Evaluación de las propiedades psicométricas de la Escala de Curiosidad Epistémica de Litman en hispanohablantes

Resumen

La Curiosidad Epistémica (CE) es el deseo que motiva a las personas a adquirir nuevo conocimiento. La escala de CE de Litman fue desarrollada para operacionalizar este constructo, y aunque su estructura latente ha sido validada en varios estudios, estos se han realizado en su mayoría en Alemania, EE. UU y los Países Bajos, que son sociedades educadas, industrializadas, ricas y democráticas. Por consiguiente, el presente estudio evaluó las propiedades psicométricas de la escala de CE, en una muestra de adultos del noroeste de México (N = 334) con edades de 18 a 50 años. Al igual que en investigaciones previas, se compararon dos modelos: unidimensional y bidimensional, mediante análisis factoriales confirmatorios.
Adicionalmente, se incluyeron los residuales correlacionados significativos, como parte de ambos modelos, y se examinó si el instrumento tiene invarianza de medición. Los resultados muestran que el modelo bifactorial presentó el mejor ajuste.
La consistencia interna fue aceptable, y se comprobó que la escala posee invarianza configural, métrica, escalar y estricta.
Usos potenciales de este constructo emergente incluyen su estudio como un factor motivacional relevante, en el nivel de
involucramiento y las estrategias de formación de los estudiantes, así como su papel mediador en varios tipos de ansiedad
en el aprendizaje

Palabras clave

Curiosidad Epistémica

Análisis Factorial Confirmatorio

residuales correlacionados

invarianza

Citas

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. American Educational Research Association; American Psychological Association; National Council on Measurement in Education.

American Psychological Association [apa]. (2020). Guidelines for the practice of telepsychology. American Psychological Association.

Ato, M., López-García, J. J., & Benavente, A. (2013). Un sistema de clasificación de los diseños de investigación en psicología. Anales de Psicología, 29(3), 1038-1059. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.29.3.178511

Auerswald, M., & Moshagen, M. (2019). How to determine the number of factors to retain in exploratory factor analysis: A comparison of extraction methods under realistic conditions. Psychological Methods, 24(4), 468-491. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000200

Bandalos, D. L. (2021). Item meaning and order as causes of correlated residuals in confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 28(6), 903-913. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2021.1916395

Barzilai, S., & Chinn, C. A. (2018). On the goals of epistemic education: Promoting apt epistemic performance. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(3), 353-389. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1392968

Berlyne, D. E. (1954). A theory of human curiosity. British Journal of Psychology. General Section, 45(3), 180-191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1954.tb01243.x

Bowen, N. K., & Guo, S. (2012). Structural equation modeling. Oxford University Press.

Chalmers, R. P. (2018). On misconceptions and the limited usefulness of ordinal alpha. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 78(6), 1056-1071. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164417727036

Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464-504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834

Chinn, C. A., Barzilai, S., & Duncan, R. G. (2021). Education for a “post-truth” world: New directions for research and practice. Educational Researcher, 50(1), 51-60. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20940683

DiStefano, C., McDaniel, H. L., Zhang, L., Shi, D., & Jiang, Z. (2019). Fitting large factor analysis models with ordinal data. EducationalandPsychologicalMeasurement, 79(3), 417-436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164418818242

Doğan, İ., & Özdamar, K. (2017). The effect of different data structures, sample sizes on model fit measures. Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation, 46(9), 7525-7533. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610918.2016.1241409

Domínguez-Lara, S. (2019). Correlation between residuals in confirmatory factor analysis: A brief guide to their use and interpretation. Interacciones. Revista deAvances en Psicología, 5(3), Article e207. https://doi.org/10.24016/2019.v5n3.207

Ferrando, P. J., Hernández-Dorado, A., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2022). Detecting correlated residuals in exploratory factor analysis: New proposals and a comparison of procedures. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 29(4), 630-638. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2021.2004543

Filzmoser, P., Ruiz-Gazen, A., & Thomas-Agnan, C. (2014). Identification of local multivariate outliers. Statistical Papers, 55(1), 29-47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00362-013-0524-z

Flora, D. B. (2020). Your coefficient alpha is probably wrong, but which coefficient omega is right? A tutorial on using R to obtain better reliability estimates. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(4), 484-501. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920951747

Gonzáles-Bueno, J., Calvo-Cidoncha, E., Sevilla-Sánchez, D., Espaulella-Panicot, J., Cordina-Jané, C., & Santos-Ramos, B. (2017). Traducción y adaptación transcultural al español del cuestionario arms para la medida de adherencia en pacientes pluripatológicos. Atención Primaria, 49(8), 459-464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aprim.2016.11.008

Heene, M., Hilbert, S., Draxler, C., Ziegler, M., & Bühner, M. (2011). Masking misfit in confirmatory factor análisis by increasing unique variances: A cautionary note on the usefulness of cutoff values of fit indices. Psychological Methods, 16(3), 319-336. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024917

Heene, M., Hilbert, S., Freudenthaler, H. H., & Bühner, M. (2012). Sensitivity of sem fit indexes with respect to violations of uncorrelated errors. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 19(1), 36-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2012.634710

Huang, D., Wang, L., Zhou, M., & Zhang, J. (2010). Gender difference in motives of knowledge searching: Measurement invariance and factor mean comparison of the interest/deprivation epistemic curiosity. In 2010 IEEE 2nd Symposium on Web Society (pp. 258-263). IEEE.https://doi.org/10.1109/SWS.2010.5607444

Jorgensen, T. D., Pornprasertmanit, S., Schoemann, A. M., Rosseel, Y., Miller, P., Quick, C., Garnier-Villareal, M., Selig, J., Boulton, A., Preacher, K., Coffman, D., Rhemtulla, M., Robitzsch, A., Enders, C., Arslan, R., Clinton, B., Panko, P., Merkle, E., Chesnut, S., … & Johnson, A. R. (2021). semTools: Useful tools for structural equation modeling (R package version 0.5–5). cran. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/semTools/index.html

Kahan, D. M., Landrum, A., Carpenter, K., Helft, L., & Hall Jamieson, K. (2017). Science curiosity and political information processing. Political Psychology, 38, 179-199. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12396

Karandikar, S., Kapoor, H., & Litman, J. (2021). Why so curious? Validation and cross-cultural investigation of the Hindi Epistemic Curiosity Scale. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 24(1), 69-82. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12425

Kashdan, T. B., & Silvia, P. J. (2009). Curiosity and interest: The benefits of thriving on novelty and challenge. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology (pp. 367-374). Oxford University Press.

King-Kallimanis, B. L., Oort, F. J., Nolte, S., Schwartz, C. E., & Sprangers, M. A. (2011). Using structural equation modeling to detect response shift in performance and health-related quality of life scores of multiple sclerosis patients. Quality of Life Research, 20(10), 1527-1540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9844-9

Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th Edition). Guilford publications.

Korkmaz, S., Goksuluk, D., & Zararsiz, G. (2014). mvn: An R package for assessing multivariate normality. The R Journal, 6(2), 151-162. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2014-031

Landrum, A. R., Olshansky, A., & Richards, O. (2021). Differential susceptibility to misleading flat earth arguments on Youtube. Media Psychology, 24(1), 136-165. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2019.1669461

Litman, J. (2005). Curiosity and the pleasures of learning: Wanting and liking new information. Cognition & Emotion, 19(6), 793-814. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930541000101

Litman, J. A. (2007). Curiosity as a feeling of interest and feeling of deprivation: The I/D model of curiosity. In P. R. Zelick (Ed.), Issues in the psychology of motivation (pp. 149-156). Nova Science Publishers.

Litman, J. A. (2008). Interest and deprivation factors of epistemic curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(7), 1585-1595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.014

Litman, J. (2019). Curiosity: Nature, dimensionality, and determinants. In K. A. Renninger & S. E. Hidi (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of motivation and learning (pp. 418-442). Cambridge University Press. https://doi. org/10.1017/9781316823279.019

Litman, J. A., & Jimerson, T. L. (2004). The measurement of curiosity as a feeling of deprivation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82(2), 147-157. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8202_3

Litman, J. A., & Mussel, P. (2013). Validity of the interest and deprivation type epistemic curiosity model in Germany. Journal of Individual Differences, 34(2), 59-68. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000100

Litman, J. A., Crowson, H. M., & Kolinski, K. (2010). Validity of the interest-and deprivation-type epistemic curiosity distinction in non-students. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(5), 531-536. https://doi.or-g/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.021

Lobato, E., Mendoza, J., Sims, V., & Chin, M. (2014). Examining the relationship between conspiracy theories, paranormal beliefs, and pseudoscience acceptance among a university population. Applied CognitivePsychology, 28(5), 617-625. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3042

Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 75-98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.75

McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 412-433. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144

McNeish, D., & Wolf, M. G. (2021). Dynamic fit index cutoffs for confirmatory factor analysis models. Psychological Methods. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000425

Molina, M. D., Wang, J., Sundar, S. S., Le, T., & DiRusso, C. (2022). Reading, commenting and sharing of fake news: Howonlinebandwagonsandbotsdictateuserengagement. Communication Research, Article 00936502211073398. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502211073398

Mosleh, M., Pennycook, G., Arechar, A. A., & Rand, D. G. (2021). Cognitive reflection correlates with behavior on Twitter. Nature Communications, 12(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20043-0

Orona, G. A., & Pritchard, D. (2022). Inculcating curiosity: Pilot results of an online module to enhance undergraduate intellectual virtue. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(3), 375-389. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1919988

Pascual-Ferrá, P., & Beatty, M. J. (2015). Correcting internal consistency estimates inflated by correlated item errors. Communication Research Reports, 32(4), 347-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2015.1089858

Piotrowski, J. T., Litman, J. A., & Valkenburg, P. (2014). Measuring epistemic curiosity in young children. Infant and Child Development, 23(5), 542-553. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.1847

Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004

Reyes-Sosa, H., & Molina-Coloma, V. (2018). Análisis psicométrico de una escala para medir el miedo al delito en jóvenes ecuatorianos. Acta colombiana de Psicología, 21(1), 290-299. https://doi.org/10.14718/ACP.2018.21.1.13

Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R Package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02

Rutkowski, L., & Svetina, D. (2014). Assessing the hypothesis of measurement invariance in the context of large-scale international surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74(1), 31-57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413498257

Sánchez-Villena, A. R., Cedrón, E. F., De-la-Fuente-Figuerola, V., & Chávez-Ravines, D. (2022). Estructura factorial y datos normativos del Inventario de Depresión de Beck (BDI-II) en población general peruana. Acta Colombiana de Psicología, 25(2), 158-170. https://doi.org/10.14718/ACP.2022.25.2.10

Sarstedt, M., Bengart, P., Shaltoni, A. M., & Lehmann, S. (2018). The use of sampling methods in advertising research: A gap between theory and practice. International Journal of Advertising, 37(4), 650-663. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2017.1348329

Sellbom, M., & Tellegen, A. (2019). Factor analysis in psychological assessment research: Common pitfalls and recommendations. Psychological Assessment, 31(12), 1428-1441. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000623

Shi, D., Maydeu-Olivares,A.,& Rosseel,Y. (2020).Assessing fit in ordinal factor analysis models: srmr vs. rmsea. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 27(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2019.1611434

Sideridis, G. D., & Jaffari, F. (2022). An R function to correct fit indices and omnibus tests in confirmatory factor analysis. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 55(1), 48-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2021.1906159

Sierra, F. A., Sánchez, R., & Ibáñez, C. (2013). Adaptación transcultural de la escala Daily Spiritual Experience Scale para su uso en Colombia. Revista Colombiana de Cancerología, 17(4), 149-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0123-9015(13)70162-8

Smaldino, P. E., Lukaszewski,A., Von Rueden, C., & Gurven, M. (2019). Niche diversity can explain cross-cultural differences in personality structure. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(12), 1276-1283. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0730-3

Sociedad Mexicana de Psicología. (2010). Código ético del psicólogo. Trillas.

Streiner, D. l., & Norman G. R. (2008). Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press.

Van de Schoot, R., Lugtig, P., & Hox, J. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(4), 486-492. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.686740

Verhulst, B., & Neale, M. C. (2021). Best practices for binary and ordinal data analyses. Behavior Genetics, 51(3), 204-214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-020-10031-x

Wahl, A. K., Hermansen, Å., Tschamper, M. B., Osborne, R. H., Helseth, S., Jacobsen, R., & Larsen, M. H. (2022). The Parent Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ-Parent). Adaptation and validity testing with parents of children with epilepsy. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, Article 14034948221123436. https://doi.org/10.1177/14034948221123436

Wootton, A. R., Rice, D. R., McKowen, A. L. W., & Veldhuis, C. (2022). A mixed-methods and prospective approach to understanding coping behaviors, depression, hopelessness, and acute stress in a us convenience sample during the covid-19 pandemic. Health Education & Behavior, 49(2), 219-230. https://doi.org/10.1177/10901981221084272

Xia, Y., & Yang, Y. (2019). RMSEA, CFI, and TLI in structural equation modeling with ordered categorical data: The story they tell depends on the estimation methods. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 409-428. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1055-2

Zhang, Y., Zhou, M., Shao, Y., & Zhang, M. Y. (2020). mv-normal Test: Powerful Tests for Multivariate Normality. cran. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=mvnormalTest

Citaciones

Citas en Crossref

Citas en Scopus

Citas en Google Sholar

Citas en Europe PMC