Psychometric Properties of Instruments for Assessing Teachers' Knowledge, Beliefs, Interest and Self-Efficacy in Mathematics among Pre-service Teachers in North-West Nigeria
Emmanuel Yohanna, Yusuf Feyisara Zakariya, Muhammad Kabir Falalu, Umar Aminu Ginga
Source record
Source: Crossref
Published: Oct 1, 2026
DOI: 10.67203/jossme.2026.t4h6t2yb
Open original source ↗Source abstract
This paper reports the development and psychometric validation of four instruments designed to assess pre-service mathematics teachers' content knowledge, beliefs, interest, and teaching self-efficacy in North-West Nigeria. The instruments include the Mathematics Teachers' Content Knowledge Test (MTCKT), Teachers' Mathematics Beliefs Inventory (TMBI), Interest in Mathematics Teaching (IMT) Questionnaire, and Mathematics Teaching Self-Efficacy (MTSE) Scale. The study employed a correlational survey design with a sample of 212 pre-service teachers (87 university students and 125 college of education students). Content and face validity were established through expert reviews by mathematics education specialists and educational psychologists. Construct validity was examined through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for the TMBI, IMT, and MTSE instruments. Item analysis for the MTCKT included difficulty and discrimination indices, resulting in the removal of two items. Reliability was assessed using split-half reliability with Spearman-Brown coefficient for the MTCKT (r = 0.671) and McDonald's Omega coefficient for the Likert-scale instruments (TMBI ω = 0.945; IMT ω = 0.943; MTSE ω = 0.969). CFA results demonstrated acceptable model fit for the three-factor structures of the TMBI, IMT, and MTSE instruments. The findings suggest that the adapted instruments demonstrate adequate psychometric properties for use in the Nigerian context, though further refinement is recommended for the knowledge test.
Evidence graph
No public relationships recorded yet.
Integrity note: This page is a factual metadata record created by deterministic ingestion. It is not a claim that the work moves a mathematical frontier or has been independently verified.