www.ijcrsee.com

273

Subali, B. et al. (2025). Assessing Decision-Making Skills in Electricity: Rasch Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive

Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 273-287.

Original scientific paper

Received: April 09, 2025.

Revised: July 19, 2025.

Accepted: August 05, 2025.

UDC:

159.923.3.072

10.23947/2334-8496-2025-13-2-273-287

Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Corresponding author:

bambangfisika@mail.unnes.ac.id

Abstract: Decision-making is an essential 21st-century skill, and this is evidenced by the fact that the skill has increasingly

gained attention in the current educational landscape. Accordingly, among the various competencies assessed by PISA, decision-

making has been observed to be at the top of the list. This skill is particularly important, especially considering the fact that it

provides college graduates with a competitive edge in the current workforce. Despite its significance, little work has been carried

out to measure decision-making in the context of physics education using Rasch analysis. Therefore, this study aimed to explore

the decision-making skills of prospective science teachers, with particular attention to differences based on gender and domicile.

In order to achieve the stated objective, a quantitative study method was adopted, with the inclusion of 172 prospective science

teachers who had received basic physics. Accordingly, data were collected using a paper-based test technique, which included six

questions related to decision-making skills. The physics material utilized during the course of the study includes dynamic electricity,

and in terms of the determination of validity and reliability, as well as item difficulty and differences in decision-making skills based

on gender and domicile of the prospective science teacher, the Rasch measurement approach was adopted. The obtained results

showed that no items could be reviewed based on gender and domicile of the observed prospective science teachers. However, a

significant difference was found between the decision-making skills of participants based on gender. Following the observations, the

decision-making skills of females were better than those of males, regardless of domicile. In conclusion, the decision-making skills

instrument was observed to be valid and reliable. Additionally, the investigation possesses some implications for science educators

in the aspect of determining differentiated physics learning designs that accommodate the abilities of students based on gender.

Keywords: decision-making skills, gender, physics learning, prospective teacher, rasch analysis.

Bambang Subali

, Mujib Ubaidillah

2,3

, Putut Marwoto

, Wiyanto

, Hartono

Department of Physics Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia

e-mail:

bambangfisika@mail.unnes.ac.id, pmarwoto@mail.unnes.ac.id,

wiyanto@mail.unnes.ac.id, hartono_sukorejo@mail.unnes.ac.id

Doctoral Programme of Science Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, Universitas Negeri Semarang,

Indonesia, e-mail:

mujibubaidillah@students.unnes.ac.id

Department of Biology Education, Faculty of Education and Teacher Training, Universitas Islam Negeri Siber Syekh Nurjati

Cirebon, Indonesia, e-mail:

mujibubaidillah@uinssc.ac.id

Assessing Decision-Making Skills in Electricity: Rasch Analysis

Introduction

Decision-making skills are a very important requirement across diverse professions and have been

observed to play an essential role in realizing citizen awareness of the dimensions of life and the develop-

ment of sustainable education (Khishfe, 2012; León et al., 2020). Decision-making skills correlate with stu-

dents’ 21st-century skills (Erbas et al., 2025). This study contributes to the sustainable development goals

of quality, inclusive, equitable, and gender-equal education (SDGs 4 and 5). Accordingly, theories related

to decision-making have been applied across various disciplines, including education, medicine, computer

science, mathematics, psychology, nursing, and physics (Kinskey and Zeidler, 2024; Sadeghi et al., 2024;

Smoliński and Brycz, 2024; Tutticci and Huss, 2025; Erbas et al., 2025; Yang et al., 2024). As stated in

previous studies, decision-making is an important 21st-century competence that needs to be practiced and

developed by individuals. It often comprises complex analysis, an in-depth understanding of theory, and

the application of concepts in the real world. Physicians, epidemiologists, educators, engineers, and poli-

www.ijcrsee.com

274

Subali, B. et al. (2025). Assessing Decision-Making Skills in Electricity: Rasch Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive

Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 273-287.

cymakers have shown interest in decision-making skills (Garg et al., 2023; Goosen and Steenkamp, 2023;

Laka et al., 2022; Razaghpoor et al., 2024). Following the report of Orhan and Ataman (2024),

accurate

decision-making is correlated with both reflective and creative thinking dispositions and is considered a

critical factor that can aid individuals in attaining success in the future.

Many studies have shown the importance of decision-making skills in various contexts. For instance,

these skills have been found to possess a significant relationship with reasoning (Sakschewski et al., 2014),

critical thinking (Wolcott and Sargent, 2021), scientific literacy (Spatz, Tampe, and Slezak, 2019), problem-

solving on social scientific issues (Garrecht et al., 2020; Pietrocola et al., 2021), competence and mental

health (Bavol’ár and Orosová, 2015), as well as regulating learning (Zhang and Hsu, 2021). In accordance

with this, Gresch et al. (2017) found that decision-making strategies integrated with reflective thinking,

the decision-making processes, and self-regulation elements were very beneficial in science, technology,

society, and environmental education. Another study stated that decision-making skills could be improved

through real-world and game-based learning, particularly within the context of nursing students (Vázquez-

Calatayud et al., 2024).

Numerous investigations have been conducted across various fields with the aim of developing

clinical decision-making instruments within several countries (Lauri and Salanterä, 2002). The subject

matter has also been examined within the domain of science education, particularly in countries such

as Germany, where the competence was associated with environmental issues (

Garrecht et al., 2020

Furthermore, the decision-making abilities and styles of junior high school students have been explored

(Novianawati and Nahadi, 2015). Regardless of the diverse reach, these studies often fall short in ad-

dressing the skills in a more advanced way among undergraduates. Assessing decision-making skills

among university students is crucial, considering the fact that it not only emphasizes the developmental

progress of the students but also provides invaluable insight for improving curricula. It is also important

to state that the measurements that will be obtained from such assessments could offer educators a

clearer understanding of student abilities while equipping students with the skills necessary to thrive in the

workforce. This study, in particular, adds to the growing body of knowledge by examining decision-making

skills within the context of physics learning among prospective teachers in higher education.

Literature Review

Decision-Making Skills in Physics Learning

Current educational policies require a combination of technology, instructional design, and decision-

making (

Mettas, 2011). The Industry 4.0 era requires graduates with strong decision-making skills (Torres

et al., 2023). Decision-making skills are necessary for success in today’s professional landscape (Erol et

al., 2016). This is reinforced by the opinion of Olmstead et al. (2023), who stated that physics learning is

strengthened by knowledge and the choice to study the subject. Physics learning must be enriched with

complex ethical decision-making skills to support students who intend to build future careers outside the

field. Decision-making skills fall within cognitive development and have become a significant focus in

scientific studies. Therefore, physics learning is highly relevant to scientific inquiry, decision-making, and

the habit of solving complex problems in physics learning.

Higher education plays a crucial role in preparing students to compete globally. Therefore, higher

education curricula need to be designed to integrate decision-making skills into every department within the

institution, including physics. As stated in previous studies, scientific decision-making practices are closely

related to learning the processes and practices of science (Holmes et al., 2020). For example, laboratory

experiments in physics are typically designed to stimulate students to solve real-world problems, select the

best solution, determine tools and materials, and design practical procedures. Decision-making skills can

be practiced during traditional physics laboratory activities. Generally, students’ decisions during practi-

cal activities include the equipment used, the amount of data to collect, and how to analyze experimental

data. Physics learning encourages students to think critically and make decisions. According to Vygotsky’s

constructivist theory, students actively construct knowledge through experience during learning activities.

Decision-making style is a learned and habitual response pattern that individuals typically exhibit

when facing problems. Decision-making skills are related to students’ cognitive styles. Decision-making

styles are intuitive and rational (

Abubakar et al., 2019). Intuitive decision-making is a right-brain decision-

www.ijcrsee.com

275

Subali, B. et al. (2025). Assessing Decision-Making Skills in Electricity: Rasch Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive

Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 273-287.

making style that prioritizes feelings over facts. Intuitive decision-making can be based on experience or

previous knowledge (metacognitive). Meanwhile, the rational decision-making process is characterized

by identifying problems, generating possible solutions, selecting feasible solutions, and implementing and

evaluating the chosen solutions. Rational decision-making is influenced by knowledge management.

The success of physics learning can be measured using assessment instruments. One physics

learning instrument is designed to assess students’ decision-making skills. This approach suggests that

after students have mastered physics theory and engaged in appropriate practice, the results obtained

from solving problems should be measured through decision-making assessments. Electricity is a crucial

physics topic related to everyday life applications and requires problem-solving. Therefore, the problem-

solving process requires complex knowledge and appropriate decision-making skills. This aligns with

Jeong et al.’s (2024) opinion that students must be trained to solve complex problems and improve their

physics knowledge through learning designs and assessments that measure decision-making skills.

Studies show differences in decision-making skills between males and females (Villanueva-Moya and

Expósito, 2021). This suggests that gender stereotype threat can influence the decision-making processes

of both genders and has important implications for educational decision-making and gender interventions.

This explanation is supported by the fact that men are often more likely to take risks and be selective in

achieving their goals through individual decisions. At the same time, women are more conservative (Lozano

et al., 2017). Individual decision-making skills are influenced by conceptual mastery, psychological condi-

tions, and gender differences (Sokol et al., 2019; Byrne et al., 2020; Villanueva-Moya and Expósito, 2021).

Rasch Analysis

George Rasch, a Danish mathematician, developed Rasch measurement. Rasch measurement

is based on the interaction of items, individuals, and probability estimates. Rasch analysis is used in

research to overcome the limitations of classical test theory. In this study, Rasch analysis is used for ob-

jective measurement, which includes examining the relationship between individuals and items related to

decision-making skills. Previous studies have explored the decision-making skills of physics (

Holmes et

al., 2020

) and chemical engineering students through parametric data analysis (Burkholder et al., 2021).

However, after reviewing the existing literature, no publication has adopted Rasch analysis to assess

decision-making skills in electrical engineering from the perspective of gender and domicile. Rasch analy-

sis has advantages, including the ability to provide consistent and independent measures for samples and

items, ensure unidimensionality, assess model fit, and detect differential item functioning (DIF) based on

gender, domicile, and clarity of interpretation (Linacre, 2002). Considering the gap, this study aimed to

address three key questions, including,

1. How do the validity and reliability of the electricity decision-making skills test hold up based on Rasch

parameters?

2. Is there a DIF in the test based on gender and domicile?

3. What are the observed differences in the decision-making skills of students when categorized by

gender and domicile?

Materials and Methods

Design, Participant, and Procedure

The present study adopted a quantitative method, with a sample size of 172 students from state

universities. The sample comprised 75 male students (43.6%) and 97 female students (56.4%), all of

which were science education students who had completed basic physics courses. Accordingly, the stu-

dents voluntarily answered the test questions over a 90-minute session using a traditional paper-and-

pencil format. Through the test, information regarding the gender and place of residence of the study

participants was collected. Table 1 presents the demographic profile of the participants.

www.ijcrsee.com

276

Subali, B. et al. (2025). Assessing Decision-Making Skills in Electricity: Rasch Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive

Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 273-287.

Table 1. Demographic profiles in this study

Demographic Frequency Percentage (%)

Gender

Male 75 43.6

Female 97 56.4

University type Public 172 100.0

Study programme

Biology Education 102 59.3

Science Education 70 40.7

Living place

Urban 64 37.2

Rural 108 62.8

Instruments

The decision-making skills instrument consists of six essay-based questions, with responses evalu-

ated using a rubric. These questions focused on electrical concepts since it is a topic closely connected to

the everyday experiences of students. The data collection included administering the test, which students

completed within 90 minutes, and respective responses were subsequently scored using a rubric and con-

verted into a scale ranging from 1 to 3. Electrical circuits are crucial elements of physics and are closely re-

lated to students’ daily lives. However, students have not yet fully mastered the concept of simple electrical

circuits (Burde et al., 2022; Burde and Wilhelm, 2020). Therefore, prospective science teachers must have

a solid understanding of electricity. The rationale for selecting electrical circuit problems is to train students’

thinking skills to solve electrical problems. Students are trained to make decisions based on the electrical

phenomena presented in the problems. Furthermore, the physics curriculum in universities recommends

that prospective science teachers be trained in decision-making skills (Montgomery et al., 2024).

Table 2. Electrical topic test questions based on decision-making skills indicators

Decision-making Indicator Item

Analyze the existence of

several possible alternative

answers along with the risks

that may arise (DM1)

You are tasked with creating a simple electrical circuit that requires two resistors con-

nected in series. You have three alternative resistors: R

= 10 Ω and R

= 30 Ω, R

= 20 Ω

and R

= 30 Ω, or R

= 30 Ω and R

= 40 Ω.

a) Select the correct combination of resistors to produce a total resistance of 50 Ω!

b) Provide arguments regarding the possible risks of using each resistor combination.

Evaluating the inherent

decision-making process

(DM2)

An electrical circuit consists of a 9-volt battery and a 6 Ω resistor. A student measures the

current in the circuit as 1.5 A. The student uses Ohm’s law to calculate the voltage across

the circuit. The student obtains a result of 4.5 volts. Evaluate the student’s decision!

Analyze the relationship

between problems and

existing rules or concepts

(DM3)

Anwar was asked to design an electrical circuit with a 12-volt battery, a 6 Ω resistor, and

a 3Ω lamp. Anwar wanted to determine the current flowing in the circuit and the power

consumed by the lamp. Questions:

a) How can one articulate the voltage, resistance, and current relationship?

b) What is the calculated current flowing through the circuit?

c) How do we determine the power the lamp consumes in the circuit?

d) In what ways does Ohm’s Law connect to the current and power calculation from this circuit?

Understanding the basis of

irrelevant decision-making

(DM4)

Agus has an electrical circuit consisting of one battery as a voltage source, two lamps

(lamps A and B), and one switch. Only lamp A lights up when the switch is pressed, while

lamp B remains off.

a) Describe the steps to understand why only lamp A lights up when the switch is pressed!

b) Identify irrelevant decisions or assumptions in the circuit analysis!

Integrating related beliefs

and values (DM5)

You are designing an electrical circuit consisting of a 12-volt battery, a 4-Ω lamp, and a resis-

tor. There are two resistors to choose from: R

= 6 Ω and R

= 10 Ω. Determine which resistor

you will use in the circuit! Provide arguments based on your beliefs and related values!

Detecting errors in answer

construction (DM6)

Anwar has an electrical circuit consisting of a 9-volt battery and two parallel resistors, R

= 4 Ω and R

= 6 Ω, respectively. Anwar was asked to calculate the total current flowing

in the circuit. Anwar’s answer, for the total current obtained, is 0.9 A. Anwar explained

that the total current in the circuit can be calculated by adding the resistances of R

and

, then dividing the voltage by the total resistance. Based on Anwar’s answer, detect the

error in Anwar’s answer!

www.ijcrsee.com

277

Subali, B. et al. (2025). Assessing Decision-Making Skills in Electricity: Rasch Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive

Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 273-287.

Table 2 presents the framework for the electricity decision-making skills instrument. In line with

the study by Bavol’ár and Orosová (2015), the instrument is built upon six indicators of decision-making

skills namely analyzing the presence of multiple possible alternative answers along with potential risks

(consistency in risk perception), examining the relationship between the problem and established rules

or concepts (recognizing norms), identifying errors when formulating answers (resistance to framing), un-

derstanding the rationale behind irrelevant decisions (resistance to sunk costs), integrating related beliefs

and values, as well as evaluating inherent decision-making process.

Data Analysis

WINSTEPS software version 3.73 (

Linacre, 2020) was utilized for Rasch analysis, while SPSS ver-

sion 22 was adopted to describe the quantitative data from the demographic profiles of the participants.

The analysis focused on various aspects such as the validity and reliability of both items and participants,

item measures and fit criteria, person fit, Wright map, Differential Item Functioning (DIF) based on gender

and domicile, as well as Independent t-tests and one-way ANOVA. During the course of the analysis, sev-

eral important Rasch indicators were examined, including unidimensionality, item and person separation

indices, item and person reliability, as well as infit and outfit MNSQ values, all of which were considered

essential for evaluating decision-making skills. Unidimensionality is an important metric that ensures the

instrument measures what it is supposed to measure. To meet this criterion, the raw variance must ex-

ceed 30%, and the unexplained variance of the first contrast should ideally be less than 15% (Laliyo et al.,

2021). For reliability, a Cronbach’s Alpha value above 0.60 was considered acceptable (Soeharto et al.,

2024; Taber, 2018) and in terms of separation indices, a value of two or more signifies sufficient distinction

between the ability of a person and the difficulty level of the items (Linacre, 2020). As stated in a previous

study, a higher separation index signifies more precise differentiation (Pilatti et al., 2015). Following sepa-

ration indices, item, and person validity were assessed using fit criteria, with acceptable ranges for the

mean square (MNSQ) values of outfit and infit being between 0.5 and 1.5. Additionally, acceptable ranges

for Outfit Z-Standard values were between -2.0 and +2.0, and for Point Measure Correlation (PTMA),

between 0.4 and 0.85 (Boone et al., 2014).

Results

Validity

The validity of the decision-making skills instrument, which was determined using item and person

parameters generated from the Rasch analysis, is detailed in Table 3. As observed, the outfit and infit

MNSQ values for both persons and items showed satisfactory fit validity. The mean outfit MNSQ for per-

sons was 0.87, and the infit MNSQ was 0.79, both within the acceptable range of 0.5 to 1.5, accompanied

by a positive Point Measure Correlation (PTMA) value. Similarly, the mean outfit MNSQ for items was

0.87, and the infit MNSQ was 1.01, also meeting the fit validity criteria with a positive PTMA value (

Boone

et al., 2014). The person separation index obtained was 2.78, and this suggested that the participants

could be grouped into more than two distinct (heterogeneous) categories based on the respective abili-

ties of the students. Meanwhile, the obtained item separation index of 5.91 showed that the test items

effectively differentiated between the decision-making skills of the students. The construct validity of the

instrument was further confirmed through its unidimensionality, with 60.6% of raw variance explained

by the measure, showing that the instrument reliably assessed the skills of the observed demographic

(Ubaidillah et al., 2022). The unexplained variance was 12.9%, which is below the 15% threshold, further

supporting the unidimensionality of the instrument.

www.ijcrsee.com

278

Subali, B. et al. (2025). Assessing Decision-Making Skills in Electricity: Rasch Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive

Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 273-287.

Table 3. The summary statistics based on Rasch’s measurement

Persons Item

N 172 6

Mean Measure

2.69 0.0

Max. Measure

7.40 2.16

Min. Measure

-5.21 -2.61

4.36 1.41

0.33 0.63

Mean Outfit MNSQ

0.87 0.87

Mean Infit MNSQ

0.79 1.01

Separation

2.78 5.91

Reliability

0.89 0.97

Cronbach’s Alpha 0.85

Log-Likelihood Chi-squared (χ2)

813.08 (df= 799)

Probability 0.3569*

Unidimensionality

Raw variance explained by Measure 60.6%

Raw unexplained variance 39.4%

Unexplained variance 1

Contrast

12.9%

*Normally distributed

In Table 4, the item measures and fit criteria are presented to confirm the validity of the fit at the item

level. The item measure values were observed to be within the range from -2.61 to 2.16 logits. Accordingly, the

infit and outfit MNSQ values ranged from 0.80 to 1.33 logits, and from 0.61 to 1.31 logits, respectively. These

values fall within the acceptable range of 0.5 to 1.5 for fit validity (Infit-Outfit MNSQ), implying that the items

met the criteria for fit validity. It is also important to state that the Z-Standards (ZSTD) outfit values ranged from

-1.35 to +1.00, implying the students comprehended all items without any significant misconceptions.

Table 4. Item measure and fit criteria

Item Number Measure Infit MNSQ Outfit MNSQ OutfIt ZSTD PTMA

DM1 -0.12 0.80 0.61 -1.35 0.75

DM2 2.16 1.33 1.31 1.00 0.81

DM3 0.33 0.86 0.66 -1.21 0.82

DM4 0.48 0.97 0.77 -0.76 0.51

DM5 -0.24 0.80 0.62 -1.34 0.76

DM6 -2.61 1.28 1.23 0.69 0.77

Reliability

The reliability of the decision-making skills instrument was determined using Cronbach’s alpha

value, as shown in Table 3. The item reliability was observed to be exceptionally high at 0.98, and the

person reliability was strong, with a value of 0.89. As stated in a previous study, Cronbach’s alpha of 0.85

confirms that the decision-making skills instrument is reliable (

Taber, 2018). Furthermore, the p-value of

0.3569, which is greater than 0.05, showed that the Rasch model provides a good fit for the data analyzed.

Fit Item Analysis

Figure 1 presents the graph of the Bubble fit item analysis carried out during the course of this

study. Based on predefined standards, the larger the circles in the diagram, the greater the margin of

error, indicating a challenge in distinguishing the abilities of students. However, the smaller the circle,

the smaller the standard error, implying that the item is more effective at differentiating student abilities

(see Figure 1). In terms of difficulty, items located higher on the scale were observed to be more chal-

lenging, while items DM1, DM3, and DM5 are clustered closely together within the fit region, showing that

these items were easier but still corresponded properly with the model. Item DM4 is also in the fit area

www.ijcrsee.com

279

Subali, B. et al. (2025). Assessing Decision-Making Skills in Electricity: Rasch Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive

Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 273-287.

but presents a higher level of difficulty compared to DM1, DM3, and DM5. On the other hand, DM6 fell

into the underfit region, reflecting that the responses to this item do not correspond with the expectations

of the model. Item DM2 is also located in the underfit area, although it is positioned closer to the fit line

compared to DM6.

Figure 1. Bubble fit item analysis

Wright Map

Figure 2. Item-person map

www.ijcrsee.com

280

Subali, B. et al. (2025). Assessing Decision-Making Skills in Electricity: Rasch Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive

Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 273-287.

Wright’s map was used to gain valuable insights into the difficulty levels of the decision-making

skills items considered in this study. The map showed a variety of items, ranging from those that students

find challenging to those that are easier to tackle. Typically, items that present significant difficulty can

guide teachers in identifying areas where students struggle. This information allows educators to tailor

respective instructional strategies and implement targeted interventions to address these weaknesses ef-

fectively. By utilizing the insights gained from the Wright map, teachers can enhance respective teaching

methods and support students in improving inherent decision-making skills.

From Figure 2, it can be seen that item DM6, which focuses on detecting errors in answers, was

perceived as very easy by most students. Dissimilar to this, item DM2, which pertains to self-evaluation,

was the most challenging for the students. The participants performed generally well on items DM1,

DM3, DM4, and DM5. The Wright map served as a diagnostic tool, emphasizing that students need to

enhance performance on item DM2. This information allows teachers to provide targeted remediation for

those who struggle with the item. Within this context, educators can emphasize self-evaluation training

in decision-making by incorporating case studies and practical laboratory activities to develop students’

self-assessment skills.

Differential Item Functioning (DIF) Analysis Based on Gender

DIF analysis was adopted to examine potential gender-based biases that may influence decision-

making skills. According to

Boone et al. (2014), DIF analysis is effective in identifying participant bias at

the item level, allowing for a proper understanding of the manner in which background variables may

affect responses to specific items.

Figure 3. DIF based on gender

Figure 3 presents the graphical representation of the difficulty levels of the items, showing that

DM2 was the most challenging, followed by DM4, DM3, DM5, and finally DM1. Based on observation,

DM2, DM4, and DM6 posed more challenges for female students compared to the males. However, fe-

male students showed stronger performance on items DM1, DM3, and DM5 than male students. Table 5

presents the probability values for all items, which were greater than 0.05. This finding shows that none

of the items exhibit gender bias.

www.ijcrsee.com

281

Subali, B. et al. (2025). Assessing Decision-Making Skills in Electricity: Rasch Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive

Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 273-287.

Table 5 . Differential item functioning based on gender

Item Number Person Class Summary Dif Chi-Square Prob.

DM1

2 0.203 0.652

DM2

2 1.078 0.299

DM3

2 0.708 0.400

DM4

2 1.845 0.174

DM5

2 1.826 0.177

DM6

2 0.326 0.568

Differential Item Functioning (DIF) based on living place

During the course of this study, DIF analysis was instrumental in identifying whether the decision-

making skills items had any form of bias related to the geographical location of the observed prospective sci-

ence teachers. This analytical approach allows for the examination of item bias based on various participant

background variables (Boone et al., 2014). Furthermore, according to the established DIF criteria, a prob-

ability value greater than 0.05 signifies the absence of significant bias in the items (Soeharto et al., 2024).

Figure 4. DIF based on domicile

Figure 4 shows that students residing in urban areas (C) performed better on questions DM1, DM3,

and DM6 compared to those residing in rural areas (D). However, urban students were observed to face

greater challenges with items DM2 and DM4 than those living in the village. Interestingly, for item DM5,

students from both areas showed comparable abilities in tackling the question. Table 6 presents the item

probability values, which can be used to further assess any potential bias arising from the differences in

abilities between urban and rural students.

Table 6. Differential item functioning based on domicile

Item Number Person Class Summary Dif Chi-Square Prob.

DM1 2 0.845 0.358

DM2 2 1.295 0.238

DM3 2 0.932 0.335

DM4 2 1.749 0.186

DM5 2 0.005 0.943

DM6 2 0.242 0.623

Table 6 shows that the probability value of the items is greater than 0.05. This implies that all the

items did not contain domicile bias.

www.ijcrsee.com

282

Subali, B. et al. (2025). Assessing Decision-Making Skills in Electricity: Rasch Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive

Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 273-287.

T-test and ANOVA

Table 7. The Independent t-test and one-way ANOVA for comparing student decision-making skills

between gender and domicile

Background factor Group Mean (SD) df (df1, df2)

Mean Dif-

ference

t-test F-test p

Gender

Female 3.30(4.32) 1, 159 1.39 2.09 4.37 0.038

Male 1.90(4.29)

Living Place

Urban 3.27(3.92) 1, 148 0.92 1.38 1.90 0.169

Rural 2.35(4.57)

The obtained results in their entirety showed that female students possessed superior decision-

making skills compared to males, with an average difference of 1.39 logits (see Table 7). The significance

value of 0.0385, which is less than 0.05, further confirms a statistically significant difference in decision-

making skills between the two genders. This conclusion is further supported by the F-test result of 4.37

and the t-test result of 2.09, reinforcing that the observed difference was not merely due to chance.

In terms of geographic differences, students from urban areas showed better decision-making skills

than residents in rural areas, with a difference of 0.92 logits (see Table 7). However, the significance value

of 0.169, which exceeds 0.05, implies that this difference was not statistically significant. Considering the

implication, no meaningful distinction in decision-making skills was observed based on place of residence.

Discussions

Using the Rasch model as an analytical approach and a form of fair assessment practice. Educa-

tors can provide optimal learning services by measuring students’ cognitive abilities. Research results

show that the Rasch analysis approach measures cognitive abilities (Soeharto and Csapó, 2022). The

Rasch model can differentiate the analysis of students’ thinking abilities (Chin et al., 2022), distinguish

students’ interests in learning particle physics (Zoechling et al., 2022), cognitive diagnostics (Chin et al.,

2022), critical thinking skills (Kassiavera et al., 2024; Suwita et al., 2023), and analytical thinking in phys-

ics learning (Nurussaniah et al., 2025). Therefore, using the Rasch model in measuring cognitive learning

outcomes is highly recommended for application in science learning.

The findings of this study show that the physics decision-making skills instrument developed had

both validity and reliability. The study emphatically contributes to the measurement of decision-making

skills through the Rasch approach and underscores the importance of comprehensive assessments in

various contexts. Accordingly, by analyzing item and person characteristics, the exploration provides criti-

cal insights that can aid in the development of valid and reliable measurement instruments.

The results of the ANOVA test presented in Table 7 showed that female students had superior

decision-making skills compared to male students, with psychological and social factors playing a sig-

nificant role in explaining this difference. The finding is also supported by previous studies, where it had

been suggested that females tend to be more meticulous when making decisions, often considering a

multitude of variables and risk factors (Lozano et al., 2017). Research results indicate differences in

decision-making skills between males and females (Thi et al., 2022). This finding is supported by studies

that show that female students experience greater improvement in decision-making than male students

(Khazen et al., 2025). This tendency may be associated with the greater capacity for empathy often found

in females, which enhances the decision-making processes of the demographic. Moreover, social and

emotional factors, as well as creative and critical thinking, have been observed to be integral to decision-

making skills (Abraham et al., 2014). Studies have shown that reasoning and learning environment can

influence sustainable decision-making (Khazen et al., 2025; Tutticci and Huss, 2025). Previous investiga-

tions have also indicated that during conceptual expansion, males engage areas of the brain associated

with semantic cognition, rule learning, and decision-making, while females tend to activate regions related

to language processing and social perception. This neurological difference further explains the unique

approaches that both genders bring to decision-making.

In accordance with this, the skills of both females and males were observed to be influenced by

prevailing gender stereotypes. The obtained results also showed that females were increasingly inter-

www.ijcrsee.com

283

Subali, B. et al. (2025). Assessing Decision-Making Skills in Electricity: Rasch Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive

Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 273-287.

ested in studying physics, a field historically associated with males (Eren, 2022). This shift signifies a

growing acknowledgment of equality between genders in the realm of science. In line with a previous

exploration, the present investigation advocates for gender equality in all educational spaces, emphasiz-

ing the need to build scientific identities through intersectional perspectives, visibility of male and female

scientists, and gender mainstreaming in scientific production (Buenestado-Fernández et al., 2024). This

is particularly important, especially considering the fact that gender bias has been shown to hinder skill

development, creating significant gaps across various fields, particularly in STEM disciplines (Barth et al.,

2022). However, recent trends suggest that more females are pursuing careers in science, technology,

and mathematics (Msambwa et al., 2024). This can be achieved by cultivating a science learning environ-

ment that prioritizes gender equality, thereby paving the way for a more inclusive and equitable future in

the scientific community.

A study recommends gender mainstreaming in higher education to achieve sustainable develop-

ment goals (Kataeva et al., 2025). Universities can be influential in promoting gender equality, diversity,

and inclusion (Rosa and Clavero, 2022). However, research findings indicate that gender-responsive

physics teaching remains limited (Atanasova et al., 2023). This aligns with studies showing that the avoid-

ance of women in physics is a barrier to social progress (Bezen and Derman, 2025). The gender gap is

characterized by the continued underrepresentation of women in STEM (Cheryan et al., 2025). There-

fore, gender-responsive physics teaching and learning are highly recommended for prospective teachers

(Atanasova et al., 2024). Gender-equitable education in higher education for students can be imple-

mented through collaborative project participation, case studies, field trips, and didactic teaching delivery

(Condron et al., 2023). Decision-making-based learning design begins with identifying problems, select-

ing optimal solutions, listing potential possibilities for problem solving, gathering information for problem

solving, and analyzing plans (Condron et al., 2023).

When students face decision-making situations, they use intuition, recall previously learned phys-

ics concepts, and use patterns to solve problems. Typically, when students encounter complex problems,

inherent cognitive processes essential for problem-solving are engaged (Jeong et al., 2024). A good

understanding of various concepts enables individuals to analyze situations more effectively, consider

a range of alternatives, and evaluate the consequences of the available options. In this regard, further

studies are warranted to investigate whether the mastery of physics concepts differs between males and

females and how this may significantly impact the physics decision-making skills of each gender. Accord-

ingly, the observations made from the ANOVA test, as presented in Table 7, showed that no significant

difference in decision-making skills existed between students residing in urban areas and those in rural

areas. These findings are inconsistent with previous investigations, where it has been suggested that

socio-demographic factors, particularly place of residence, significantly influence decision-making abili-

ties (Clarke et al., 2024). For instance, Nasmilah et al. (2024) have shown that individuals in rural areas

often adhere more closely to cultural norms, and this can impact respective decision-making processes.

However, the current study reports that students living in urban and rural environments have similar ac-

cess to education, resources, and technology, as well as social and cultural conditions.

Education that prioritizes equality between urban and rural students can build a high-quality edu-

cation system (Guo and Li, 2024). Implementing a school curriculum that is equitable in urban and rural

areas has the potential to provide equitable educational opportunities. Teachers can provide equitable

physics teaching services to students through experimental learning, inquiry (Gao et al., 2025), group

discussions, and decision-making exercises through gamification (Krishnamurthy et al., 2022). Further-

more, teachers with equal competence in urban and rural areas play a role as facilitators who practice

decision-making skills. Research findings show no differences in students’ decision-making skills between

urban and rural areas. This implies that all students, regardless of location, have the potential to develop

strong decision-making skills.

Rasch-based decision-making skills instruments can be adopted for biology, chemistry, and en-

vironmental courses. Measurement using the Rasch approach not only accurately measures student

abilities but also considers psychometric aspects such as validity and reliability. Meanwhile, educational

technology is currently developing very rapidly. Decision-making skills instruments can be integrated into

digital and classroom-based formative assessments. Studies show that measuring physics thinking skills

using the Rasch model approach can be done using a web-based CAT (

Zakwandi et al., 2024). Educa-

tors can access the assessment results comprehensively and in real time. This allows physics teachers

www.ijcrsee.com

284

Subali, B. et al. (2025). Assessing Decision-Making Skills in Electricity: Rasch Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive

Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 273-287.

to follow up on individual abilities quickly and accurately. Therefore, integrating Rasch-based decision-

making skills instruments into the classroom can support more adaptive and personalized learning and

technological developments.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the results of this study have contributed to the understanding of the interaction of

test items and individuals on decision-making skills. The developed electrical decision-making skills test

instrument met the requirements of validity and reliability. Therefore, this instrument can be used as an

assessment tool. The developed test items were free from bias. Females significantly outperformed males

in decision-making. Furthermore, prospective science teachers from urban and rural areas had compa-

rable decision-making skills. This study provides practical recommendations for gender mainstreaming

in higher education for stakeholders. Furthermore, teachers design strategies that accommodate gender

differences and facilitate an inclusive learning environment. Teachers are advised to implement Rasch-

-based assessment to provide fair assessments. The Rasch model approach can help teachers identi-

fy students’ specific needs and enable them to design appropriate remedial and enrichment programs.

Future studies should explore the Rasch approach to measure students’ decision-making skills more

comprehensively, considering variations in decision-making styles, other physics topics, and integrating

Rasch with technology.

Acknowledgements

The research was funded by the Directorate of Research, Technology, and Community Service,

Directorate General of Higher Education, Research and Technology, Ministry of Education, Culture, Re-

search, and Technology, under Contract Number: 070/E5/PG.02.00.PL/2024, dated June 11, 2024

Conflict of interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.S., M.U., P.M., W. and H.; Resources, B.S., M.U., P.M., W., and H.; Methodol-

ogy, M.U., W., and B.S.; Software, M.U., P.M., W., and B.S.; Formal Analysis, B.S., M.U., P.M., W., and H.;

Writing – original draft, B.S., M.U., P.M., W., and H.; Writing – review & editing, B.S., M.U., P.M., W., and

H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

References

Abraham, A., Thybusch, K., Pieritz, K., & Hermann, C. (2014). Gender differences in creative thinking: Behavioral and fMRI

ndings. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 8(1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11682-013-9241-4

Abubakar, A. M., Elrehail, H., Alatailat, M. A., & Elçi, A. (2019). Knowledge management, decision-making style and organi-

zational performance. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, 4(2), 104–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2017.07.003

Atanasova, S., Robin, N., & Brovelli, D. (2023). Genderkompetenz messen – Erfassung der situationsbezogenen Fähigkeiten

von Lehrpersonen in Bezug auf genderrelevante Aspekte im Physikunterricht. Unterrichtswiss, 51, 423–453. https://

doi.org/10.1007/s42010-023-00169-y

Atanasova, S., Robin, N., Brovelli, D., & Robin, N. (2024). Interest, learning opportunities and teaching experience as predic-

tors of professional vision in gender-sensitive physics education. International Journal of Science Education, 0693,

1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2024.2406528

Barth, J. M., Masters, S. L., & Parker, J. G. (2022). Gender stereotypes and belonging across high school girls’ social groups: be-

yond the STEM classroom. Social Psychology of Education, 25(1), 275–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-021-09683-2

Bavol’ár, J., & Orosová, O. (2015). Decision-making styles and their associations with decision-making competencies and

mental health. Judgment and Decision Making, 10(1), 115–122.

Bezen, S., & Derman, İ. (2025). Unveiling global trends in gender equality research within physics education. Social Sciences

& Humanities Open Journal, 11(101430), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101430

Boone, W. J., Yale, M. S., & Staver, J. R. (2014). Rasch analysis in the human sciences. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-

94-007-6857-4

www.ijcrsee.com

285

Subali, B. et al. (2025). Assessing Decision-Making Skills in Electricity: Rasch Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive

Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 273-287.

Buenestado-Fernández, M., Ibarra-Vazquez, G., Patiño, A., & Ramírez-Montoya, M. S. (2024). Stories about gender inequali-

ties and inuence factors: a science club case study. International Journal of Science Education, 46(5), 403–420.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2023.2235456

Burde, J.-P., Weatherby, T. S., & Wilhelm, T. (2022). Putting potential at the core of teaching electric circuits. The Physics

Teacher, 60(5), 340–343. https://doi.org/10.1119/5.0046298

Burde, J.-P., & Wilhelm, T. (2020). Teaching electric circuits with a focus on potential differences. Physical Review Physics

Education Research, 16(2), 20153. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.020153

Burkholder, E., Hwang, L., Sattely, E., & Holmes, N. (2021). Supporting decision-making in upper-level chemical engineering

laboratories. Education for Chemical Engineers, 35, 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2021.01.002

Byrne, K. A., Peters, C., Willis, H. C., Phan, D., Cornwall, A., & Worthy, D. A. (2020). Acute stress enhances tolerance of uncer-

tainty during decision-making. Cognition, 205(July), 104448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104448

Cheryan, S., Lombard, E. J., Hailu, F., Pham, L. N. H., & Weltzien, K. (2025). Global patterns of gender disparities in STEM and

explanations for their persistence. Nature Reviews Psychology, 4(1), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-024-00380-3

Chin, H., Chew, C. M., Yew, W. T., & Musa, M. (2022). Validating the cognitive diagnostic assessment and assessing students’

mastery of ‘parallel and perpendicular lines’ using the Rasch model. Participatory Educational Research (PER), 9(6),

436–452. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.147.9.6

Clarke, S., Turnbull, B., & Graham, M. (2024). Women’s support-seeking for reproductive decision-making in Australia: rationales

and socio-demographic contexts. Journal of Gender Studies, 00(00), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2024.2407489

Condron, C., Power, M., Mathew, M., Lucey, S. M., Rcsed, M., Rcsi, F. D. S., & Sim, R. (2023). Gender Equality Training for

Students in Higher Education : Protocol for a Scoping Review Corresponding Author : JMIR Res Protoc, 12(e44584),

1–8. https://doi.org/10.2196/44584

Erbas, S. D., Sendur, E. G., & Yilmaz, A. A. (2025). The inuence of 21st-century skills on clinical decision-making in nursing

students : a cross-sectional study. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 20(2), e464–e469. https://doi.org/https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.teln.2024.12.011

Eren, E. (2022). Talking science and feminism. Journal of Gender Studies, 31(8), 911–927. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236

.2022.2091527

Erol, S., Jäger, A., Hold, P., Ott, K., & Sihn, W. (2016). Tangible Industry 4.0: A Scenario-Based Approach to Learning for the

Future of Production. Procedia CIRP, 54, 13–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.03.162

Gao, Q., Tong, M., Sun, J., Zhang, C., Huang, Y., & Zhang, S. (2025). A Study of Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learn-

ing (POGIL) in the Blended Synchronous Science Classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 34(1),

103–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-024-10155-3

Garg, H., Sun, Y., & Liu, X. (2023). Dual hesitant fuzzy Correlation coefcient-based decision-making algorithm and its ap-

plications to Engineering Cost Management problems. Engineering Applications of Articial Intelligence, 126, 107170.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2023.107170

Garrecht, C., Eckhardt, M., Höfer, T. N., & Harms, U. (2020). Fostering students ’ socioscientic decision- making : exploring

the effectiveness of an environmental science competition. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Re-

search, 2(5), 1–16. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-020-00022-7

Goosen, R., & Steenkamp, G. (2023). Activating accounting students’ decision-making skills through a reective self-as-

sessment workshop on learning styles. International Journal of Management Education, 21(3), 100858. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100858

Gresch, H., Hasselhorn, M., & Bögeholz, S. (2017). Enhancing Decision-Making in STSE Education by Inducing Reection and

Self-Regulated Learning. Research in Science Education, 47(1), 95–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9491-9

Guo, Y., & Li, X. (2024). Heliyon regional inequality in China ’ s educational development : An urban-rural comparison. Heliyon,

10(4), e26249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26249

Holmes, N. G., Keep, B., & Wieman, C. E. (2020). Developing scientic decision making by structuring and supporting student agen-

cy. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 16(1), 10109. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.010109

Jeong, S., Rague, J., Litson, K., Feldon, D. F., Lawler, M. J., & Plummer, K. (2024). Effects of decision-based learning on

student performance in introductory physics: The mediating roles of cognitive load and self-testing. Education and

Information Technologies, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12962-y

Kassiavera, S., Suparmi, A., & Cari, C. (2024). Application of Rasch model in two-tier test for assessing critical thinking in physics

education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 23(6), 1227–1242. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/24.23.1227

Kataeva, Z., Durrani, N., & Rakhimzhanova, Aray Shakirova, S. (2025). Higher education leadership agency in mainstreaming

gender equality : Insights from universities in Kazakhstan. Gender, Work & Organization, 32, 1470–1481. https://doi.

org/https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.13239

Khazen, M., Asli, S., Hofstein, A., & Hugerat, M. (2025). Effect of an educational initiative for sustainability on pre-service teach-

ers’ ethical decision-making skills, motivation to learn science , and learning atmosphere in the classroom. Sustain-

ability (Switzerland), 17(992), 1–26.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/su17030992

www.ijcrsee.com

286

Subali, B. et al. (2025). Assessing Decision-Making Skills in Electricity: Rasch Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive

Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 273-287.

Khishfe, R. (2012). Nature of Science and Decision-Making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 67–100. https://

doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.559490

Kinskey, M., & Zeidler, D. (2024). Elementary preservice teachers’ pedagogical decisions about socioscientic issues instruc-

tion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1–35. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21932

Krishnamurthy, K., Selvaraj, N., Gupta, P., Cyriac, B., Dhurairaj, P., Abdullah, A., Krishnapillai, A., Lugova, H., Haque, M., Xie,

S., & Ang, E.-T. (2022). Benets of gamication in medical education. Clinical Anatomy, 35(6), 795–807. https://doi.org/

https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.23916

Laka, M., Carter, D., Milazzo, A., & Merlin, T. (2022). Challenges and opportunities in implementing clinical decision support

systems (CDSS) at scale: Interviews with Australian policymakers. Health Policy and Technology, 11(3). https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2022.100652

Laliyo, L. A. R., Hamdi, S., Pikoli, M., Abdullah, R., & Panigoro, C. (2021). Implementation of four-tier multiple-choice instru-

ments based on the partial credit model in evaluating students’ learning progress. European Journal of Educational

Research, 10(2), 825–840. https://doi.org/10.12973/EU-JER.10.2.825

Lauri, S., & Salanterä, S. (2002). Developing an instrument to measure and describe clinical decision making in different

nursing elds. Journal of Professional Nursing, 18(2), 93–100. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1053/jpnu.2002.32344

León, J. J., Sánchez-kuhn, A., Fernández-martín, P., Páez-pérez, M. A., Thomas, C., Datta, A., Sánchez-santed, F., & Flores,

P. (2020). Transcranial direct current stimulation improves risky decision making in women but not in men : A sham-

controlled study. 382(January). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2020.112485

Linacre, J. M. (2002). Understanding Rasch measurement: Optimizing Rating Scale Category Effectiveness. Journal of Applied

Measurement, 3(1), 85–106.

Linacre, J. M. (2020). A User’s guide to Winsteps-ministep: Rasch-model computer programs. Program Manual 4.5.1. In winsteps.com.

Lozano, L. M., Megías, A., Catena, A., Perales, J. C., Baltruschat, S., & Cándido, A. (2017). Spanish validation of the Domain-

Speci  c Risk-Taking (DOSPERT-30) Scale. Psicohotema, 29(1), 111–118. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.132

Mettas, A. (2011). The development of decision-making skills. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Edu-

cation, 7(1), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75180

Montgomery, B. J., Price, A. M., & Wieman, C. E. (2024). Characterizing decision-making opportunities in undergraduate physics course-

work. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 20(2), 20103. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.020103

Msambwa, M. M., Daniel, K., Lianyu, C., & Antony, F. (2024). A Systematic Review Using Feminist Perspectives on the Factors

Affecting Girls’ Participation in STEM Subjects. In Science and Education (Issue 0123456789). Springer Netherlands.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-024-00524-0

Nasmilah, Keary, A., Sahraeny, S., Bonar, G., Adi Suputra, W., & Karlina, Y. (2024). Rural South Sulawesi mothers’ emotional

capital: supporting primary school children’s remote learning during COVID-19. Journal of Gender Studies, 00(00),

1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2024.2387199

Novianawati, N., & Nahadi. (2015). Analysis of students’ decision making to solve science reasoning test of trends in international

mathematics and science study (Timss). Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 4(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v4i1.3491

Nurussaniah, N., Setyosari, P., Kuswandi, D., & Ulfa, S. (2025). Psychometric validation of an analytical skills test in physics using the

Rasch model. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 24(3), 522–537. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/25.24.522

Olmstead, A., Gutmann, B., Ochoa-Madrid, E., Vasquez, A., Pike, C., & Barringer, D. (2023). How Can We Design Instruc-

tion to Support Student Reasoning About Physicists’ Ethical Responsibilities in Society? The Physics Teacher, 61(5),

343–350. https://doi.org/10.1119/5.0087490

Orhan, A., & Ataman, O. (2024). Investigating the predictive role of reective thinking and decision making on creative thinking

dispositions. Reective Practice, 25(2), 1–16.

Pietrocola, M., Rodriguea, E., Bercot, F., & Schnorr, S. (2021). Science, society, and science education. Science & Education,

30(3), 209–232.

https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730640312

Pilatti, A., Lozano, O. M., & Cyders, M. A. (2015). Psychometric properties of the spanish version of the UPPS-P impulsive

behavior scale: A rasch rating scale analysis and conrmatory factor analysis. Psychological Assessment, 27(4), e10–

e21. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000124

Razaghpoor, A., Taheri-Ezbarami, Z., Jafaraghaee, F., Marouzadeh, S., & Falakdami, A. (2024). The effect of serious game

and problem-based learning on nursing students’ knowledge and clinical decision-making skill regarding the applica-

tion of transfusion medicine in pediatric nursing. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 76, e1–e8. https://doi.org/https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.pedn.2024.01.010

Rosa, R., & Clavero, S. (2022). Gender equality in higher education and research. Journal of Gender Studies, 31(1), 1–7.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2022.2007446

Sadeghi R., K., Ojha, D., Kaur, P., Mahto, R. V., & Dhir, A. (2024). Explainable articial intelligence and agile decision-making in sup-

ply chain cyber resilience. Decision Support Systems, 180(June 2023), 114194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2024.114194

Sakschewski, M., Eggert, S., Schneider, S., & Bögeholz, S. (2014). Students’ Socioscientic Reasoning and Decision-making

on Energy-related Issues-Development of a measurement instrument. International Journal of Science Education,

36(14), 2291–2313. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.920550

www.ijcrsee.com

287

Subali, B. et al. (2025). Assessing Decision-Making Skills in Electricity: Rasch Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive

Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 273-287.

Smoliński, P. R., & Brycz, H. (2024). Individual differences in inaccurate versus accurate economic judgment and decision

making. Metacognitive approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 219, 112500. https://doi.org/https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112500

Soeharto, S., Martono, M., Hairida, H., Akhmetova, A., Ariyanti, F., Benő, C., & Charalambos, C. (2024). The metacogni-

tive awareness of reading strategy among pre-service primary teachers and the possibility of rating improvement

using Rasch analysis. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 80(February 2023), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stue-

duc.2023.101319

Soeharto, S., & Csapó, B. (2022). Assessing Indonesian student inductive reasoning: Rasch analysis. Thinking Skills and

Creativity, 46(November 2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101132

Sokol, R. G., Slawson, D. C., & Shaughnessy, A. F. (2019). Teaching evidence-based medicine application: transformative con-

cepts of information mastery that foster evidence-informed decision-making. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 24(4),

149–154. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2018-111142

Spatz, V., Tampe, J., & Slezak, C. (2019). Fostering students’ decision-making competencies. The Physics Teacher, 57(8),

533-535. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.5131118

Suwita, S., Saputro, S., & Sajidan, S. (2023). Assessing lower-secondary school students’ critical thinking skills in photosyn-

thesis: A Rasch model approach. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 23(6), 1278–1290. https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.

org/10.33225/jbse/24.23.1278

Taber, K. S. (2018). The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Educa-

tion. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2

Thi, H., Le, T., Thanh, L., Thuy, H. T., & Province, T. H. (2022). Student decision-making processes as evaluated by stu-

dents, administrators, and lecturers. International Journal of Education and Practice, 10(4), 371–380. https://doi.

org/10.18488/61.v10i4.3221

Tutticci, N., & Huss, N. M. (2025). An analysis of sustainable decision-making using clinical reasoning. Teaching and Learning

in Nursing, 20(2), 131–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2024.11.013

Torres, D., Pimentel, C., & Matias, J. C. O. (2023). Characterization of Tasks and Skills of Workers, Middle and Top Managers

in the Industry 4.0 Context. Sustainability (Switzerland), 15(8), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086981

Ubaidillah, M., Marwoto, P., Wiyanto, Rusilowati, A., Subali, B., Mindyarto, B. N., & Isnaeni, W. (2022). Development of Habits

of Mind Instruments in the Context of Basic Physics Practicum: EFA and Rasch Model. Educational, Cultural, and

Psychological Studies, 23(December), 23–49.

Vázquez-Calatayud, M., García-García, R., Regaira-Martínez, E., & Gómez-Urquiza, J. (2024). Real-world and game-based

learning to enhance decision-making. Nurse Education Today, 140(June).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2024.106276

Villanueva-Moya, L., & Expósito, F. (2021). Gender differences in decision-making : The effects of gender stereotype threat mod-

erated by sensitivity to punishment and fear of negative evaluation. March 2020, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2239

Wolcott, S. K., & Sargent, M. J. (2021). Critical thinking in accounting education: Status and call to action. Journal of Accounting

Education, 56, 1–19. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccedu.2021.100731

Yang, P., Li, S., Qin, S., Wang, L., Hu, M., & Yang, F. (2024). Smart grid enterprise decision-making and economic benet

analysis based on LSTM-GAN and edge computing algorithm. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 104(June), 314–327.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2024.06.028

Zakwandi, R., Istiyono, E., & Dwandaru, W. S. B. (2024). A two-tier computerized adaptive test to measure student computational

thinking skills. Education and Information Technologies, 29(7), 8579–8608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12093-w

Zhang, W. X., & Hsu, Y. S. (2021). The interplay of students’ regulation learning and their collective decision-making perfor-

mance in a SSI context. International Journal of Science Education, 43(11), 1746–1778. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950

0693.2021.1933250

Zoechling, S., Hopf, M., & Woithe, J. (2022). Students’ interest in particle physics: conceptualisation, instrument development,

and evaluation using Rasch theory and analysis and analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 44(15),

2353–2380.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2122897