Validation of a Measure of STEM Interest for Adolescents

  • Nancy L. StausEmail author
  • Kristin Lesseig
  • Richard Lamb
  • John Falk
  • Lynn Dierking


Students’ declining performance in science and mathematics is an issue of great international concern. Recently, educators and researchers have begun to focus on affective factors such as interest to better understand STEM learning and persistence. Therefore, there is a need for effective measures of STEM interest that allow it to be tracked over time and to provide opportunities for early interventions by educators. One such instrument was recently developed to measure youth interest in STEM as a general construct and in four domains associated with STEM: earth and space science, life science, technology and engineering, and mathematics. In this paper, we explore the psychometric properties of the measure scales by administering the instrument to a large sample of youth from both a traditional and STEM-focused school and examining theorized relationships using confirmatory factor analysis as part of a larger structural equation model. Results provided support for a single latent dimension of STEM interest, confirmed the existence of the four individual STEM interest dimensions, and provided evidence of structural and generalizability validity. We conclude that the instrument provides a sufficient means to measure STEM interest for adolescent youth within a variety of populations and educational contexts.


Confirmatory factor analysis STEM education STEM interest Structural equation modeling Survey instrument 


  1. Ahmed, W., van der Werf, G., Kuyper, H., & Minnaert, A. (2013). Emotions, self-regulated learning, and achievement in mathematics: A growth curve analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 150–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2015). The Australian Curriculum, Version 7.3, January 5, 2015. Sydney, NSW: ACARA.Google Scholar
  3. Beavers, A. S., Lounsbury, J. W., Richards, J. K., Huck, S. W., Skolits, G. J., & Esquivel, S. L. (2013). Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 18(6), 1–13.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, K., & Park, K. (2011). Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A preliminary meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education, 12, 23–37.Google Scholar
  5. Buck Institute. (n.d.). What is project-based learning (PBL)? Retrieved 24 October 2018, from
  6. Burke, L., Francis, K., & Shanahan, M. (2014, July). A horizon of possibilities: A definition of STEM education. Paper presented at the STEM 2014 Conference, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  7. Cattell, R. B. (1956). Personality and motivation theory based on structural measurement. In J. L. McCary (Ed.), Psychology of personality (pp. 51–98). New York, NY: Logos.Google Scholar
  8. DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Archer, L., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2011). Young children’s aspiration in science: The unequivocal, the uncertain and the unthinkable. International Journal of Science Education, 35(6), 1037–1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dimitrov, D. (2012) Statistical methods for validation of assessment scale data in counseling and related fields. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.Google Scholar
  10. Elliot, B., Oly, K., McArthur, J., & Clark, B. (2001). The effect of an interdisciplinary algebra/science course on students’ problem solving skills, critical thinking skills and attitudes towards mathematics. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 32(6), 811–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1).
  12. Falk, J. H., Staus, N. L., Dierking, L. D., Penuel, W., Wyld, J., & Bailey, D. (2016). Understanding youth STEM interest pathways within a single community: the Synergies project. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 6(4), 369-384.Google Scholar
  13. Everett, L. J., Imbrie, P. K., & Morgan, J. (2000). Integrated curricula: Purpose and design. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(2), 167–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fitzallen, N. (2015). STEM education: What does mathematics have to offer? In M. Marshman (Eds.), Mathematics education in the margins. Proceedings of the 38th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 237–244). Sydney, Australia: MERGA.Google Scholar
  15. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fortus, D. (2014). Attending to affect. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(7), 821–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harkness, W. (1965). Properties of extended hypergeometric distributions. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 36(3), 938–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Häussler, P., & Hoffmann, L. (2002). An intervention study to enhance girls’ interest, self- concept, and achievement in physics classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 870–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Judson, E., & Sawada, D. (2000). Examining the effects of a reformed junior high school science class on students’ math achievement. School Science and Mathematics, 100(8), 419–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krapp, A. (2002). An educational-psychological theory of interest and its relation to self- determination theory. In E. Deci & R. Ryan (Eds.), The handbook of self-determination research (pp. 405–427). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.Google Scholar
  23. Krapp, A., & Prenzel, M. (2011). Research on interest in science: Theories, methods, and findings. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lamb, R., Akmal, T., & Petrie, K. (2015). Development of a cognition-priming model describing learning in a STEM classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(3), 410-437.Google Scholar
  25. Lesseig, K., Firestone, J., Morrison, J., Slavit, D., & Nelson, T. (2019). An analysis of cultural influences on STEM schools: Similarities and differences across K-12 contexts. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 17(3), 449-466.Google Scholar
  26. Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among U.S. students. Science Education, 95(5), 877–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maltese, A. V., Melki, C. S., & Wiebke, H. L. (2014). The nature of experiences responsible for the generation and maintenance of interest in STEM. Science Education, 98, 937–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marsh, H. W., Morin, A. J., Parker, P. D., & Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  30. Minner, D., Erickson, E., Wu, S., & Martinez, A. (2012). Compendium of research instruments for STEM education. Part 2: Measuring students’ content knowledge, reasoning skills, and psychological attributes. Cambridge, MA: ABT Associates. Retrieved on July 27, 2014 from Retrieved July 27, 2014.
  31. Moore, T. J., & Smith, K. A. (2014). Advancing the state of the art of STEM integration. Journal of STEM Education, 15(1), 5–10.Google Scholar
  32. Morrison, J. (2006). Attributes of STEM education: The students, the academy, the classroom. Baltimore, MD: Teaching Institute for Excellence in STEM.Google Scholar
  33. National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  34. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  35. National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  36. National Science Board. (2010). Science and engineering indicators 2010. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  37. Office of the Chief Scientist. (2013). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics in the national interest: A strategic approach. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government. Canberra: Australian Government.Google Scholar
  38. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2010). Prepare and inspire: K-12 education in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) for America's future. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.Google Scholar
  39. Raykov, T. (1998). Coefficient alpha and composite reliability with interrelated nonhomogeneous items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22(4), 375–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2011). Revisiting the conceptualization, measurement, and generation of interest. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 168–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Renninger, K. A., & Su, S. (2012). Interest and its development. In R. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 167–187). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Ruo, B., Baker, D. W., Thompson, J. A., Murray, P. K., Huber, G. M., & Sudano, J. J., Jr. (2008). Patients with worse mental health report more physical limitations after adjustment for physical performance. Psychosomatic Medicine, 70(4), 417–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Hazari, Z., & Tai, R. (2012). Stability and volatility of STEM career interest in high school: A gender study. Science Education, 96(3), 411–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEM mania. Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.Google Scholar
  45. Schreiner, C., & Sjøberg, S. (2004). Sowing the seeds of ROSE. Background, rationale, questionnaire development and data collection for ROSE (The Relevance of Science Education) – A comparative study of students’ views of science and science education (pdf) (Acta Didactica 4/2004). Oslo, Norway: Department of Teacher Education and School Development, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  46. Sjøberg, S., & Schreiner, C. (2010). The ROSE project. An overview and key findings. Retrieved from.
  47. Tai, R. H., Liu, C. Q., Maltese, A. V., & Fan, X. (2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312, 1143–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. The Royal Society Science Policy Centre. (2014). Vision for science and mathematics education. London, England: The Royal Society.Google Scholar
  49. UK Department for Education (2015). National curriculum in England: Science programmes of study. Retrieved from
  50. Vedder-Weiss, D., & Fortus, D. (2011). Adolescents’ declining motivation to learn science: Inevitable or not? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 199–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.Washington State UniversityVancouverUSA
  3. 3.University at BuffaloBuffaloUSA
  4. 4.Institute for Learning InnovationPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations