Desenvolvimento e validação preliminar de uma questão de raciocínio estatístico entre estudantes de ciências do desporto
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47197/retos.v81.119251Palavras-chave:
raciocínio estatístico, pesquisas e questionários, método Delphi, psicometria, validaçãoResumo
Introdução: O raciocínio estadístico é crítico para a tomada de decisão baseada na evidência nas ciências do desporto. No entanto, existem instrumentos psicométricos válidos para esta população.
Objectivo: Desenvolver e apresentar evidências de validade de conteúdo, estrutura interna e fiabilidade de um questionário para avaliar o raciocínio estadístico dirigido a estudantes de ciências do desporto.
Métodos: Foi realizado um estudo de validação psicométrica, que integrou um consenso trietápico Delphi (n=13, especialistas) para a geração de itens. A validade do conteúdo foi quantificada através do índice de validade do conteúdo por item (IVC-I), índice de validade do conteúdo global (IVC-G) e Kappa modificado (K*). Uma mostra de (n=99) alunos (21,9± 2,04 anos) completou o instrumento. Foi executada uma análise fatorial exploratória com uma estimativa robusta de mínimos quadrados ponderados diagonalmente. A fiabilidade foi determinada através da alfa de Cronbach e do coeficiente de correlação intraclasse (CCI).
Resultados: A validade do conteúdo foi ótima (IVC-G: 0,93; K*>0,84). A análise fatorial exploratória indicou uma estrutura bifatorial parcimoniosa de 10 reativos, que explicou os 62,4% da variação total. A consistência interna foi aceitável (α = 0,746), e a estabilidade temporal adequada (ICC= 0,820; IC95%:0,672-0,813).
Conclusões: O questionário REI-Sports mostra propriedades psicométricas de validade e fiabilidade sólidas para avaliar o raciocínio estadístico em estudantes das ciências do desporto. São necessários estudos adicionais para confirmar a sua estrutura fatorial e a sua aplicabilidade noutros contextos.
Referências
Beatty, P. C., & Willis, G. B. (2007). Research Synthesis: The Practice of Cognitive Interviewing. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(2), 287–311. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfm006
Begum, M., Crossley, J., Strömbäck, F., Akrida, E., Alpizar-Chacon, I., Evans, A., Gross, J. B., Haglund, P., Lonati, V., Satyavolu, C., & Thorgeirsson, S. (2025). A Pedagogical Framework for Developing Abstraction Skills. 2024 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, 258–299. https://doi.org/10.1145/3689187.3709613
Borg, D. N., Bach, A. J. E., O’Brien, J. L., & Sainani, K. L. (2022). Calculating sample size for reliability stud-ies. PM&R, 14(8), 1018–1025. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmrj.12850
Cantón-Chirivella, E., Blázquez-Perera, I., García-Mas, A., Núñez Prats, A., & Peris-Delcampo, D. (2025). Instrumentos de evaluación en psicología del deporte en español: triangulación de métodos en la identificación. Retos, 73, 950–972. https://doi.org/10.47197/retos.v73.117257
Carranza-Bautista, D., & Giakoni-Ramírez, F. (2025). Validación psicométrica SECO-3D: un instrumento para la evaluación integral de congresos académicos en ciencias de la actividad física y deporte. Retos, 72, 25–36. https://doi.org/10.47197/retos.v72.116552
Ceballos-Bernal, E. A., & Correa-Bautista, J. E. (2025). Efectividad de una intervención educativa basada en escenarios interactivos para mejorar actitudes hacia la estadística deportiva: un estudio cua-si-experimental. Retos, 72, 470–481. https://doi.org/10.47197/retos.v72.116894
Chan, S. W., & Ismail, Z. (2014). Developing Statistical Reasoning Assessment Instrument for High School Students in Descriptive Statistics. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 4338–4343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.943
Chance, B., Ben-Zvi, D., Garfield, J., & Medina, E. (2007). The Role of Technology in Improving Student Learning of Statistics. Technology Innovations in Statistics Education, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.5070/T511000026
Chance, B., del Mas, R., & Garfield, J. (2004). Reasoning about Sampling Distributions. In The Challenge of Developing Statistical Literacy, Reasoning and Thinking (pp. 295–323). Springer Nether-lands. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2278-6_13
Conway, B., Gary Martin, W., Strutchens, M., Kraska, M., & Huang, H. (2019). The Statistical Reasoning Learning Environment: A Comparison of Students’ Statistical Reasoning Ability. Journal of Sta-tis-tics Education, 27(3), 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2019.1647008
Corbin, C. B. (2021). Conceptual physical education: A course for the future. Sport and Health Science, 10 (3), 308–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2020.10.004
DeJonckheere, M., & Vaughn, L. M. (2019). Semistructured interviewing in primary care research: a balance of relationship and rigour. Family Medicine and Community Health, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.1136/fmch-2018-000057
Delmas, R., Garfield, J., Ooms, A., & Chance, B. (2007). Assessing Student´s Conceptual Understanding After a First Course in Statistics. Statistics Education Research Journal, 6(2), 28–58. https://doi.org/10.52041/serj.v6i2.483
Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the perva-sive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105(3), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046
Evans, A. D., Roberts, K. P., Price, H. L., & Stefek, C. P. (2010). The use of paraphrasing in investigative interviews. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34(8), 585–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2010.01.008
Fan, X. (1998). Item Response Theory and Classical Test Theory: An Empirical Comparison of their Item/ Person Statistics. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(3), 357–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164498058003001
Friedrich, S., Antes, G., Behr, S., Binder, H., Brannath, W., Dumpert, F., Ickstadt, K., Kestler, H. A., Lederer, J., Leitgöb, H., Pauly, M., Steland, A., Wilhelm, A., & Friede, T. (2022). Is there a role for statistics in artificial intelligence? Advances in Data Analysis and Classification, 16(4), 823–846. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11634-021-00455-6
Gagnier, J. J., Lai, J., Mokkink, L. B., & Terwee, C. B. (2021). COSMIN reporting guideline for studies on measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 30(8), 2197–2218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02822-4
Galanis, P. (2018). The Delphi method. Archives of Hellenic Medicine, 35(4). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315728513-10
Garfield, & Ben-Zvi, D. (2008). Developing Students’ Statistical Reasoning. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8383-9
Garfield, J. (2002). The Challenge of Developing Statistical Reasoning. Journal of Statistics Education, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2002.11910676
Garfield, J., & Ahlgren, A. (1988). Difficulties in Learning Basic Concepts in Probability and Statistics: Implications for Research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19(1), 44–63. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.19.1.0044
Garfield, J. B. (2003). Assessing Statistical Reasoning. Statistics Education Research Journal, 2(1), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.52041/serj.v2i1.557
Garfield, J., & DelMas, R. (2010). A Web Site That Provides Resources for Assessing Students’ Statistical Literacy, Reasoning and Thinking. Teaching Statistics, 32(1), 2–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9639.2009.00373.x
Garfield, J., & Gal, I. (1999). Teaching and Assessing Statistical Reasoning”. En L. V. Stiff (Ed.), Develop-ing Mathematical Reasoning in Grade K-12 (pp. 207–219). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Gaviria-Bedoya, J. A., Villa-Ochoa, J. A., & González-Gómez, D. (2025). Situated statistical reasoning as-sessment for postgraduate health sciences students: Design and validation. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 57(7), 1329–1342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-025-01753-5
He, D., & Lao, H. (2018). Paper-and-pencil assessment. En The SAGE encyclopedia of educational re-search, measurement, and evaluation. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506326139.n496
Heemskerk, L., Norman, G., Chou, S., Mintz, M., Mandin, H., & McLaughlin, K. (2008). The effect of ques-tion format and task difficulty on reasoning strategies and diagnostic performance in Internal Medicine residents. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 13(4), 453–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-006-9057-8
Hinkin, T. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967–988. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-2063(95)90050-0
Hussain, M., Zhu, W., Zhang, W., Abidi, S. M. R., & Ali, S. (2019). Using machine learning to predict student difficulties from learning session data. Artificial Intelligence Review, 52(1), 381–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-018-9620-8
Kamp, K., Wyatt, G., Dudley-Brown, S., Brittain, K., & Given, B. (2018). Using cognitive interviewing to improve questionnaires: An exemplar study focusing on individual and condition-specific fac-tors. Applied Nursing Research, 43, 121–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2018.06.007
Kellerhuis, B. E., Jenniskens, K., Kusters, M. P. T., Schuit, E., Hooft, L., Moons, K. G. M., & Reitsma, J. B. (2025). Expert panel as reference standard procedure in diagnostic accuracy studies: a system-atic scoping review and methodological guidance. Diagnostic and Prognostic Research, 9(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41512-025-00195-7
Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, Jr., Robert P., R., Richard L., C., & Brad S. (1975). Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Na-vy Enlisted Personnel. Naval technical training command. https://doi.org/10.21236/ADA006655
JASP Team. (2024). JASP (Versión 0.19.3) [Software de computación]. https://jasp-stats.org/
Li, C.-H. (2016a). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likeli-hood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 936–949. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7
Li, C.-H. (2016b). The performance of ML, DWLS, and ULS estimation with robust corrections in struc-tural equation models with ordinal variables. Psychological Methods, 21(3), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000093
Lu, H.-F. (2023). Statistical learning in sports education: A case study on improving quantitative analy-sis skills through project-based alearning. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Edu-cation, 32, 100417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2023.100417
Marco, A. (2023). A Pen and Paper Introduction to Statistics. Chapman and Hall/CRC. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003398820
McGrath, A. L. (2014). Content, Affective, and Behavioral Challenges to Learning: Students’ Experiences Learning Statistics. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2014.080206
Nasa, P., Jain, R., & Juneja, D. (2021). Delphi methodology in healthcare research: How to decide its ap-propriateness. World Journal of Methodology, 11(4), 116–129. https://doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v11.i4.116
Niederberger, M., Schifano, J., Deckert, S., Hirt, J., Homberg, A., Köberich, S., Kuhn, R., Rommel, A., & Sonnberger, M. (2024). Delphi studies in social and health sciences-Recommendations for in-terdisciplinary standardized reporting (DELPHISTAR). Results of a Delphi study. Plos One, 19(8), e0304651. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304651
Patalay, P., Hayes, D., & Wolpert, M. (2018). Assessing the readability of the self-reported Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. BJPsych Open, 4(2), 55–57. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2017.13
Perner, P. (2008). Case‐based reasoning and the statistical challenges. Quality and Reliability Engineer-ing International, 24(6), 705–720. https://doi.org/10.1002/qre.951
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being re-ported? critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 29(5), 489–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147
Sabbag, A., Zieffler, A., & Ng, C. (2025). Can We Distinguish Statistical Literacy and Statistical Reasoning? Statistics Education Research Journal, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.52041/serj.v24i1.587
Schwob, M., Duan, Y., Cantoni, B., Flores-Lopez, B., & G. Walker, S. (2025). Exercises in Statistical Rea-soning. Chapman and Hall/CRC. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003493471
Sepdanius, E., Binti Sanuddin, N. D., Bin Mohd Nor, M. A., Mohd Sidi, M. A. Bin, Erhan Orhan, B., Aman, M. S., & Afriani, R. (2025). Validity and reliability of a sport participant psychosocial well-being in-strument: a preliminary study. Retos, 64, 754–766. https://doi.org/10.47197/retos.v64.110789
Shoozan, A., & Mohamad, M. (2024). Application of Interview Protocol Refinement Framework in Sys-tematically Developing and Refining a Semi-structured Interview Protocol. SHS Web of Confer-ences, 182. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202418204006
Silva, P. N., & Sarnecka, B. W. (2025). What Do Your Students Struggle with? A Survey of Statistics In-structors. Journal of Statistics and Data Science Education, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/26939169.2025.2455560
Szigriszt, F. (2001). Sistemas predictivos de legibilidad del mensaje escrito: fórmula de lecturabilidad de la lengua española [Tesis doctoral, Universidad Complutense, Madrid.]. https://eprints.ucm.es/id/eprint/4134/
Traynor, A., & Christopherson, S. C. (2024). Using Content Relevance and Representativeness Indices in Instrument Revision. Applied Measurement in Education, 37(2), 132–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2024.2347518
Wild, C. J., & Pfannkuch, M. (1999). Statistical Thinking in Empirical Enquiry. International Statistical Review, 67(3), 223–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-5823.1999.tb00442.x
Zieffler, A., Garfield, J., Alt, S., Dupuis, D., Holleque, K., & Chang, B. (2008). What Does Research Suggest About the Teaching and Learning of Introductory Statistics at the College Level? A Review of Literature. Journal of Statistics Education, 16(2), 122. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2008.11889566
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Secção
Licença
Direitos de Autor (c) 2026 Maria Luisa Zambrano Rojas, Eliana Patricia Cuellar-Carvajal, Jorge Enrique Correa-Bautista
Este trabalho encontra-se publicado com a Licença Internacional Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial-SemDerivações 4.0.
Autores que publicam nesta revista concordam com os seguintes termos:
- Autores mantém os direitos autorais e assegurar a revista o direito de ser a primeira publicação da obra como licenciado sob a Licença Creative Commons Attribution que permite que outros para compartilhar o trabalho com o crédito de autoria do trabalho e publicação inicial nesta revista.
- Os autores podem estabelecer acordos adicionais separados para a distribuição não-exclusiva da versão do trabalho publicado na revista (por exemplo, a um repositório institucional, ou publicá-lo em um livro), com reconhecimento de autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista.
- É permitido e os autores são incentivados a divulgar o seu trabalho por via electrónica (por exemplo, em repositórios institucionais ou no seu próprio site), antes e durante o processo de envio, pois pode gerar alterações produtivas, bem como a uma intimação mais Cedo e mais do trabalho publicado (Veja O Efeito do Acesso Livre) (em Inglês).
Esta revista é a "política de acesso aberto" de Boai (1), apoiando os direitos dos usuários de "ler, baixar, copiar, distribuir, imprimir, pesquisar, ou link para os textos completos dos artigos". (1) http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#openaccess
