Sample
The initial sample included 345 Grades 3, 4 and 5 students drawn from two public schools: School 1 in a
Midwestern plains state, and School 2 in a metropolitan east coast state. The 257 students from School 1 were
Grade 3, 4 and 5 students present on the day that the surveys were collected. They included 84 Grade 3 students,
92 Grade 4 students, and 81 Grade 5 students. From School 2, 88 students included 49 third graders, 29 fourth
graders, and 11 fifth graders, of whom 45% were male and 55% were female.
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Despite the CMS subscales’ brevity (5 to 8 items), they have repeatedly shown item substantial homogeneity.
Cronbach alpha coefficients for the ClassMaps Survey subscales are shown in Table 11.3 .
Test/C0Retest
Test/C0retest reliability evidence is not currently available.
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Concurrent validity evidence comparing subscales of the ClassMaps Survey and related measures are summa-
rized here:
1.Parallel scales of ClassMaps and the Yale School Development Program School Climate Survey were positively
correlated (.47 to .80; Paul, 2005 ).
2.Positive correlations between the Friendship Features Scale and the peer relationships subscales of the
ClassMaps Survey were ( r5.81 with My Classmates and .28 with Kids in This Class; Doll et al., 2006).
3.Significant correlations were found between all ClassMaps Survey subscales and the degree to which middle
school science students valued their science instruction, were engaged in science instruction, and expected to
succeed in science inquiry assignments ( Doll, Spies, Champion et al., 2010 ).
Divergent/Discriminant
No evidence of divergent validity has been reported to-date.
Construct/Factor Analytic
Two exploratory factor analyses ( Doll & Spies, 2007; Doll, Spies, LeClair et al., 2010 ) and one confirmatory
factor analysis (Doll, Spies, Championet al., 2010) support the construct validity of the CMS subscales
(Table 11.4 ).
Criterion/Predictive
Significant predictive validity correlations have been reported between all CMS subscales and the degree to
which middle school science students valued their science instruction; between Efficacy for Science and the CMS
Believing In Me subscale ( r5.66) and between Engagement in Science and the CMS Taking Charge subscale
(r5.62;Doll, Spies et al., 2010; Kurien, 2011 ). Also, there is evidence that CMS scores are responsive to classroom
changes ( Murphy, 2002; Nickolite & Doll, 2008 ).
Location
Doll, B., Zucker, S., & Brehm, K. (2004.) Resilient classrooms: Creating healthy environments for learning. New
York: Guilford.
Results and Comments
The CMS presents a unique assessment tool for use in educational settings for enhancing the resiliency pro-
moting features of the classroom environment. The anonymity of students is an advantage in school environ-
ments where parents are sensitive to privacy considerations and increase the likelihood of truthful responding.
A possible disadvantage is that scores are not used for individual assessment.315 MEASURES REVIEWED HERE
III. EMOTION REGULATION