Part V Commentary: Possible New Directions in the Measurement of Student Engagement



Karen Samuelsen, a respected researcher and methodologist, provided ­commentary on the chapters in Part V of this volume. She described the difficulty of measuring latent constructs like student engagement. She argued for greater complexity in study designs and hypotheses to account for the complex nature of proposed relationships between engagement, contexts, and outcomes. She provided examples of how various statistical methods (Structural Equation Modeling, Differential Item Functioning) may be used to address some of the current measurement issues in engagement and outlined several areas of future research to advance the study of engagement.


Differential Item Functioning Student Engagement Item Parameter Cognitive Engagement Collectivist Culture 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ackerman, T. A. (1992). A didactic explanation of item bias, item impact, and item validity from a multidimensional perspective. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29(1), 67–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrich, D. (1978). Application of a psychometric model to ordered categories which are scored with successive integers. Applied Psychological Measurement, 2, 581–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Appleton, J. J. (2012). Systems consultation: Developing the assessment-to-intervention link with the Student Engagement Instrument. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 725–741). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 427–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Betts, J. E. (2012). Issues and methods in the measurement of student engagement: Advancing the construct through statistical modeling. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 783–803). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Betts, J. E., Appleton, J. J., Reschly, A. L., Christenson, S. L., & Huebner, E. S. (2010). A study of the factorial invariance of the Student Engagement Instrument (SEI): Results from middle and high school students. School Psychology Quarterly, 25(2), 84–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bingham, G. E., & Okagaki, L. (2012). Ethnicity and student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 65–95). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Clauser, B. E., & Mazor, K. M. (1998). Using statistical procedures to identify differentially functioning test items. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(1), 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Finch, H. (2005). The MIMIC model as a method for detecting DIF: comparison with Mantel-Haenszel, SIBTEST, and the IRT likelihood ratio. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 278–295.Google Scholar
  10. Glanville, L., & Wildhagen, T. (2007). The measurement of school engagement: Assessing dimensionality and measurement in variance across race and ethnicity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 6, 1019–1041. doi: 10.1177/0013164406299126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Moreira, P. A. S., Vaz, F. M., Dias, P. C., & Petracchi, P. (2009). Psychometric properties of the Portuguese version of the Student Engagement Instrument. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 24(4), 303–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Penfield, R. D., Gattamorta, K., & Childs, R. A. (2009). An NCME instructional module on using differential step functioning to refine the analysis of DIF in polytomous items. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(1), 38–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Portes, P. R. (2011). Examining the problem of cultural validity in psychological measures: The case of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and implications for practice. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association 2011 Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  15. Schmitt, D. P., & Allik, J. (2005). Simultaneous administration of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale in 53 nations: Exploring the universal and culture-specific features of global self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(4), 623–642.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Zwick, R., & Thayer, D. T. (1996). Evaluating the magnitude of differential item functioning in polytomous items. Journal of Educational Statistics, 21(3), 187–201.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational Psychology and Instructional TechnologyUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations