<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Shasha Chen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Shaohui Chi</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Zuhao Wang</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">INTERDISCIPLINARY THINKING AMONG SEVENTH-GRADE STUDENTS IN LOWER-SECONDARY SCIENCE EDUCATION</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Baltic Science Education</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">educational assessment</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">interdisciplinary thinking</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">multidimensional item response model</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rasch measurement</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">science education</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2025</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">February/2025</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://oaji.net/articles/2023/987-1740921191.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">24</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Continuous</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Interdisciplinary thinking is critical for equipping students to apply scientific knowledge and tackle societal challenges across various disciplines, which has been recognized as a key objective of twenty-first century science education. However, research on effective interdisciplinary assessment in secondary school science education is still limited. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate an instrument for evaluating seventh graders’ interdisciplinary thinking within lower-secondary science contexts. A four-dimensional framework for evaluating interdisciplinary thinking was proposed, leading to the development of an assessment instrument. Participants were 316 seventh–grade students randomly selected from a lower-secondary school in Jiangsu, China. The multidimensional random coefficients multinomial logit (MRCML) model was employed to examine the reliability and validity of the instrument. The results indicated that the four–dimensional conceptual framework of interdisciplinary thinking was appropriate, and the multidimensional partial credit model (PCM) fitted the data reasonably well. The differential item functioning (DIF) analysis also revealed the absence of gender bias, confirming the measurement invariance statistics reached. In addition, disparities in student performance across the four dimensions were identified, highlighting the need for tailored instructional practices to foster their ability in lower-secondary school science education.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Original article</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">53-70</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Daniela Luminița Barz</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Andrei Achimaș-Cadariu</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DEVELOPMENT OF A SKILLS-BASED INSTRUMENT TO MEASURE SCIENTIFIC REASONING IN MEDICINE ACROSS DIFFERENT LEVELS OF EXPERTISE</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Baltic Science Education</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cognitive Reflection Test</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">educational assessment</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">quantitative reasoning</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">scientific reasoning</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2017</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">June/2017</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://oaji.net/articles/2017/987-1497963697.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">16</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Continuous</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">E-ISSN 2538-7138</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Scientific reasoning skills have been defined as mental processes used when engaged in scientific inquiry. Research aimed to develop and validate a Scientific Reasoning in Medicine (SRM) instrument through a psychometric approach which included a preliminary phase with 60 medical students and physicians, followed by a revision phase and subsequent research with 209 medical students and physicians. Research focused on determining the extent to which item content contributed significantly to explaining the variance in SRM, if the level of scientific reasoning differed in relation to medical expertise and if individuals who were inclined to a more rational thinking style showed higher scientific reasoning. Results indicated that item content explained 47% of the variance in SRM, there were significant differences in scientific reasoning depending on expertise and participants who scored higher on the Cognitive Reflection Test and the Need for Cognition scale, also scored higher on the SRM instrument. </style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Original article</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">289-299</style></section></record></records></xml>