the relation between individual interest and knowledge acquisition

This article tries to test if individual interest and learning or knowledge acquisition are causally
related. This is a complex studies involving a cross-lagged panel analysis and two quasi-
experimental studies where three hypotheses were tested. This present report will focus on the
validity and reliability of this article.
construct validity
This refers to the validity and reliability of the instruments and concepts used in our measures. For
this article, the researchers measure individual interest with the individual interest questionnaire
which is a validated measure in different settings and populations. Showing a coefficient H of 0.86,
which is more than the cut-off value, meaning that this is a reliable measure.
In terms of knowledge acquisition, this was measured with a concept recall test, which tests the
concepts that a participant can remember about a given topic. The participants were scored by two
independent readers, which an inter-rater agreement of 0.87 which could be considered really good.
However, Cronbach's alpha or coefficient H for the test itself where not provided. In addition, it is
important to reflect on the conceptualization this article presents about knowledge acquisition.
Learning in this study is measured only with a test measuring concept retainment and might not
fully reflect knowledge acquisition. This test seems to focus more on memory than on what
participants "learned". For this reason, a "battery" of tests where for example, students could
develop ideas might have been more appropriate. Furthermore, since this test focuses on how many
concepts a student can recall over time, there is no indication that the researchers tested the
participants for cognitive skills such as working memory or attentional span, which are factors that
influence concept retainment. This, of course, becomes a big threat to the possibility of making
inferences.
treatment diffusion?l
internal validity
The main problem with cross-sectional studies according to de Vaus (reference) is a problem
with establishing cause without a time dimension. Since the researchers used this type of design,
they can't assume a causal relationship. However, in the first sentence of their abstract, the
researchers aim to determine if individual interest and knowledge acquisition are causally related.
Another issue to the internal validity is differential attrition. It may be possible that some
participants left the study, if it was too difficult for them or if they didn't enjoy participating.
Another problem with the cross-sectional design is selection of non-comparable groups, which
means that the groups of participants could not be compared since more than just the variable of
interest separates them. In this design there is no threat to uneven maturation, instrument decay,
mortality or testing effects, because there were no repeated measures within the participants.
external validity
Firstly, there doesn't seem to be a threat to oversampling of hard to find populations, because the
groups were sampled evenly.