
IntroductionThis study investigates the measurement invariance of a survey assessing perceptions of STEM professional development (PD) resources among rural and non-rural educators. Social validity theory provides the framework for examining four constructs: feasibility, usability, appropriateness, and local relevance.MethodsUsing a mixed-methods approach, we conducted multi-group confirmatory factor analysis to test for configural, metric, scalar, and strict invariance. We also conducted a qualitative thematic analysis of open-ended responses to provide contextual insights and nuance.ResultsResults indicate full measurement invariance, supporting the validity of cross-group comparisons. Quantitative analyses show that rural educators rated PD resources significantly higher in feasibility and appropriateness, while no significant differences emerged for usability or local relevance. Thematic analysis revealed that rural teachers more frequently emphasized professional learning benefits and expressed more positive sentiment toward PD resources.DiscussionThese findings highlight the importance of designing STEM PD initiatives that account for contextual differences in resource accessibility, instructional autonomy, and community relevance. Implications for policy and practice include recommendations for tailoring PD to diverse educational settings to enhance educator engagement.
measurement invariance, mixed-methods research, STEM professional development, social validity, rural education, survey validation, Education (General), L7-991
measurement invariance, mixed-methods research, STEM professional development, social validity, rural education, survey validation, Education (General), L7-991
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
