DEVELOPMENT OF MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENTS AND LATENT PROFILES ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH MINDSET FOR GRADUATE STUDENT TEACHERS
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This research aimed to: 1) Develop and examine the quality of a research mindset measurement instrument, and 2) Analyze the levels and latent profiles of research mindset. The research sample consisted of 240 first-year master’s and doctoral students in teacher education programs from faculties of education across universities representing six regions of Thailand. The sample size was determined based on Soper’s guideline, and participants were selected using multistage random sampling. The research instrument was a 30-item research mindset scale using a five-point rating scale. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation), second-order confirmatory factor analysis, and latent profile analysis. The findings revealed that: 1) The research mindset measurement instrument comprised 30 items on a five-point rating scale. The item-level content validity index (I-CVI) ranged from .800 to 1.000, while the scale-level content validity index (S-CVI) was .987. The item discrimination indices ranged from .629 to .808. Factor loadings ranged from .711 to .886 and were statistically significant at the .05 level for all items. The reliability coefficients for the four components were .899, .909, .892, and .925, respectively. and 2) The latent profile analysis identified three distinct research mindset profiles. The “Beginning group” demonstrated an emerging level of research mindset, with mean scores at the moderate level (M = 3.093 - 3.289, S.D. = 0.322 - 0.399), comprising 15 participants (6.25%). The “Progressive group” demonstrated a high level of research mindset, with mean scores at the high level (M = 3.808 - 3.991, S.D. = 0.322 - 0.399), comprising 165 participants (68.75%). The “Strong Group” demonstrated a very high level of research mindset, with mean scores ranging from high to very high (M = 4.174 - 4.782, S.D. = 0.322 - 0.399), comprising 60 participants (25.00%).
Article Details
References
วิภาวี ศิริลักษณ์. (2561). การวิจัยการออกแบบและการศึกษาประสบการณ์ผู้ใช้เพื่อพัฒนาหลักการออกแบบและต้นแบบการส่งเสริมกรอบคิดทางบวกด้านการวิจัยของครู. ใน ดุษฎีนิพนธ์ครุศาสตรดุษฎีบัณฑิต สาขาวิชาวิธีวิทยาการวิจัยทางการศึกษา. จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย.
วิรันดา มีทัพ และอาทิตย์ อินต๊ะแก้ว. (2567). การศึกษาความสามารถในการฟันฝ่าอุปสรรคการศึกษาในระดับบัณฑิตศึกษาของครูโรงเรียนมหาชัยคริสเตียนวิทยา: การวิจัยพหุกรณีศึกษา. วารสารสมาคมนักวิจัย, 29(2), 74-95.
ศิริชัย กาญจนวาสี. (2556). ทฤษฎีการทดสอบแบบดั้งเดิม. (พิมพ์ครั้งที่ 7). กรุงเทพมหานคร: โรงพิมพ์แห่งจุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย.
Almanasreh, E. et al. (2019). Evaluation of methods used for estimating content validity. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 15(2), 214-221.
Asparouhov, T. & Muthén, B. (2014). Auxiliary Variables in Mixture Modeling: Three-Step Approaches Using Mplus. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(3), 329-341.
Burnette, J. L. et al. (2013). Mind-sets matter: A meta-analytic review of implicit theories and self-regulation. Psychological Bulletin, 139(3), 655-701.
Collins, L. M. & Lanza, S. T. (2010). Latent Class and Latent Transition Analysis: With Applications in the Social, Behavioral, and Health Sciences. New Jersey: John Wiley.
Duckworth, A. L. et al. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087-1101.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Random House.
Farrington, C. A. et al. (2012). Teaching Adolescents to Become Learners: The Role of Noncognitive Factors in Shaping School Performance--A Critical Literature Review. Chicago: University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Kelloway, E. K. (2015). Using Mplus for Structural Equation Modeling. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Mertler, C. A. (2024). Introduction to Educational Research. (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Nylund-Gibson, K. & Choi, A. Y. (2018). Ten frequently asked questions about latent class analysis. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 4(4), 440-461.
Nylund-Gibson, K. et al. (2019). Prediction from Latent Classes: A Demonstration of Different Approaches to Include Distal Outcomes in Mixture Models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 26(6), 967-985.
Papanastasiou, E. C. (2005). Factor structure of the ‘Attitudes Toward Research’ scale. Statistics Education Research Journal, 4(1), 16-26.
Soper, D. S. (2026). Calculating statistics should be fast and easy. Retrieved January 19, 2026, from https://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc
Steiger, J. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 893-898.
Yeager, D. S. & Dweck, C. S. (2020). What Can Be Learned from Growth Mindset Controversies? American Psychologist, 75(9), 1269-1284.
Yeager, D. S. et al. (2019). A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement. ResearchGate, 573(2019), 364-369.
