Search for: All records

In this study, the authors have examined the response-process validity of two recent measures of student evolution acceptance, the Inventory of Student Evolution Acceptance (I-SEA) and the Generalized Acceptance of Evolution Evaluation (GAENE), using student interviews. They found several validity issues which can inform future study design and survey improvement. 

Abstract Hundreds of studies have explored student evolution acceptance because evolution is a core concept of biology that many undergraduate biology students struggle to accept. However, this construct of “evolution acceptance” has been defined and measured in various ways, which has led to inconsistencies across studies and difficulties in comparing results from different studies. Many studies and essays have offered evaluations and perspectives of evolution acceptance instruments, but publications with a focus on consensus building across research teams is still needed. Further, little attention has been paid to how evolution acceptance instruments may be interpreted differently by students with varied religious backgrounds. Funded by a Research Coordination Network in Undergraduate Biology Education grant from the National Science Foundation, we gathered 16 experts from different disciplinary and religious backgrounds to review current evolution acceptance instruments and create a guide to the strengths and weaknesses of these instruments, including appropriate contexts for using these instruments and their potential weaknesses with different religious populations. Finally, in an attempt to move the field forward, we articulated a consensus definition of evolution acceptance that can be used to guide future instrument development. 

Hundreds of articles have explored the extent to which individuals accept evolution, and the Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution (MATE) is the most often used survey. However, research indicates the MATE has limitations, and it has not been updated since its creation more than 20 years ago. In this study, we revised the MATE using information from cognitive interviews with 62 students that revealed response process errors with the original instrument. We found that students answered items on the MATE based on constructs other than their acceptance of evolution, which led to answer choices that did not fully align with their actual acceptance. Students answered items based on their understanding of evolution and the nature of science and different definitions of evolution. We revised items on the MATE, conducted 29 cognitive interviews on the revised version, and administered it to 2881 students in 22 classes. We provide response process validity evidence for the new measure through cognitive interviews with students, structural validity through a Rasch dimensionality analysis, and concurrent validity evidence through correlations with other measures of evolution acceptance. Researchers can now measure student evolution acceptance using this new version of the survey, which we have called the MATE 2.0.