Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37674749›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023

Aptitude measurement: is measurement validity compromised in the morning.

Georgios Sideridis, Fathima Jaffari

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 86% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Georgios SideridisBoston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Fathima JaffariEducation and Training Evaluation Commission, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Harvard University · USSaudi Commission for Health Specialties · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the General Aptitude Test (GAT), a national instrument for the measurement of aptitude/achievement in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as a function of daytime testing. Participants were 722 students who took on the GAT across morning and evening administrations in a within-person pre-post design. Participants were matched for gender, parental education, and test center characteristics (i.e., size). The GAT was tested for its psychometric properties and its measurement invariance across time of day. Results pointed to a significant misfit using an exact invariance protocol. Specifically, there was a large number of non-invariant items pointing to Differential Item Functioning (DIF). Second, internal consistency reliabilities were consistently lower during morning testing compared to evening testing as evidenced using both statistical and visual means. Concerns about dimensionality were also raised for the morning compared to the evening administration. Last, comparison of performance levels indicated that morning testing was associated with significant decrements in performance across all domains compared to performance levels during evening testing. The results have implications for the validity of measurement and public testing policy if test validity during morning administration is compromised.

Indexed as

achievementaptitudechronotypesconstruct reliability and validitymeasurement invariancemorning evening testing

Identifiers

PMID37674749
PMCPMC10478097
OpenAlexW4386069904

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.