Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Introduction Existing measures of ideological-political literacy among Chinese university students have limited dimensional clarity and cross-group comparability. This study developed and evaluated a five-dimensional scale covering political identification, patriotic sentiment, moral cultivation, rule-of-law awareness, and cultural confidence using multidimensional item response theory. Methods Framework-based qualitative coding, two-round Delphi consultation, content-validity screening, and pilot testing yielded 47 candidate items. A stratified cluster sample of 3,716 undergraduates from 28 universities across 12 provinces provided calibration data. A compensatory multidimensional graded response model (C-MGRM) was estimated by marginal maximum likelihood, with Metropolis-Hastings Robbins-Monro estimation as a same-sample robustness check. Competing dimensional specifications, reliability, measurement invariance, and differential item functioning (DIF) were examined. Results The 47-item oblique model yielded RMSEA = 0.043, CFI = 0.957, and TLI = 0.951. After four items were removed, the final 43-item model yielded RMSEA = 0.039, CFI = 0.964, and TLI = 0.958; marginal reliabilities ranged from 0.82 to 0.91. Although bifactor models showed slightly better approximate fit, their indices did not support a substantive general-factor interpretation. Scalar invariance was reported across gender, grade, and disciplinary clusters. Eight items showed DIF across urban-rural or party-membership comparisons, leading to proposed wording revisions or interpretive caveats. Discussion The scale provides dimension-specific scores and a basis for further measurement development. Same-sample model selection, incomplete external-validity evidence, and unadjusted clustering in the MIRT and DIF analyses limit interpretation. Independent validation is needed, and the findings do not establish readiness for an operational computerized adaptive test.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
连桐 et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: