Specificity of epistemic beliefs across school subject domains

Figures & data

Table 1. Item and scale statistics of the domain-specific epistemic belief questionnaire.

	No. of items	Min	Max	M	SD	Corri-t	Alpha
Natural sciences
Justification	6	2.17	5.00	4.01	0.49	.31–.49	.60
Source	5	1.00	4.60	2.82	0.61	.39–.56	.72
Development	6	2.33	5.00	3.90	0.54	.29–.62	.74
Certainty	6	1.00	4.00	2.25	0.55	.31–.43	.66
Mathematical sciences
Justification	6	1.83	5.00	3.53	0.63	.22–.53	.66
Source	5	1.20	5.00	3.32	0.72	.37–.70	.81
Development	6	1.50	5.00	3.05	0.66	.17–.65	.76
Certainty	6	1.17	5.00	3.14	0.70	.41–.61	.77
Social sciences
Justification	6	1.83	5.00	4.10	0.56	.26–.56	.71
Source	5	1.00	4.20	2.53	0.67	.47–.68	.81
Development	6	2.33	5.00	4.04	0.61	.31–.73	.79
Certainty	6	1.00	3.83	2.08	0.60	.43–.58	.76
Linguistic sciences
Justification	6	1.00	5.00	3.42	0.66	.37–.58	.72
Source	5	1.00	5.00	3.16	0.72	.33–.74	.80
Development	6	1.50	5.00	3.23	0.72	.46–.71	.83
Certainty	6	1.00	4.67	2.77	0.72	.32–.65	.81

Corr_i-t: range of corrected item-total correlations.

Figure 1. Means and standard errors of epistemic beliefs across domains.

Table 2. Manifest intercorrelations of epistemic beliefs.

Note. p < .05 if r > |.14|, p < .01 if r > |.18|, p < .001 if r > |.23|. Letters J, S, D, and C denote justification, source, development, and certainty. Triangles indicate heteroconstruct-monodomain correlations, while numbers in bold highlight monoconstruct-heterodomain correlations.

Figure 2. SEM models for the relationships between domain-specific epistemic beliefs. Note. Upper left part: Four-dimensions model. Lower left part: Two-higher-dimensions model. Upper right part: Four-domains model. Lower right part: Two-higher-domains model. First letters N, M, S, and L denote natural, mathematical, social, and linguistic sciences. Second letters J, S, D, and C denote justification, source, development, and certainty.

Figure 3. Factor correlations and factor loadings of the four-dimensions model. Note. First letters N, M, S, and L denote natural, mathematical, social, and linguistic sciences. Second letters J, S, D, and C denote justification, source, development, and certainty. All factor correlations and factor loadings are significant at the p < .001 level. Residual covariances between scales within domains are not shown for the sake of clarity.

Table 3. Fit indices of confirmatory factor analyses for the relationships among domain-specific epistemic beliefs.

Model	χ^2	df	TLI	CFI	RMSEA
Four-dimensions	149.632***	74	.924	.953	.072 [.056–.089]
Two-higher-dimensions	166.269***	75	.909	.943	.079 [.063–.095]
Four-domains	261.666***	74	.810	.883	.114 [.099–.129]
Two-higher-domains	269.424***	75	.806	.879	.115 [.101–.130]

TLI: normed fit index; CFI: comparative fit index; RMSEA: root mean-square error of approximation (90% confidence intervals are presented in brackets).

***p < .001.