PLEASE READ THE BELOW ESSAY AND WRITE A SUBSTANTIVE 300 WORD REPLY Make sure that you are adding new and relevant information with each this reply.

  Review and  response to D4.1, D4.2, and D4.3 Summarize their findings and indicate areas of  agreement, disagreement, and improvement. Support your views with citations and include a reference  section. Provide a title block that includes who you are reviewing. 

D4.1 Interpreting Reliability

            There are many advantages of running a paired t test for checking interrater reliability.  One advantage is that the test displays not only the reliability correlation but also the comparison of the means for the two raters.  The correlation will reveal whether the test scores were strongly associated.  By utilizing the SBSS program, the researcher can run several reliability checks, with the output being easily understandable and interpreted (Morgan, Leech, Gloeckner, & Barrett, 2013).  By reviewing Output 7.2 in the text for the visualization test and the visualization 2 test, the researcher can discover the interrater reliability.

            The first table for Output 7.2, Test-Retest Reliability for Visualization Scores, shows the two means for the raters of the two visualization tests.  The means are very similar and the first column of table three, Paired Samples Test, shows a value of .13667 difference between the two means.  The second table, Paired Samples Correlations, reveals the correlation of the tests.  The interrater reliability coefficient for visualization and visualization 2 is 0.938.  Since the value of r is large, this indicates to the researcher that there is strong evidence for reliability (Morgan et al., 2013).

            The third table, the Paired Samples Test, shows the means of the raters of the visualization test has a significance of 0.388.  Because the value is not less than 0.05, then the researcher can deduct that the means are not significantly different. 

D4.2 Interpreting Validity

            The Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) is utilized to examine the evidence for validity.  Output 7.3 reduces 14 math attitude questions into three factors.  Those factors are competence, motivation, and pleasure.  By utilizing the SBSS program, the Output for 7.3 enables the researcher to understand the EFA.  The Rotated Factor Matrix table for Output 7.3, contains the loadings and has sorted the 14 math attitude questions, item01-item14, into three overlapping groups of items.  The items are sorted so that the items that had the highest loading form factor 1 are listed first followed by factor 2 and then factor 3.  When running the report, the researcher indicated to the SBSS system that any loading under |0.30| should be left out of the output.  The lowest loading is in factor 2, item09, .332.  This item was initially conceptualized as a competence item.  This loading does not add value to the grouping.  Overall, it had no strong loadings so the researcher should delete it (Morgan et al., 2013).

D4.3 Interpreting Internal Consistency

            For Output 7.4a, b, and c, the Cronbach’s alpha for revised competency scale, revised motivation scale, and revised pleasure scale was used.  There are numerous tables for proving reliability. However, the table that reports Cronbach’s alpha is the Reliability Statistics.  This table provides three pieces of information to the researcher.  The first column reports Cronbach’s alpha.  The second column is the Cronbach’s alpha based on standardized items, and the third column is the N of the items (Morgan et al., 2013). 

            Each of the outputs is on separate reports.  The Reliability Statistics report for Output 7.4a is for Alpha for the Revised Competence Scale.  The Cronbach’s alpha for this report is 0.856.  A general rule states that alpha should be more than 0.70, however, if the alpha is 0.90 or above this indicates repetitions in items.  For the revised competence scale the alpha of 0.856 implies that items which form the scale possess good internal consistency reliability.  Output 7.4b is for the Alpha for the Revised Motivation Scale.  Cronbach’s alpha is 0.798, which also implies that there is good internal consistency.  Output 7.4c is for the Alpha for the Revised Pleasure Scale.  Cronbach’s alpha is 0.688.  This value indicates minimally adequate internal consistency reliability (Morgan et al., 2013). 

References

Morgan, G. A., Leech, N. L., Gloechner, G. W., & Barrett, K. C. (2013). IBM SPSS for introductory statistics: Use and interpretation

           (5th ed.). New York: Brunner-Routledge