1.76 respectively. To test the
assumption of univariate normality, the skew and kurtosis were examined using Klines (2005)
suggested cutoffs of |3.0| and |8.0|, respectively. The skewness of the 32 items ranged from
1.46 to 1.24, and the values for kurtosis ranged from 1.45 to 2.93, indicating that the
responses were fairly normally distributed.

Exploratory Factor Analysis

A principal axis factor (PAF) analysis with promax rotation was performed on the scores of the
32 items of the EBI obtained from 1242 participants. PAF was used in this study because it is
appropriate in situations where latent constructs or factors are thought to cause variable
responses. Also, PAF analyzes only the common variance that a variable shares with other vari-
ables which, unlike principal component analysis, analyzes total variance (Henson & Roberts,
2006). The factor loading and structure Table 1 shows the factor and structure matrices of the
32-item EBI.
The eigenvalues-greater-than-one (K1) rule, scree test, parallel analysis, and the interpretabil-
ity of different factor solutions served as the criteria to determine the number of factors to extract.
The K1 rule retains all factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, whereas the scree test illustrates
the plotted eigenvalues for drastic changes between adjacent pairs of plotted eigenvalues. In
contrast, parallel analysis compares the initially extracted eigenvalues to random data sets that
are the same size and other descriptive statistics as the obtained data being evaluated. When the

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at BEIJING FOREIGN STUDIES UNIV on December 20, 2015
 Table 1. Factor and Structure Matrices of the 32-Item EBI

74
Factor matrix Structure matrix

Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EBI 1_SK .255 .146 .236 .088 .103 .106 .197 .012 .192 .107 .205 .009 .419 .119 .017 .178
EBI 2_CK .107 .310 .036 .069 .147 .011 .149 .031 .044 .196 .090 .382 .008 .097 .109 .127
EBI 3_QL .473 .055 .184 .176 .036 .203 .139 .140 .498 .337 .153 .070 .452 .072 .089 .247
EBI 4_OA .180 .113 .494 .072 .118 .188 .042 .010 .099 .104 .020 .061 .551 .112 .139 .037
EBI 5_IA .539 .217 .124 .247 .039 .010 .029 .038 .628 .200 .334 .051 .184 .277 .063 .387
EBI 6_CK .271 .055 .217 .094 .092 .079 .015 .080 .289 .140 .149 .181 .014 .128 .247 .284
EBI 7_OA .302 .189 .262 .067 .042 .167 .017 .037 .260 .158 .179 .003 .448 .225 .044 .117
EBI 8_IA .415 .269 .166 .243 .099 .144 .012 .201 .541 .114 .390 .011 .034 .149 .089 .167
EBI 9_QL .510 .166 .265 .213 .190 .127 .123 .151 .426 .259 .677 .085 .123 .236 .137 .375
EBI 10_SK .408 .390 .155 .358 .222 .073 .053 .082 .314 .086 .705 .060 .219 .424 .011 .250
EBI 11_SK .147 .421 .024 .215 .036 .032 .114 .007 .138 .063 .327 .242 .116 .412 .144 .001
EBI 12_IA .547 .186 .140 .054 .025 .018 .062 .092 .549 .244 .411 .043 .207 .329 .123 .453
EBI 13_SK .555 .180 .033 .236 .048 .106 .023 .086 .435 .314 .482 .059 .382 .441 .180 .439
EBI 14_CK .126 .244 .029 .022 .309 .093 .107 .046 .059 .127 .001 .425 .097 .037 .157 .151
EBI 15_IA .605 .138 .005 .301 .103 .149 .037 .135 .704 .376 .226 .068 .317 .227 .102 .306
EBI 16_QL .617 .180 .088 .104 .081 .262 .025 .001 .575 .537 .188 .267 .323 .171 .415 .497
EBI 17_IA .488 .308 .028 .203 .017 .096 .162 .157 .569 .134 .222 .030 .291 .458 .014 .307
EBI 18_SK .318 .292 .075 .226 .110 .111 .303 .095 .270 .140 .292 .087 .173 .568 .045 .151
EBI 19_CK .499 .247 .017 .137 .029 .105 .029 .095 .330 .508 .204 .309 .263 .168 .317 .478
EBI 20_OA .181 .192 .250 .014 .089 .006 .099 .059 .163 .247 .072 .149 .133 .012 .232 .162
EBI 21_QL .554 .329 .231 .122 .153 .034 .012 .036 .390 .610 .282 .281 .064 .099 .391 .558
EBI 22_SK .386 .260 .006 .100 .229 .005 .120 .023 .246 .519 .085 .189 .125 .079 .183 .301

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at BEIJING FOREIGN STUDIES UNIV on December 20, 2015
EBI 23_CK .355 .190 .277 .087 .148 .061 .150 .152 .205 .497 .065 .198 .265 .003 .070 .148
EBI 24_SK .217 .317 .013 .068 .298 .028 .098 .089 .093 .278 .113 .479 .103 .091 .171 .182

(continued)
 Table 1. (continued)

Factor matrix Structure matrix

Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EBI 25_CK .440 .251 .218 .213 .178 .126 .065 .138 .217 .608 .185 .209 .263 .002 .001 .278
EBI 26_IA .540 .137 .102 .203 .084 .306 .058 .054 .548 .344 .293 .060 .154 .143 .235 .315
EBI 27_OA .203 .129 .419 .011 .001 .214 .002 .026 .123 .132 .088 .005 .294 .054 .368 .079
EBI 28_OA .520 .213 .145 .056 .009 .263 .164 .221 .366 .451 .192 .269 .219 .004 .014 .588
EBI 29_QL .639 .260 .029 .044 .061 .093 .180 .145 .464 .586 .305 .285 .251 .076 .268 .676
EBI 30_SK .167 .268 .059 .095 .315 .110 .185 .017 .100 .173 .016 .483 .008 .091 .003 .156
EBI 31_CK .202 .499 .066 .023 .190 .019 .008 .041 .062 .370 .038 .518 .071 .260 .197 .246
EBI 32_IA .010 .417 .147 .090 .066 .151 .178 .111 .079 .255 .070 .175 .042 .271 .384 .114
Egenvalue 5.302 2.123 1.101 .821 .661 .583 .441 .322
95% C.I. 5.72, 4.88 2.29, 1.95 1.19, 1.01 0.89, 0.76 0.71, 0.61 0.63, 0.54 0.48, 0.41 0.35, 0.30
Note: SK = simple knowledge; CK = certain knowledge; IA = innate ability; OA = omniscient authority; QL = quick learning.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at BEIJING FOREIGN STUDIES UNIV on December 20, 2015
75
76 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 31(1)

eigenvalue for a component in the random data exceeds the size of the component in the true data
set, only the preceding factors are retained for further analysis (OConnor, 2000). This approach
to identifying the correct number of components to retain has been shown to be among the most
accurate because the Kaisers criterion and Catells scree test have a tendency to overestimate the
number of components (e.g., Velicer, Eaton, & Fava, 2000).
All of the extraction methods supported a five-factor solution to be retained for the final solution,
except the K1 rule, which suggested eight factors should be retained. Using the recommended factor
loading of +/ .30 as minimal level for interpretability for a sample size of at least 350 (Hair et al.,
2006), three items (6, 18, and 28) were dropped. In addition, items 20 and 32 were in the unexpected
direction (negative instead of positive) and these were removed as well, making a total of 5 items
being excluded from further analyses. Table 2 shows the results of the exploratory factor analysis
with the retained factors and the loadings of 27 items. From the item clustering around each factor,
Factor 1 may be named as Innate Ability, Factor 2 as Absolute Knowledge, Factor 3 as Simple
Knowledge, Factor 4 as Knowledge Authorities, and Factor 5 as Knowledge Ambiguity.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed on the 27-item EBI using a separate
sample of 629 participants. In the CFA, the five factors were allowed to correlate and the items/
factor relationships were specified as indicated by the EFA (Table 1). Identification of the model
was done by using the standardization method (where all covariances were set to 1.0). The fit of
the hypothesized five-factor model was assessed by three absolute (2, RMSEA, & SRMR) and
two incremental (TLI & CFI) fit indices. The chi-square statistic (2) assesses the difference
between the sample covariance matrix and the implied covariance matrix from the hypothesized
model and a statistically nonsignificant 2 indicates adequate model fit. The RMSEA and SRMR
are sensitive to model misspecification, with adequate fit represented by values of .06 and .08
or less, respectively. The incremental fit indices, TLI and CFI with a recommended cutoff of .95
or greater as indicative of acceptable fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). However, it should be noted that
such cutoffs are imperfect although they are widely referred to. Multivariate normality was
examined using Mardias normalized multivariate kurtosis value. The Mardias coefficient for
the data in this study was 171.86, and this is lower than that of 899 computed from the formula
p(p+2) where p equals the number of observed variables in the model (Raykov & Marcoulides,
2008), indicative of multivariate normality. As such, maximum likelihood (ML) estimation was
used to estimate the models parameters and fit indices.
Overall, the fit of the five-factor 27-item model was poor (2 = 926.332, p .001; 2/df =
2.950; TLI = .801; CFI = .822; RMSEA = .056; SRMR = .060). Although the RMSEA and
SRMR suggested a reasonable fit to the data, the TLI and CFI were below the recommended
value .95 and above.
The lack of fit may be the result of failing to estimate the direct relationships between items
and factors, for example, cross-loadings were fixed to zero to model the hypothesized five-factor
structure. Bryne (2001) suggested that if a model is correct, the absolute value of most standard-
ized covariances of residuals is expected to be less than three. An inspection of the standardized
residual covariances matrix revealed that of the 378 standardized residual covariances, more
than 50 had exceeded the absolute value of three. The large number of values exceeding three
indicated that these observed variables were not explained well by the proposed model.

Discussion
This study aims to examine the factorial validity of the five-factor model of epistemological
beliefs proposed by Schraw et al. (1995) on a sample of elementary teachers in an Asian culture.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at BEIJING FOREIGN STUDIES UNIV on December 20, 2015
Teo 77

Table 2. Results of the Principal Axis Factor Analysis With Oblimin (Promax) Rotation) of the EBI (27
items)

Item 1 2 3 4 5
3. Students who learn things quickly are the most successful (QL) .382
5.Some people will never be smart no matter how hard they .642
work (IA)
8.Really smart students dont have to work as hard to do well in .626
school (IA)
12. People cant do too much about how smart they are (IA) .381
15.How well you do in school depends on how smart you are (IA) .728
17.Some people just have a knack for learning and others dont .577
(IA)
26. Smart people are born that way (IA) .511
16.If you dont learn something quickly, you wont ever learn it .444
(QL)
19a. If two people are arguing about something, at least one of them .526
must be wrong (CK)
21.If you havent understood a chapter the first time through, .747
going back over it wont help (QL)
22.Science is easy to understand because it contains so many facts .627
(SK)
23.The moral rules I live by apply to everyone (CK) .391
25.What is true today will be true tomorrow (CK) .508
29.Working on a problem with no quick solution is a waste of time .519
(QL)
9.If a person tries too hard to understand a problem, they will .596
most likely end up being confused (QL)
10.Too many theories just complicate things (SK) .729
11.The best ideas are often the most simple (SK) .375
13. Instructors should focus on facts instead of theories (SK) .446
1.It bothers me when instructors dont tell students the answers .333
to complicated problems (SK)
4. People should always obey the law (OA) .604
7.Parents should teach their children all there is to know about .358
life (OA)
27.When someone in authority tells me what to do, I usually do .440
it (OA)
2a.Truth means different things to different people (CK) .345
14a.I like teachers who present several competing theories and let .508
their students decide which is best (CK)
24a.The more you know about a topic, the more there is to know .436
(SK)
30a.You can study something for years and still not really .466
understand it (SK)
31a. Sometimes there are no right answers to lifes big problems .498
(CK)
Notes: (a) Items with factor loadings of .30 or greater (accounting for 10% or more of the item variance) are included.
(b) SK = simple knowledge; CK = certain knowledge; IA = innate ability; OA = omniscient authority; QL = quick
learning.
a.This item was reverse-scored.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at BEIJING FOREIGN STUDIES UNIV on December 20, 2015
78 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 31(1)

The results showed that, at the EFA level, there was support for the five-factor hypothesized
model that underlies Epistemology Belief Inventory (EBI). However, due to the misspecifica-
tions at the item-factor level, removal of five items due to their low factor loadings (less than
0.3), unexpected directional signs (negative instead of positive), and poor model fit from the
CFA, there was evidence of complex model misspecification. In other words, a misrepresenta-
tion of the relationship between items and factors has occurred. In addition, the items belonging
to more than one factor from the original EBI had loaded together and this rendered a solution
that was not interpretable.
Overall, the attempts in this study to identify a plausible factor structure for the EBI items
were thorough but unsuccessful. Several limitations exist in this study. First, the sample used in
this study is different from that of Schraw et al., (1995). While a measure should be validated in
different contexts with different populations for greater usability, it is possible that the students
used in the original study and the teachers in this study had different conceptions of epistemol-
ogy. Second, the epistemological beliefs of the teacher participants in this study may have been
shaped through the process of teaching and learning that they undertake while at their work-
places, a scenario unlike the prevocational participants in the original study (Schraw et al., 1995).
Future research on the EBI may include additional validation involving participants across
different cultures and populations and professions. Furthermore, measurement invariance should
be rigorously pursued to establish cross-cultural validity. Given that the EBI was originally
developed and tested in North America, its generalizability to other cultures is of interest to
empirical researchers and psychometricians alike.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or pub-
lication of this article: Data for this study was collected as part of a research funded by grant LSL 07/05
MJ from the Singapore Learning Sciences Laboratory, National Institute of Education, Nanyang
Technological University.

References
Bendixen, L. D., Schraw, G., & Dunkle, M. E. (1998). Epistemic beliefs and moral reasoning. Journal of
Psychology, 132, 187-200.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with Amos: Basic concepts applications, and program-
ming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hair, Jr., J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis
(6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Henson, R. K. & Roberts, J. K. (2006). Exploratory factor analysis reporting practices in published psycho-
logical research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psycho-
logical Measurement, 66, 393-416.
Hofer, B. & Pintrich, P. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and
knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88-140.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
OConnor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel
analysis and Velicers MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers, 32,
396-402.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at BEIJING FOREIGN STUDIES UNIV on December 20, 2015
Teo 79

Ravindran, B. & Greene, B. A., & DeBacker, T. B. (2005). The role of goals and beliefs in the predic-
tion of pre-service teachers cognitive engagement and knowledge integration. Journal of Educational
Research, 98, 222-232.
Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2008). An introduction to applied multivariate analysis. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Schommer, M. A. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82, 498-504.
Schommer, M. A. (1993). Epistemological development and academic performance among secondary stu-
dents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 406-411.
Schraw, G., Bendixen, L. D., & Dunkle, M. E. (2002). Development and validation of the Epistemological
Beliefs Inventory (EBI). In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology
of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schraw, G., Dunkle, M. E., & Bendixen, L. D. (1995). Cognitive processes in well-defined and ill-defined
problem solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 523-538.
Velicer, W. F., Eaton, C. A., & Fava, J. L. (2000). Construct explication through factor or component analy-
sis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or com-
ponents. In R. D. Goffin & E. Helmes (Eds.), Problems and solutions in human assessment: Honoring
Douglas N. Jackson at seventy (pp. 41-71). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at BEIJING FOREIGN STUDIES UNIV on December 20, 2015