The application of structure equation modeling analysis for assessment and educational research

Augusto Da Costa


The purpose of this study is discovering and confirmingthe essentialfunction of Structure Equation Modeling (SEM) Analysis for assessment and educational research. The literatures in regards to SEM analysis as method of assessment and educational research will be descriptive analyzed and explored in the light of meta-analysis. The result of the study shown that by using SEM analysis ones get empirical data and clear picture of student’s need and do right assessment and research in education. The empirical data enable scholars and government to set new or revise current education program for the future. Therefore this result should be considered as important data for government, especially Education department to establish curriculum and planning strategy of teaching and learning which is conjunction with reality in the field. It means the education program that been established and will develop really match with real life and needs of student, society and the nation. So SEM analysis is important method for each researchers and scholars to run assessment and educational research now and beyond.


structure equation modeling, assessment, education, research


Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos Version 7.0 Computer Program. Chicago: SPSS.

Berliner, D. C. (2011). The Context for Interpreting PISA Results in the USA: Negativism, Chauvinism, Misunderstanding, and the Potential to Distort the Educational Systems of Nations. In Pereira, M.A., Kotthoff, H. & Cowen, R. (ed.) PISA under Examination Changing Knowledge, Changing Tests, and Changing Schools. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Brandmaier, A.M., Oertzen, T., McArdle, J. J. Lindenberger, U. (2013) Structural Equation Model Trees. American Psychological Association, Psycho-logical Methods, 18(1): 71–86.

Chiu, M.H. (2016). Science Education Research and Practices in Taiwan Challenges and Opportunities. London: Springer Singapore Heidelberg.

Fadlelmula, F.K. (2011). Assessing Power of Structural Equation Modeling Studies: A Meta-Analysis. Education Research Journal, 1(3): 37-42, August 2011. ISSN: 2026 – 6332.

Faulkner, A. G. (2017). Assessment Handbook.Australia: Ulster University

Gelerstein, D., Del Río, R., Nussbaum, M., Chiuminatto, P., & López, X. (2016). Designing and implementing a test for measuring critical thinking in primary school. Thinking Skills and Creativity, (20): 40-49.

Greeno, J. G. (2006), Learning in Activity in R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (79-96). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hair, J. F. Jr., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th. Ed.). England: Pearson Education Limited.

Hayes, A.F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York: Guilford Press.

Hitipeuw, I, (2009). Pelajar dan Pembelajaran. Malang: Fakultas Ilmu Pendidikan Universitas Negeri Malang.

Khine, M.S. (2013). Application of Structural Equation Modeling in Educational Research and Practice. The Nederland: Sense Publishers.

Kizlik, B, (2012). Measurement, Assessment, and Evaluation in Education. Accessed January 21th, 2018.

Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. (3rd. Ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

López, J. A. M., García, V.C. (2014). In Search of an Effective Model for Assessing Learning in Bilingual Education: the Authentic Assessment. Porta Linguarum 21, enero 2014, ISSN: 1697-7467.

Marshall, K. (2009). Rethinking Teacher Supervision and Evaluation How to Work Smart, Build Collaboration and Close the Achievement Gap. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

Maxwell, J.A. (2004) .Causal Explanation, Qualitative Research, and Scientific Inquiry in Education. Educational Researcher, 33 (2): 3–11.

OECD. (2009). Higher Education to 2030, Volume 2 Globalization. accessed 27 January 2018.

Plucker, J A. & Makel., M.C. (2010) Assessment of creativity. In Kaufam, J.C. & Sternberg, R.J. (ed.) The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp.48-73). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of action research: Concise paperback edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ruiz, M. A., Pardo, A. & Martín, R. S. (2010). Structural Equation Models. Panelsdel Psicólogo, 31(1): 34-45.

SAS Institute Inc. (2003). JMP Statistics and Graphics Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.

Scott, D & Usher, D. (2011). Researching Education: Data Methods and Theory in Educational Enquiry (2ed.). London: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Smeyers, P., Depaepe, M. (2010). Educational Research: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Statistics. London: Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg.

Taras, M. (2005). Assessment – Summative and Formative – Some Theoretical Reflections. British Journal of Educational Studies, ISSN 0007-1005, 53(4): 466–478, December 2005.

Teo, T. & Khine, M. S. (2009). Modeling educational research: The way forward. In T. Teo & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Structural equation modeling in educational research: Concepts and applications. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers

Tiruneh, D. T., De Cock, M., Weldeslassie, A. G., Elen, J., & Janssen, R. (2017). Measuring critical thinking in physics: Development and validation of a critical thinking test in electricity and magnetism. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, (15): 663-682.

Tremblay, K., Lalancette, D., Roseveare, D. (2012). Volume 1 – Design and Implementation. AHELO Feasibility Study. Report - Volume 1, OECD publications.

Ventista, A.M. (2018). Multi-Trait Multi-Method Matrices for the Validation of Creativity and Critical Thinking Assessments for Secondary School Students in England and Greece.International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education International Journal of Assessment Tools In Education, 5 (1) 15-32, (2018).

William, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37 (2011) 3–14. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001.

Yoon, C. H. (2017). A validation study of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking with a sample of Korean elementary school students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 26, 38-50.

DOI: 10.23916/0020180314330


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.