Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMeneses Báez, Alba Lucía-
dc.rightsCopyright Universidad Católica de Colombia 2013es
dc.rights.accessrightsOpenAccesses
dc.description.abstractEl presente artículo presenta los resultados de la investigación cuyo objetivo fue establecer indicadores de confiabilidad y validez a la versión abreviada del Cuestionario de Estrategias para la Escritura de Ensayos (Meneses Báez & Salvador Mata, 2006) de 37 ítems tipo Likert (1= nunca y 4= siempre) que mide planificación, transcripción, revisión y meta cognición fue aplicada a 540 estudiantes voluntarios de pregrado. El análisis se realizó con 486 estudiantes que no presentaban puntajes extremos. Se estimaron indicadores de confiabilidad y validez utilizando el modelo Rasch y evidencia para validez de criterio. Los resultados sustentan unidimensionalidad y ajuste de la medida, coeficientes de consistencia interna y confiabilidad Rasch para personas e ítems >.90; estadísticos de separación para personas e ítems >2; ítems distribuidos a lo largo de la regla Rasch; categorías de respuesta con progresión monótona y distancia entre categorías apropiada; las correlaciones entre CEEEA-37 y las escalas de Autorregulación y Percepción de Autoeficacia en la Escritura fueron >.5 (p<.05). Esta prueba puede contribuir a mejorar la evaluación e intervención en la escritura de ensayos argumentativos en universitarios, se deben elaborar ítems con mayor dificultad y realizar un nuevo estudio de campo.es
dc.publisherUniversidad Católica de Colombia. Facultad de Psicologíaes
dc.date.accessioned2013-10-31T20:07:03Z-
dc.date.available2013-10-31T20:07:03Z-
dc.date.issued2013-06-
dc.formatpdfes
dc.identifier.citationMeneses Báez, A. (2013). Cuestionario de estrategias para la escritura de ensayos argumentativos. Acta Colombiana de Psicología, 16(1), 137-148. Recuperado de http://editorial.ucatolica.edu.co/ojsucatolica/revistas_ucatolica/index.php/acta-colombiana-psicologia/article/view/255es
dc.identifier.issn0123-9155-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10983/1050-
dc.language.isoeses
dc.relation.ispartofActa Colombiana de Psicología, Vol. 16, no 1. (ene.-jun. 2013); p. 137-148spa
dc.subjectESTRATEGIAS COGNITIVASes
dc.subjectENSAYOS ARGUMENTATIVOSes
dc.subjectUNIVERSITARIOSes
dc.subjectESCALAes
dc.subjectMODELO RASCHes
dc.subjectCOGNITIVE STRATEGIESes
dc.subjectARGUMENTATIVE ESSAYSes
dc.subjectCOLLEGE STUDENTSes
dc.subjectSCALEes
dc.subjectRASCH MODELes
dc.subjectENSAIOS ARGUMENTATIVOSes
dc.typeJournales
dc.titleCuestionario de estrategias para la escritura de ensayos argumentativoses
dc.titleQuestionnaire on strategies for argumentative essay writinges
dc.titleQuestionário de estratégias para a escritura de ensaios argumentativoses
dc.subject.lembMÉTODOS DE ENSEÑANZAes
dc.subject.lembENSAYOes
dc.subject.lembPSICOMETRÍAes
dc.subject.lembPSICOLOGÍA COGNOSCITIVAes
dc.description.abstractenglishThis article presents the results of a research project aimed to identify reliability and validity indicators for the abreviated version of the Cuestionario de Estrategias para la Escritura de Ensayos (Questionnaire on Strategies for Essay Writing) (Meneses Baez & Salvador Mata, 2006) consisting of 37 Likert-type items (1 = never and 4 = always) which measures planning, transcript review and meta cognition and was administered to 540 undergraduate student volunteers. The analysis was performed with 486 students who obtained no extreme scores. Reliability and validity indicators were estimated using Rasch model and evidence for criterion validity. Results support unidimensionality and measurement adjustment; Rash coefficients for internal consistency and reliability for people and items were>.90; separation statistics for people and items were >2; items were distributed along the Rash rule; response categories with monotonous progression and appropriate distance between categories; correlations between the CEEEA-37 and the Self-regulation and Self-efficacy Perception Scales on writing were> 0.5 (p <.05). This test can help improve assessment and intervention in writing argumentative essays in college. Items with greater level of difficulty should be constructed and another field study should be carried out.es
dc.description.abstractportuguesO presente artigo apresenta os resultados da pesquisa cujo objetivo foi estabelecer indicadores de confiabilidade e validade para a versão abreviada do Questionário de Estratégias para a Escritura de Ensaios (Meneses Báez & Salvador Mata, 2006) de 37 itens tipo Likert (1= nunca e 4= sempre) que mede planejamento, transcrição, revisão e meta cognição foi aplicada a 540 estudantes voluntários de graduação. A análise foi feita com 486 estudantes que não apresentavam pontuações extremas. Estimaram-se indicadores de confiabilidade e validade utilizando o modelo Rasch e evidência para validade de critério. Os resultados sustentam unidimensionalidade e ajuste da medida, coeficientes de consistência interna e confiabilidade Rasch para pessoas e itens >.90; estatísticos de separação para pessoas e itens >2; itens distribuídos ao longo da regra Rasch; categorias de resposta com progressão monótona e distância entre categorias apropriada; as correlações entre CEEEA-37 e as escalas de Autorregulação e Percepção de Autoeficácia na Escritura foram >.5 (p<.05). Este teste pode contribuir com o melhoramento da avaliação e intervenção na escritura de ensaios argumentativos em universitários, deve-se elaborar itens com maior dificuldade e realizar um novo estudo de campo.es
dc.rights.creativecommonsAtribución-NoComerciales
dcterms.bibliographicCitationBereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The Psychology of Written Composition. Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationBreetvelt, I, Van den Bergh, H. & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1994). Relations between writing processes and text quality: When and how? Cognition and Instruction 12, 103-123.spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationBond, T.G. & Fox, C.M. (2007). Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. (2nd Ed.) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationCampbell, D. T. & Fiske D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin. 56, 81-105.spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationCamps, A. Miliam, M. (2000). La actividad metalingüística en el aprendizaje de la escritura. M. Miliam & A. Camps (eds.) El Papel de la Actividad Metalingüística en el Aprendizaje de la Escritura. Rosario, Santafé, Argentina: Homo Sapiens.spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationConrad, K. J., Conrad, K. M., Riley, B.B. and Funk, R. (2011). Validation of the Substance Problem Scale (SPS) to the Rasch Measurement Model, GAIN Methods Report. Chicago, IL: Chestnut Health Systems, 1-32.spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationConrad, K. J., Iris, M., Ridings, J. W. Langley, K. & Wilber, K. (2010). Self-report Measure of Financial Explotation of Older Adults. The Gerentologist, 50, 6, 758-773. doi:10.1093/geront/gnq054.spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationConrad, K. J., Dennis, M.L., Bezruczko, N. & Funk, R. (2007). Substance use disorder symptoms: Evidence of differential item functioning by age. Journal of Applied Measurement, 8 (4), 373-387.spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationConrad, K.J. & Smith, E.V. (2004). International conference on objective measurement: Applications of Rasch analysis in health care. Medical Care, 2004; 42 (suppl I) 1-6.spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationCrocker, L. & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationElosua, P. & López Jáuregui, A. (2007). Aplicación de cuatro procedimientos de detección de funcionamiento diferencial sobre ítems politómicos. Psicothema, 19, 002, 329-336.spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationGraham, S., Shwartz, S. y MacArthur, C. (1993). Learning disabled students and normally achieving student's knowledge of writing and the composing process, attitude toward writing, and self-efficacy for students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 237-249.spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationGreen, K. E. & Frantom, C.G. (2002). Survey development and validation with the Rasch model. A paper presented at the International Conference on Questionnaire Development Evaluation, and Testing, Charleston SC, November 14-17.spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationFlower, L. S. & Hayes, J. R., (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationFlower, L. S. & Hayes, J. R., (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. W. Greeg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive Processes in Writing. 31-50. Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationFrias, M. (1996). Procesos Creativos para la construcción de textos. Bogotá, Colombia: Cooperativa Magisterio.spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationHambleton, R. y Jones R. (1993). Comparison of Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory and Their Application to Test Development. ITEMS: The Instructional Topics in Educational Measurement Series, 12 (3), 253-262.spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationHarris, D. (1989). Comparison of 1-, 2-, and 3-Parameter IRT Models. ITEMS: The Instructional Topics in Educational Measurement Series, 8 (1), 35-41.spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationHayes, J.R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy, & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 1-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationHayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing process. In L. W. Greeg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive Process in Writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationHounsell, D. (1997). Contrasting Conceptions of Essay-Writing in The Experience of Learning: Implications for Teaching and Studying in Higher Education, Ed. R. Marton; D. Hounsell & N. Entwistle, p. 106-125, Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 0-7073-0749-X.spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationLinacre, L. M. (2012a). Winsteps Tutorial 4. June. Recuperado de http://www.winsteps.com/a/winsteps-tutorial-4.pdf en enero 12 de 2012spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationLinacre, L. M. (2012b). Winsteps Tutorial 3. June. Recuperado de http://www.winsteps.com/a/winsteps-tutorial-3.pdf en enero 12 de 2012spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationLinacre, L. M. (2012c). Winsteps Tutorial 2. June. Recuperado de http://www.winsteps.com/a/winsteps-tutorial-2.pdf enero 12 de 2012spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationLinacre, J.M. (2011). Winsteps Rasch Measurement (Version 3.73.0).http://www.winsteps.com. Authorspa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationLinacre J.M. (2006). Data Variance Explained by Measures, Rasch Measurement Transactions, 20:1 p. 1045.spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationLinacre, J.M. (2002). Optimizing Rating Scale Category Effectiveness. Journal of Applied Measurement 3, 1, 85-106.spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationLinacre, J. M. (1999). Investigating Rating Scale Category Utility. Journal of Outcome Measurement. 3, 2, 103-122spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationLinacre, J.M. (1998). Structure in Rasch residuals: Why principal components analysis (PCA)? Rasch Measurement Transactions, 1 (2), 636.spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationMeneses Báez, A. L., Hernández, C., Lesser-Sanabria, N. & Sáenz-Correal (2009). Procesos cognitivos implicados en la construcción de un ensayo en estudiantes universitarios. Cuadernos Hispanoamericanos de Psicología, 10, 2, 7-19.spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationMeneses Báez, A. L. & Salvador Mata, F. (2006). Procesos cognitivos en la escritura de estudiantes universitarios. Departamento de Psicología Evolutiva y de la Comunicación: Universidad de Vigo.spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationMeneses Báez, A. L., Salvador Mata, F. & Ravelo, E. R. (2007. Descripción de los procesos cognitivos implicados en la escritura de un ensayo. Acta Colombiana de Psicología, 10 (1), 83-98.spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationNunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationPardo, C. y Rocha, M. (2010). Manual para el procesamiento y análisis de datos aplicación piloto. En Compendio de los manuales del Serce. Oficina Regional de Educación para América Latina y el Caribe (OREALC/UNESCO Santiago) y del Laboratorio Latinoamericano de Evaluación de la Calidad de la Educación (LLECE), 225-263.spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationPintrich, P. R., Simith, D., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53 (3), 801-813spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationPintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A Manual for the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learningspa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationRead, B. & Francis, B. (2001). Playing safe: undergraduate essay writing and the presentation of the student voice. British Journal of Sociology of Education. 22, 387-399.spa
dcterms.bibliographicCitationReckase, M. (1979). Unifactor latent trait models applied to multifactor tests: Results and implications. Journal of Educational Statistics, 4, 207-230.spa
Appears in Collections:Acta Colombiana de Psicología

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
v16n1a13.pdf936.05 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open


This item is protected by original copyright



Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.