Internal Consistency Reliabilities for 14 Computer Attitude Scales.
Positive teacher attitudes toward computers are widely recognized as a necessary condition for effective use of information technology in the classroom (Woodrow, 1992). At least 14 instruments with acceptable measurement properties have been reported in the literature over the past decade (Chu & Spires, 1991; D'Souza, 1992; Francis, 1993; Gardner, Discenza, & Dukes, 1993; Kay, 1993; Knezek & Miyashita, 1994; Loyd & Gressard, 1984; Pelgrum, Janssen Reinen & Plomp, 1993; Woodrow, 1991). This article contains a description of how well each instrument measures what it claims to assess. The question is addressed for three related groups, notably: (a) preservice teachers, (b) practicing K-12 teachers, and (c) teacher educators.
The Teachers' Attitudes Toward Computers Questionnaire (TAC) was used for this research. It is a 10-part composite instrument including 284 items spanning 32 Likert and Semantic Differential subscales (Christensen & Knezek, 1996). The following 14 computer attitude questionnaires contributed to the TAC:
Computer Attitude Scale (Gressard & Loyd, 1986) *confidence, liking, anxiety, and usefulness
The Computer Use Questionnaire (Griswold, 1983) *awareness
Attitudes Toward Computers Scale (Reece & Gable, 1982) *general attitudes toward computers
The Computer Survey Scale (Stevens, 1982) *efficacy and anxiety
Computer Anxiety Rating Scale (CARS) (Heinssen, Glass, & Knight, 1987) *technical capability, appeal of learning and using computers, being controlled by computers, learning computer skills, traits to overcome anxiety.
ATC (Attitudes Toward Computers) (Raub, 1981) *computer usage, computer appreciation, societal impact CAIN (Computer Anxiety Index) (Maurer & Simonson, 1984) *examines avoidance of, negative attitudes toward, caution with, and disinterest in computers (anxiety and comfort)
BELCAT (Blombert-Ericson-Lowery Computer Attitude Task) (Erickson, 1987) *attitudes toward learning about computers and towards computers them selves
Attitude Toward Computer Scale (Francis, 1993) *affective domain
Computer Attitude Measure (CAM) (Kay, 1993) *cognitive (student, personal, general), affective, behavioral (classroom and home), and perceived control components of computerattitudes
Computer Attitude Questionnaire (CAQ) (Knezek & Miyashita, 1994) *computer importance, computer enjoyment, computer anxiety, computer seclusion
Computer Attitude Items (Pelgrum, Janssen Reinen, & Plomp, 1993) *computer relevance, computer enjoyment
Computer Attitudes Scale for Secondary Students (CASS) (Jones & Clarke, 1994) *cognitive, affective and behavioral attitudes
E-Mail (D'Souza, 1992) *attitudes toward e-mail
In Texas, Florida, New York, and California, 621 educators completed the TAC during 1995-96. Most were K-12 educators from seven school districts spanning the regions of North, South, East, and West Texas. Small samplings of K-12 educators from California and Florida were included in the group as well. University faculty from two universities in Texas and one from Florida also provided data for the study. Preservice educators from a university in the northern region of Texas and one in the southern region of Texas were also represented. Table 1 shows the number of respondents falling in each of the categories of K-12 educators, preservice teachers, and university faculty.
Table 1 lists the name, place of origin, and 1995-96 internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's Alpha) by K-12 teacher, preservice teacher, and teacher educator group, plus the original reliability (if published) for 32 subscales included on the TAC. Results indicate that most of the attitudinal subscales that were originally strong have held up well over time. However, there are notable exceptions, such as the widely-used Loyd & Gressard Confidence subscale, with an internal consistency reliability of .86 reported in 1986, but an average alpha of .75 (which is still respectable) in 1995-96.
Several lesser-known attitudinal subscales that exhibit high reliabilities and would appear to warrant wider use are listed in Table 2. Especially worthy are those subscales which exhibit high reliability without excessive length. These are the Computer Anxiety subscale (CA) from the BELCAT (Blombert-Erickson-Lowery Computer Attitude Task) (Erickson, 1987); E-mail for Classroom Learning (D'Souza, 1992); the Semantic Differential subscale (KSD) from the Computer Attitude Measure (Kay, 1993); subscale 'A' from the Computer Attitudes Scale for Secondary Students (CASS) (Jones & Clarke, 1994); the Attitudes Toward Computers subscale (ATC) (Raub, 1981); the Computer Enjoyment subscale (ENJ) from Pelgrum, Janssen, Reinen, & Plomp (1993); Kay's (1993) Teacher subscale (KT) of the Computer Attitude Measure; the Anxiety subscale (Anxiety) of the Computer Attitude Questionnaire (Knezek & Miyashita, 1994); and the Anxiety subscale (CASA) of the Computer Attitude Scale (Loyd & Gressard, 1984). Items for each of these ar e listed in the Appendix.
Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (1996). Constructing the teachers' attitudes toward computers (TAC) questionnaire. Paper presented to the Southwest Educational Research Association Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA.
Chu, P.C., & Spires, E.E. (1991). Validating the computer anxiety rating scale: Effects of cognitive style and computer courses on computer anxiety. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 7-21.
DeVellis, R.F. (1991). Scale Development. Newbury Park, NJ: Sage.
D'Souza, P. V. (1992, Winter). E-mail's role in the learning process: A case study. Journal of Research on Computers in Education 25(1), 256-264.
Erickson, T.E. (1987). Sex differences in student attitudes towards computers. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Francis, L.J. (1993). Measuring attitude toward computers among undergraduate college students: The affective domain. Computers in Education 20(3), 251-255.
Gardner, D.G., Discenza, R., & Dukes, R.L. (1993). The measurement of computer attitudes: An empirical comparison of available scales. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 9(4), 487-507.
Gressard, C.P., & Loyd, B.H. (1986). Validation studies of a new computer attitude scale. Association for Educational Data Systems Journal, 18(4), 295-301.
Griswold, P.A. (1983). Some determinants of computer awareness among education majors. Association for Educational Data Systems Journal, 16(2), 92-103.
Heinssen, R.K, Jr., Glass, C.R., & Knight, L.A. (1987). Assessing computer anxiety: Development and validation of the computer anxiety rating scale. Computers in Human Behavior, 3, 49-59.
Jones, T., & Clarke, V.A. (1994). A computer attitude scale for secondary students. Computers in Education, 22(4), 315-318.
Kay, R.H. (1993). An exploration of theoretical and practical foundations for assessing attitudes toward computers: The computer attitude measure (CAM). Computers in Human Behavior, 9, 371-386.
Knezek, G.A., & Miyashita, K.T. (1994). A preliminary study of the computer attitude questionnaire. Studies on Children and Computers. Denton, TX: Texas Center for Educational Technology.
Loyd, B.H., & Gressard, C P. (1984). Reliability and factoral validity of computer attitude scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44(2), 501-505.
Maurer, M., & Simonson, M. (1984). Development of validation of a measure of computer anxiety. In M. Simonson (Ed.), Proceedings of selected research paper presentations. Annual Meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Dallas, TX.
Pelgrum, W.J., Janssen Reinen, I.A.M., & Plomp, Tj. (1993). Schools, teachers, students, and computers: A cross-national perspective. Twente, Netherlands: I.E.A.
Raub, A.C. (1981). Correlates of computer anxiety in college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Reece, M.J., & Gable, R.K. (1982). The development and validation of a measure of general attitudes toward computers. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42, 913-916.
Stevens, D.J.. (1982). Educators perceptions of computers in education: 1979 and 1982. Association for Educational Data Systems Journal, 145(1), 1-15.
Woodrow, J.R.J. (1991). A comparison of four computer attitude scales. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7(2), 165-187.
Woodrow, J.E. (1992). The influence of programming training on the computer literacy and attitudes of preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25(2), 200-218.
Internal Consistencey Reliabilities for 32 TAC Subscales Scale # Items Combined K-12 teachers n=621 n=436 I (Knezek & Miyashita Importance) 7 .81 .84 J (Knezek & Miyashita Enjoyment) 9 .84 .87 Anxiety (Knezek & Miyashita Anxiety) 8 .91 .91 CASA (Loyd & Gressard Anxiety) 9 .91 .91 CASC (Loyd & Gressard Confidence) 10 .81 .81 CASU (Loyd & Gressard Liking) 10 .89 .90 CASU (Loyd & Gressard Usefulness) 10 .85 .85 REL (Pelgrum & Plomp Relevance) 7 .81 .81 ENJ (Pelgrum & Plomp Enjoyment) 9 .89 .88 CA (Compater Anxiety) 20 .95 .95 U (Utility) 7 .87 .88 MD (Male Domain) 6 .78 .78 S (Success) 4 .78 .77 NI (Negative Impact) 6 .77 .77 MOT (Motivation) 4 .82 .82 PI (Productivity Importance) 4 .87 .88 CUQ (Computer Use Questionnaire) 14 .72 .73 CSS (Computer Survey Scale) 8 .73 .75 ATC (Francis Attitude Toward Computers) 16 .91 .92 KS (Kay CAM Student) 5 .87 .89 KSD (Kay CAM Semantic Differential) 10 .93 .93 KT (Kay CAM Teacher) 5 .91 .93 CARSA (Technical Capability) 6 .73 .74 CARSB (Appeal of learning aboal using computers) 4 .82 .85 CARSC (Being controlled by computers) 3 .59 .60 CARSD (Learning computer skills) 3 .68 .71 CARSE (Traits to overcame anxiety) 2 .46 .50 CASSA (Affective) 15 .94 .94 CASSB (Behavioral) 10 .79 .79 CASSC (Cognitive) 14 .69 .70 ATCS (Raub Attitude Toward Computer Scale) 8 .87 .88 E-MAIL 11 .95 .96 Scale Preservice Faculty Average n=151 n=34 I (Knezek & Miyashita Importance) .77 .67 .76 J (Knezek & Miyashita Enjoyment) .81 .60 .76 Anxiety (Knezek & Miyashita Anxiety) .91 .85 .89 CASA (Loyd & Gressard Anxiety) .91 .84 .89 CASC (Loyd & Gressard Confidence) .70 .75 .75 CASU (Loyd & Gressard Liking) .85 .86 .87 CASU (Loyd & Gressard Usefulness) .81 .77 .81 REL (Pelgrum & Plomp Relevance) .79 .81 .80 ENJ (Pelgrum & Plomp Enjoyment) .88 .94 .90 CA (Compater Anxiety) .94 .95 .95 U (Utility) .82 .74 .81 MD (Male Domain) .79 .89 .82 S (Success) .79 .85 .80 NI (Negative Impact) .79 .72 .76 MOT (Motivation) .81 .81 .81 PI (Productivity Importance) .81 .86 .85 CUQ (Computer Use Questionnaire) .65 .77 .72 CSS (Computer Survey Scale) .63 .61 .66 ATC (Francis Attitude Toward Computers) .90 .90 .91 KS (Kay CAM Student) .77 .88 .85 KSD (Kay CAM Semantic Differential) .92 .95 .93 KT (Kay CAM Teacher) .87 .86 .89 CARSA (Technical Capability) .68 .67 .70 CARSB (Appeal of learning aboal using computers) .74 .56 .72 CARSC (Being controlled by computers) .49 .57 .55 CARSD (Learning computer skills) .61 .44 .59 CARSE (Traits to overcame anxiety) .32 .58 .47 CASSA (Affective) .93 .93 .93 CASSB (Behavioral) .81 .81 .80 CASSC (Cognitive) .63 .60 .64 ATCS (Raub Attitude Toward Computer Scale) .86 .87 .87 E-MAIL .94 .92 .94 Scale Original I (Knezek & Miyashita Importance) .82 [#] J (Knezek & Miyashita Enjoyment) .82 [#] Anxiety (Knezek & Miyashita Anxiety) .84 [#] CASA (Loyd & Gressard Anxiety) .80 [*] .90 [^] CASC (Loyd & Gressard Confidence) .86 [*] .89 [^] CASU (Loyd & Gressard Liking) .85 [*] .89 [^] CASU (Loyd & Gressard Usefulness) .82 [^] REL (Pelgrum & Plomp Relevance) .64 [**] ENJ (Pelgrum & Plomp Enjoyment) .73 [**] CA (Compater Anxiety) U (Utility) MD (Male Domain) S (Success) NI (Negative Impact) MOT (Motivation) PI (Productivity Importance) CUQ (Computer Use Questionnaire) .66 [*] CSS (Computer Survey Scale) .56 [*] ATC (Francis Attitude Toward Computers) .96 [+] KS (Kay CAM Student) .73 [++] KSD (Kay CAM Semantic Differential) .88 [++] KT (Kay CAM Teacher) .77 [++] CARSA (Technical Capability) CARSB (Appeal of learning aboal using computers) CARSC (Being controlled by computers) CARSD (Learning computer skills) CARSE (Traits to overcame anxiety) CASSA (Affective) .95 [n] CASSB (Behavioral) .71 [n] CASSC (Cognitive) .88 [n] ATCS (Raub Attitude Toward Computer Scale) .87 E-MAIL .81 [+] (*.)Woodrow, 1992 (^.)Loyd & Gressard, 1986 (#.)Knezek & Miyashita, 1994 (n.)Jones & Clarke, 1994 (++.)Kay, 1993 'D'Souza, 1992 (+.)Francis, 1993 (**.)Pelgrum & Plomp, 1993 Top Nine of 32 Attitudinal Scales Scale Avg # Items Alpha CA .95 20 E-mail .94 11 CAM .93 10 CASSA .93 15 ATC .91 16 ENJ .90 9 KT .89 5 Anxiety .89 8 CASA .89 9
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||Journal of Technology and Teacher Education|
|Article Type:||Statistical Data Included|
|Date:||Dec 22, 2000|
|Previous Article:||Problem-Based Learning as a Multimedia Design Framework in Teacher Education [*].|
|Next Article:||Where Do You Stand to Get a Good View of Pedagogy?|