ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023
Aptitude measurement: is measurement validity compromised in the morning.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.