Quantitative Measures in Undergraduate Mathematics Education: A Review of Instruments and Validity Evidence

This paper provides an overview of 154 measures (with some validity evidence) in use by RUME researchers over a twenty-year span (2000–2019). We share focal constructs, validity evidence, and reported usage of the measures. We assessed the strength of this validity evidence using the six categories from the AERA et al. (2014) standards: test content, internal structure, response process, relation to other variables, consequences of testing, and reliability. The most reported validity evidence was Cronbach’s Alpha, followed by factor analytic approaches and the expertise of the design team (or use of external experts). Among our identified instruments, only twelve addressed at least four categories of validity evidence. We advocate for more attention to validation using both quantitative and qualitative approaches to support claims for a measure’s intended use.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education
Published
2026-04-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-026-00301-0
Primary Topic
Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Quantitative Measures in Undergraduate Mathematics Education: A Review of Instruments and Validity Evidence

Jim Gleason, Christine Austin, Kathleen Melhuish
International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education
Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
article

Quantitative Measures in Undergraduate Mathematics Education: A Review of Instruments and Validity Evidence

Jim Gleason, Christine Austin, Kathleen Melhuish
article en

Abstract

This paper provides an overview of 154 measures (with some validity evidence) in use by RUME researchers over a twenty-year span (2000–2019). We share focal constructs, validity evidence, and reported usage of the measures. We assessed the strength of this validity evidence using the six categories from the AERA et al. (2014) standards: test content, internal structure, response process, relation to other variables, consequences of testing, and reliability. The most reported validity evidence was Cronbach’s Alpha, followed by factor analytic approaches and the expertise of the design team (or use of external experts). Among our identified instruments, only twelve addressed at least four categories of validity evidence. We advocate for more attention to validation using both quantitative and qualitative approaches to support claims for a measure’s intended use.

International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education
University of Akron (US), University of Nebraska–Lincoln (US), Texas State University (US), University of Alabama (US)
National Science Foundation
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 18%
Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.