Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Educational and Psychological Measurement
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Miller, P. M.
Right arrow Articles by Fagley, N. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Factor Structure of the Gibb Experimental Test of Testwiseness

Paul M. Miller

Oklahoma State University

Dale R. Fuqua

Oklahoma State University

N. S. Fagley

Rutgers University

This study investigated the factor structure of scores on the seven subscales of the Gibb (1964) Experimental Test of Testwiseness. The Gibb instrument measures a subject's ability to use seven types of secondary cues to correctly answer multiple-choice test questions. The study investigated whether the seven types of cues proposed by Gibb (1964) represented independent dimensions or could be reduced to a smaller set of interpretable factors. A principal components analysis yielded two factors with eigenvalues exceeding 1.00. The factors were rotated to final solution using the varimax method. Scales loading above .40 on factor 1 included Alliterative Associations, More Precise Alternatives, Longer Correct Alternatives, and Grammatical cues. These subscales were interpreted as more overt cues to the correct response. Scales with loadings above .40 on factor 2 included Grossly Unrelated Alternatives, Inclusionary Language, and Give Aways in other items. These subscales were interpreted as more subtle cues to the correct response. Further research is necessary to replicate the factors and to substantiate these tentative interpretations.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 50, No. 1, 203-208 (1990)
DOI: 10.1177/0013164490501024
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
D. T. Morse
The Relative Difficulty of Selected Test-Wiseness Skills among College Students
Educational and Psychological Measurement, June 1, 1998; 58(3): 399 - 408.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
M. G. Harmon, D. T. Morse, and L. W. Morse
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Gibb Experimental Test of Testwiseness
Educational and Psychological Measurement, April 1, 1996; 56(2): 276 - 286.
[Abstract]