Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217 (2016) 239 – 248

Future Academy®’s Multidisciplinary Conference

Development of indicators of learner’s key competencies

based on the basic education core curriculum

Boonsom Srisakdaa, Siridej Sujivab, Shotiga Pasipholb

a
Ph.D. Student in the Department of Educational Research and Psychology, Chulalongkorn University , Bangkok 10330 , Thailand.
b
Professor in the Department of Educational Research and Psychology, Chulalongkorn University , Bangkok 10330 , Thailand .

Abstract

This research was aimed to develop a model of indicators of learner’s’ key competencies based on the
Basic Education Core Curriculum B.E.2551 (2008) and measure the goodness of fit of the model to theoretical
concepts and empirical data. The participants were 255 students in grade 9 under the Office of the Basic Education
Commission. Research instruments included a test and a questionnaire on students’ communication capability,
thinking capability, problem-solving capability, capability in applying life skill, and capability in technological
application. The research employed SPSS, TAP, IRT PRO to analyze basic data and the quality of questionnaire.
LISREL was used for confirmatory factor analysis. Research results are summarized as in the followings.
The construct validity or the goodness of fit of the model to the empirical data was measured, and the
result indicated the model fit (χ2 = 96.22, df =114, p=0.88) with RMSEA = 0.000, RMR = 0.66, GFI = 0.96, and
AGFI = 0.93. Result of confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the factor loadings of 20 indicators displayed
positive values, ranged between 0.52 – 1.09, with .05 level of significance for each indicator, suggesting that all of
them are significant indicators of learner’s key competencies.
©
© 2016
2016Published by Elsevier
The Authors. Ltd. This
Published is an open
by Elsevier access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Ltd.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-reviewunder
Peer-review underresponsibility
responsibility of Future
of Future Academy®
Academy ® Cognitive
Cognitive TradingTrading.

Keywords: Learner’s key competencies ; The basic education core curriculum

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +668-2790-6220

E-mail address: [email protected]

1877-0428 © 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of Future Academy® Cognitive Trading
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.02.075
240 Boonsom Srisakda et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217 (2016) 239 – 248

1. Introduction

Based on the findings in previous studies and research and the monitoring of the application of basic
education curriculum 2001 (Ministry of Education, 2008) combined with relevant information and data from the 10 th
National Economic and Social Development Plan on guidelines for human development in Thai society, including
the Ministry of Education’s focus on youth development towards the 21st century, the revision of basic education
curriculum 2001 was thus initiated in order to prepare the subsequent basic education core curriculum 2008. As a
consequent, the Office of the Basic Education Commission had introduced an experimentation of the basic
education core curriculum 2008 in its model schools and those schools that were ready for such implementation.
This core curriculum was later promulgated since 2009 academic year, and as of academic year 2013, the core
curriculum has been applied for all grades. Assessment of learner’s key competencies following the basic
education core curriculum 2008 is particularly important for both the learners and the curriculum itself as the basic
education standards will be taken into practice more efficiently, resulting in effective development of the quality of
school’s education management. The criteria of basic education standards were identified as a tool for schools and
education service areas to control, inspect, and assess the quality of school’s education management. As mentioned
above, assessment of learner’s key competencies is particularly important and necessary in education, it thus
required a tool with quality, reliability, and standards to be used for the assessment that enables the accuracy of
measurement and assessment process , with precise outcomes of the authenticity of individual learners.


2. Problem Statement

In Thailand, learner’s key competencies has recently become an issue of interest for assessment among
academicians, and so far very few models of indicators of learner’s key competencies have been developed
(educational Testing Bureau, 2012 and Muntana Chukraithai, 2010). To illustrate the development of learners with
those acquired 5 key competencies based on the core curriculum, it requires that indicators in each competency be
identified. The researcher is therefore interested to develop indicators for assessment of learner’s key competencies
following the basic education curriculum for lower secondary school students. The construct validity and factor
loading of each indicator will be captured and used for further examination and assessment of learner’s key
competencies.

3. Research Questions

What structure of model key performance indicators of the group's core curriculum for basic education
should be?

4. Purpose of the Study

1. To develop indicators of learner’s key competencies based on the Basic Education Core Curriculum
B.E.2551 (2008) for lower secondary school students.
2. To validate the goodness of fit of the model of indicators of learner’s key competencies to the empirical
data.

5. Research Methods

Population This research focused on lower secondary school students who are currently enrolled
in schools under the Office of the Basic Education Commission, in academic year 2014.
Sample The sample was lower secondary school students currently enrolled in schools under the Office of
the Basic Education Commission, in academic year 2014. The number of sample used for confirmatory factor
analysis was obtained based on Bentler & Chou’s (1987) approach who suggested that the sample size to one
parameter should be at least 5-20 : 1 for confirmatory factor analysis. The sample for confirmatory analysis in this
study was therefore 255 participants who were selected by two-stage-sampling method. Firstly, the sampling unit as
the size of schools was categorized into small, medium, and large, and the sampling was conducted to obtain 2
 Boonsom Srisakda et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217 (2016) 239 – 248 241

schools for each size. Secondly, another sampling was to choose 40-45 students from each of those schools
identified in the first stage, making totally 255 students.

5.1 Conceptual framework

The researcher developed indicators of learner’s key competencies by synthesizing relevant documents and
research including those definitions of each components from the basic education core curriculum 2008; the Bureau
of Educational Testing (2012); and Muntana Chookraithai (2010). The detailed synthesis of indicators of learner’s
key competencies based on the basic education core curriculum is shown in table 1.

Table 1 Indicators of key competencies and behavioral indicators of each competency

Learner’s key competencies Key indicators Behavioral indicators

1. Communication capability is the 1. Using language to 1. Identifying the details and main point of the story
ability to receive and transmit receive and transmit listened and read. (lan1)
messages, with ethics in linguistic messages for 2. Identifying the conceptual framework, mind map in
use to express thoughts, knowledge, exchanging information, sequences of text from the story listened and read.
understanding, feelings and opinions expressing opinions, (lan2)
of oneself for exchanging arguing or supporting in 3. Distinguishing between facts and opinions from the
information and experience which various situations (LAN) story listened and read. (lan3)
will be beneficial to the 4. Summarizing knowledge and ideas from
development of oneself and society; the story listened and read. (lan4)
ability to negotiate to eliminate and 2. Negotiation (SPE) 2.1 Negotiating the classroom situations. (spe1)
reduce problems and conflicts; 2.2 Negotiating conflict situations among friends.
ability to choose whether to receive (spe2)
information through proper 2.3 Negotiating daily life situations. (spe3)
reasoning and sound judgment; 3. Choosing whether to 3.1 Identifying the details and main point of
ability to choose effective methods receive information information and various events surrounding oneself
of communication, bearing in mind through proper reasoning with sound reasoning. (det1)
potential effects on oneself and and sound judgment 3.2 Analyzing the validity and feasibility of
society. (DET) information from media containing persuasive
(COMMU) contents. (det2)
3.3 Using information for making decision when
confronting an emerging situation. (det3)
4. Choosing methods of 4.1 Using a given form of communication accurately
communication (SEL) by the principle of language use. (sel1)
4.2 Using methods of communication appropriate to
message receivers. (sel2)
4.3 Using proper language for communication by the
principle of Thai language usage. (sel3)
2. Thinking capacity is the ability 1. Analytical thinking 1.1 Sorting out key components of stories by
of analytical, synthetic, (ANA) given criteria. (ana1)
constructive, critical, and 1.2 Identifying the relationship between various
systematic thinking, leading to components of data and concepts or knowledge as
creation of bodies of knowledge or appeared in the data. (ana2)
information for judicious decision- 1.3 Analyzing the type, structure, and principle of
making regarding oneself and relationship in the main part of stories. (ana3)
society (THINK) 2. Systematic thinking 5.1 Understanding the relationship between the key
(SYS) components of a system as viewed by the whole
picture and details of sub-components. (sys1)
5.2 Thinking hierarchically by given criteria. (sys2)
5.3 Setting priorities of a given situation to the end.
(sys3)
242 Boonsom Srisakda et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217 (2016) 239 – 248

Learner’s key competencies Key indicators Behavioral indicators

3. Critical thinking 4.1 Being capable of making reference. (cri1)
(CRI) 4.2. Identifying assumptions (cri2)
4.3 Being capable of making deduction. (cri3)
4.4 Being capable of interpreting. (cri4)
4.5 Being capable of evaluating arguments.
(cri5)
4. Synthesis thinking 2.1 Using knowledge and experiences to create
(SYN) new statements or actions. (syn1)
2.2 Creating new works following the objective
by using given concepts and other relevant
information. (syn2)
2.3 Revising or modifying surrounding things
to create new things that are applicable. (syn3)
5. Constructive 3.1 Thinking fluently (cre1)
thinking (CRE) 3.2 Thinking flexibly. (cre2)
3.3 Having originality. (cre3)
3. Problem-solving capacity is 1. Application of 1.1 Identifying problems from a given situation.
the ability to properly eliminate problem-solving (pro1)
problems and obstacles based on process by trying to 1.2 Identifying the causes of problem with
sound reasoning, moral understand problem, supportive and logical information. (pro2)
principle, and accurate planning for solution, 1.3 Proposing possible and proper solution for
information; ability to solving problem and problem solving. (pro3)
understand the relationships and examining the result. 1.4 Examining the result of problem solving if it
changes in various social (PRO) is accurate based on rationale and specified steps
situations; ability to seek and of operation. (pro4)
apply knowledge to prevent and 2. Understanding the 2.1 linking the relationship between the causes
solve problems; and ability to relationships and of problem and potential effects. (und1)
make judicious decision, changes of various 2.2. Identifying the tendency of potential
bearing in mind potential effects social situations. situation. (und2)
on oneself, society, and (UND) 2.3 Making decision in a given situation, bearing
environment. (PROBLEM) in mind of potential effects. (und3)
3. Appling knowledge 3.1 Applying the work findings in the daily life
to prevent and solve situations. (app1)
problems, and making 3.2 Applying the work findings in the
decisions. (APP) environmental problem situations.(app2)
3.3 Applying the work findings in the social
problem situations (app3)
4. Capability in applying life skills 1. Self-learning and 1.1 Searching data by systemic means and
is the ability to apply various continuous learning. explicit purpose. (lea1)
processes in daily life, self- (LEA) 1.2 Possessing skills in seeking data from
learning, and continuous various learning sources with diverse methods.
learning; ability to work and (lea2)
live together in society by 1.3 Having methods to find additional
enhancing good interpersonal knowledge to create new body of knowledge.
relationship; ability to manage (lea3)
problems and conflicts through 2. Working and living 2.1 Expressing self-opinion and listen to others’
proper means; ability to make together in society by opinion. (col1)
self-adjustment to keep up with enhancing good 2.2 Working with others on the basis of
social and environmental interpersonal democracy. (col2)
changes; ability to avoid relationship. (COL) 2.3 Having good relationship with others. (col3)
 Boonsom Srisakda et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217 (2016) 239 – 248 243

Learner’s key competencies Key indicators Behavioral indicators

undesirable behaviors with 3. Managing problems 3.1 Choosing proper means to manage or control
adverse effects on oneself and and conflicts through the feeling and emotion of oneself and others.
others. (LIFE) proper means. (MAN) (man1)
3.2 Finding solutions to conflict with suitable
methods. (man2)
3.3 Settling conflicts among friends in peaceful
way. (man3)
4. Making self- 4.1 Following-up the current news and social
adjustment to keep up situation. (ada1)
with social and 4.2 Choosing to receive information and keeping
environmental changes up with social changes. (ada2)
(ADA) 4.3 Estimating logically the risks of emerging
situations in daily life. (ada3)
5. Avoiding 5.1 Avoiding undesirable behaviors while being
undesirable behaviors in school. (avo1)
with adverse effects on 5.2 Learning to refuse, negotiate, and ask for
oneself and others. help in risk situations. (avo2)
(AVO) 5.3 Learning to prevent, avoid behaviors risky
to health, sexual abuse, accidents, substances,
and violation. (avo3)
5. Capacity in technological 1. Choosing and 1.1 Choosing and applying technologies in
application is the ability to applying technologies searching, seeking knowledge about the issues
choose and apply a range of for data searching and of interest. (use1)
technologies; ability to use learning. (USE) 1.2 Writing in accord with the rules,
technological process skills for components, and methods of report writing.
developing oneself and society (use2)
on learning, communicating, 1.3 Communicating via computer networks.
working, and problem solving in (use3)
constructive, proper, and ethical 2. Possessing 2.1 Using technologies for processing data into
manner. (TECHNO) technological process information. (ski1)
skills (SKI) 2.2 Designing and operating work in a way
suitable for the task, and presenting it in
sequences and steps easy to understand. (ski2)
2.3 The quality of work piece meets the set
criteria. (ski3)
3. Using technologies 3.1 Providing references to data sources. (mor1)
based on morality, 3.2 Performing the work assigned successfully
ethics, and for the whole procedures. (mor2)
responsibility. (MOR) 3.3 Validating the work piece. (mor3)

5.2 Research instrument

The instrument used in this research was developed from the study of relevant documents by synthesizing
and analyzing technical articles and research articles in international journals and having them reviewed by 9
experts who involved in formulating the basic education core curriculum 2008. The instrument for measuring
learner’s key competencies in 5 aspects is shown below.
244 Boonsom Srisakda et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217 (2016) 239 – 248

Table 2 The instrument for measuring learner’s key competencies in 5 aspects.

Test Features No. of item

1. Communication A situational test of listening, speaking, and writing 50
abilities.
2. Thinking Comprising 2 sub-tests:1) Test of analytical thinking, 40
systematic thinking, and critical thinking abilities,
scoring 0 or 1; and 2) Completion test of 10 items in
synthesis thinking and constructive thinking abilities.
3. Problem-solving A situational test of problems, arguments, information, 50
news, articles, reports or events exposed by students in
daily life, totally 10 events.
4. Applying life skill A situational test of daily life of 4 point rating scale: 50
absolutely true, fairly true, sometimes true, untrue,
5. Technological application A practical test of ability in technological application, 3
containing 3 items, with scoring criteria (rubrics).

5.3 Data analysis

Data analysis involved confirmatory factor analysis of latent variables to capture factor loadings of latent
variables and examine whether the measurement from empirical data conforms to the researcher’s proposed
factors. The analysis employed LISREL 8.72 to investigate the effectiveness of model from those indices of
model fit to empirical data which include chi-square, GFI (Goodness of fit index), AGFI (Adjusted goodness of
fit index), the index of model error, i.e. RMR (Root mean squared residual), and RMSEA (Root mean squared
of error approximation)

6. Findings

Table 3 Factor loadings, validity of observed variables

Component variables Factor loading

R2
b SE β t
1. Communication (COMMU)
1.1 LAN 5.95 0.30 0.94 19.71 0.89
1.2 SPE 0.96 0.07 0.77 14.45 0.60
1.3 DET 1.51 0.10 0.83 15.86 0.68
1.4 SEL 1.30 0.08 0.81 15.47 0.66
2. Thinking (THINK)
2.1 ANA 4.45 0.22 0.97 20.46 0.94
2.2 SYS 1.78 0.11 0.84 15.90 0.71
2.3 CRI 2.04 0.14 0.78 14.30 0.61
2.4 SYN 3.83 0.23 0.85 16.68 0.73
2.5 CRE 1.85 0.12 0.83 15.88 0.69
3. Problem-solving (PROBLEM)
3.1 PRO 8.16 0.43 1.00 18.77 1.01
3.2 UND 1.15 0.11 0.61 10.38 0.38
3.3 APP 0.67 0.07 0.59 9.90 0.34
 Boonsom Srisakda et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217 (2016) 239 – 248 245

Component variables Factor loading

R2
b SE β t
1. Communication (COMMU)
4. Applying life skill (LIFE)
4.1 LEA 4.76 0.28 0.90 16.97 0.81
4.2 COL 3.95 0.27 0.78 14.66 0.61
4.3 MAN 4.60 0.23 0.96 19.79 0.93
4.4 ADA 4.02 0.28 0.78 14.38 0.60
4.5 AVO 3.96 0.28 0.77 14.23 0.59
5. Technological application (TECHNO)
5.1 USE 0.97 0.09 0.81 10.49 0.65
5.2 SKI 3.86 0.31 1.09 12.59 1.18
5.3 MOR 3.42 0.43 0.52 7.99 0.27

Figure 1 Result of confirmatory factor analysis of the model of indicators of learner’s key competencies

χ2 = 96.22 , df = 114, p = 0.88, GFI = 0.96, AGFI = 0.93 , RMR = 0.66 , RMSEA = 0.000
246 Boonsom Srisakda et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217 (2016) 239 – 248

Based on the result of analysis, the construct validity or the goodness of fit of the model of indicators of
learner’s key competencies to the empirical data was found χ2 = 96.22 (df = 114, p = 0.88), with RMSEA = 0.000,
RMR = 0.66, GFI = 0.96, and AGFI = 0.93.
Result of the confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that the factor loadings of 20 indicators displayed
positive values, ranged between 0.52 – 1.09, each with significant level of .05. This suggested that all of them are
significant indicators of learner’s key competencies. The standardized factor loading for each factor (B) is described
as in the followings.
Factor on communication capacity (COMMU) The variable providing highest factor loading is the
linguistic use to receive and transmit messages for exchanging information, expressing opinions, arguments, support
in various situations (LAN), with standardized factor loading of 0.94 and 89 % covariance with communication
capacity (COMMU), followed by choosing whether to receive information through proper reasoning and sound
judgment (DET) and choosing methods of communication (SEL) and negotiation (SPE) with standardized loading
factors of 0.83 , 0.81 , and 0.77, respectively. They displayed covariance with thinking capacity (THINK) for 68%,
66%, and 60%, respectively.
Factor on thinking capacity (THINK) Analytical thinking (ANA) is the variable of highest factor loading
with standardized factor loadings of 0.97 and 94 % covariance with thinking capacity (THINK), followed by
synthesis thinking (SYN), systematic thinking (SYS), creative thinking (CRE) , critical thinking (CRI) with
standardized loading factors of 0.85 , 0.84 , 0.83 , and 0.78, respectively. They displayed covariance with thinking
capacity (THINK) for 73%, 71%, 69%, and 61%, respectively.
Factor on problem-solving capacity (PROBLEM) The highest factor loading was found in the
application of problem-solving process by trying to understand the problem, planning for solution, solving problem,
and examining the result (PRO) with standardized factor loading of 1.00 and 100% covariance with problem-solving
capacity (PROBLEM). Following it are understanding the relationships and changes of various events in society
(UND), applying knowledge for preventing and solving problems and making decisions (APP), with standardized
loading factors of 0.61 and 0.59, respectively and covariance with problem-solving capacity (PROBLEM) for 38 %
and 34 %, respectively.
Factor on applying life skill (LIFE) The variable with highest factor loading is management of problems
and conflicts through proper means (MAN) with standardized factor loading of 0.93 and 81 % covariance with
applying life skill capacity (LIFE). Next are self-learning and continuous learning (LEA), working and living
together in society by enhancing good interpersonal relationship (COL), self-adjustment to keep up with social and
environmental changes (ADA), leaning to avoid undesirable behaviors with adverse effects on oneself and others
(AVO) with standardized loading factors of 0.90, 0.78, 0.78, and 0.77, respectively, and covariance with capacity of
applying life skill (LIFE) for 81% , 61% , 60%, and 59%, respectively.
Factor on technological application (TECHNO) Possessing skill in technological process(SKI) showed
highest factor loading with standardized factor loading of 1.09 and 100% covariance with capacity in technological
application (TECHNO), followed by choosing and applying technologies for data searching and learning (USE),
using technologies on the basis of morality, ethics, and responsibility (MOR) with standardized loading factors of
0.81 and 0.52, respectively, and covariance with capability in applying life skill (LIFE) for 65% and 27%,
respectively.

7. Conclusions

The construct validity or the goodness of fit of the model to the empirical data was measured, and the result
indicated the model fit (χ2 = 96.22., df=114, p=0.88) with RMSEA = 0.000, RMR = 0.66, GFI = 0.96, and AGFI =
0.93. Result of confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the factor loadings of 20 indicators displayed positive
values, ranged between 0.52 – 1.09, with .05 level of significance for each indicator, suggesting that all of them are
significant indicators of learner’s key competencies.
 Boonsom Srisakda et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217 (2016) 239 – 248 247

Acknowledgements

The researchers would like to thank THE 90th ANNIVERSARY OF CHULALONGKORN UNIVERSITY
FUND (ratchadaphiseksomphot Endowment Fund) and CONFERENCE GRANT FOR Ph.D. STUDENT for
funding this research..

References

Ministry of Education. (2008). Basic Education Core Curriculum 2008. Bangkok: Kurusapa
Printing Ladphrao.
Muntana Chukraithai. (2010). The Development of Indicators of Learner’s Key Competencies
based on the Basic Education Core Curriculum 2008. A Master Degree in Education,
Chulalongkorn University.
The Bureau of Educational Testing. (2012). Handbook of a Competency Appraisal for Basic
Education Students based on the Basic Education Core Curriculum B.E. 2551
(A.D.2008). Office of the Basic Education Commission: Buddhapress.
Retrieved Feb 8, 2013 , from http://bet.obec.go.th
Allen, D.D., and Wilson, M. (2006). Introducing multidimensional item response modeling in the
Behavioural sciences. Health Education Research Theory & Practice. Retrieved Feb 8, 2013 ,
from: http://her.oxfordijourmals.org/cgi/reprint/cyl086v2
Bentler, P. M. & Chou, C. (1987). Practical Issues in Structural Modeling. Sociological Methods
and Research,16, 78-117.
Calvin T.Long ,Duane W.detemple and Richard S.Millman .2009.Mathematical Reasoning for
Elementary Teachers. 5th Ed .Pearson Education, Inc
Hannafin And Peck. (1988). The Design, Development, and Evaluation of Instructional Software.
New York : Macmillan Publishing Company.
Hipkins,R.(2006).Assessing Key Competencies : Why Would We? How Could We? . Wellington
: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Ho Weng Kin.(2010). How to Set Good Examination Questions?. Mathematics and Mathematics
Education. National Institute of Education, Singapore [email protected]
Retrieved Feb 8, 2013 , from http://math.nie.edu.sg/wkho/Talks_files/setexam.pdf.
Gail Ring and Barbara Ramirez.(2012) . Implementing Portfolios for the Assessment of General
Education Competencies. Clemson University.
Kwek Meek Lin, Lye Wai Leng . 2007. Using he-Posing as an Assessment Tool. Singapore.
Retrieved Feb 8, 2013 , from [email protected].
Krulik Stephen and Jesse A. Rudnick. (1993). Problem Solving. A Handbook for Teachers. 2nd Ed.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Musser, Gery L. and Burge, William F.(1997).Mathematics for Elementary Teachers: A
Contemporary Approach. 4th Ed. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Rubin, Rebecca B.et al. (2010). Communication Research: Strategies and Sources. 7th Ed.
Canada: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Saurabh Kumar.(2011). Life Skill Education. Retrieved October 31, 2012
http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=kumar_Saurabh_Verma_.
The Integrated Mathematics, Science and Technology.(2007). Research Project Integrated
Mathematics, Science and Technology in the Middle Grades Retrieved Aug, 2011 ,
from http://fcrstem.org/Uploads/1/docs/IMAST.pdf.
UNICEF.(2001). What is the Life Approach? Explore Ideas Articles, Opinions, and
Reaching and Teaching and Learning. Retrieved Oct 31, 2012
248 Boonsom Srisakda et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 217 (2016) 239 – 248

from http://www.unicef.org/teacher/teacher/lifeskill/htm
Wang, W-C., and Chen, P-H. (2004). Implement and measurement efficacy of multidimensional
computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement 28 (5) : 295-316
Wang, W-C., Yao, G., Tsai, Y-J., Wang J-D., and Hsieh, C-L. (2006). Validating,
Improving reliability, and estimating correlation of the subscales in the
WHOQOL-BREF using multidimensional rasch analysis.Quality of Life Research . Retrieved
Feb 20 , 2013, from: http://www.springerlink.com/comtent/12p755677u871082/fulltext.pdf
Watson, K., Baranowski, T., Thompson, D., Jago,R., Baranowski,J., and Kleages, L.M. (2006).
Innovative
application of a multidimensional item response model in assessing the influence of social
desirability on the pseudo-relationship between self-efficacy and behavior. Health Education
Research Theory & Practice . ProQuest Dissertation and Theses.

Weiss, R. E. 2003. Designing Problems to Promote Higher – Order thinking. In Problem-

based Learning in the information age. Edited by D.S. Knowlton and D.C. Sharp,
pp, 25 – 31.San Francisco, CA; Jossey-Bass.
Wilson James W., Fernandez Maria L. and Nelda Hadaway.(1999).Mathematical Problem Solving.
Retrieved Aug 7, 2012 from http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/emt725/PSsyn/PSsyn.html.