Online contract labor portals (i.e., crowdsourcing) have recently emerged as attractive alternatives to university participant pools for the purposes of collecting survey data for behavioral research. However, prior research has not provided a thorough examination of crowdsourced data for organizational psychology research. We found that, as compared with a traditional university participant pool, crowdsourcing respondents were older, were more ethnically diverse, and had more work experience. Additionally, the reliability of the data from the crowdsourcing sample was as good as or better than the corresponding university sample. Moreover, measurement invariance generally held across these groups. We conclude that the use of these labor portals is an efficient and appropriate alternative to a university participant pool, despite small differences in personality and socially desirable responding across the samples. The risks and advantages of crowdsourcing are outlined, and an overview of practical and ethical guidelines is provided.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Using an iterative design along with multiple methodological approaches and a large representative sample, this study presents reliability, validity, and fairness evidence for two surveys measuring student attitudes toward science, technology, engineering, and math (S-STEM) and interest in STEM careers for (a) 4th- through 5th-grade students (Upper Elementary S-STEM) and (b) 6th- through 12th-grade students (Middle/High S-STEM). Findings from exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) suggested the use of a four-factor structure to measure student attitudes toward science, math, engineering/technology, and 21st century skills. Subject matter experts and literature reviews provided evidence of content validity. Reliability levels were high for both versions. Furthermore, both the Upper Elementary S-STEM and Middle/High S-STEM Surveys demonstrated evidence of configural, metric, and scalar invariance across grade levels, races/ethnicities, and genders. The findings support the validity of interpretations and inferences made from scores on the instruments’ items and subscales.

No abstract

No abstract

The traditional distinction between writing across the curriculum and writing in the disciplines (WID) as writing to learn versus learning to write understates WID's focus on learning in the disciplines. Advocates of WID have described learning as socialization, but little research addresses how writing disciplinary discourses in disciplinary settings encourages socialization into the disciplines. Data from interviews with students who wrote lab reports in a biology lab suggest five ways in which writing promotes learning in scientific disciplines. Drawing on theories of situated learning, the authors argue that apprenticeship genres can encourage socialization into disciplinary communities.