Nadelson LS, Southerland S. A more fine-grained measure of students’ acceptance of evolution: development of the Inventory of Student Evolution Acceptance—I-SEA. Int J Sci Educ. 2012;34(11):1637–66. Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4. Miller, G. F. (1998). How mate choice shaped human nature: a review of sexual selection and human evolution. In C. Crawford & D. L. Krebs (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology: ideas, issues, and applications (pp. 87–129). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ellis, B. J. (1992). The evolution of sexual attraction: evaluative mechanisms in women. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind (pp. 267–288). New York: Oxford University Press.

Rowe, D. C., Vazsonyi, A. T., & Figueredo, A. J. (1997). Mating-effort in adolescence: A conditional or alternative strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 23(1), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00005-6.This versatile tool is the perfect way to introduce the concept of measurement to young learners in an outdoor setting.

Schmitt N, Stuits DM. Factors defined by negatively keyed items: the result of careless respondents? Appl Psychol Meas. 1985;9(4):367–73. Steiger JH. Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Person Individ Differ. 2007;42(5):893–8.

Nadelson LS, Hardy KK. Trust in science and scientists and the acceptance of evolution. Evolution. 2015;8(1):9. Lakatos I. Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. Can theories be refuted?. Berlin: Springer; 1976. p. 205–59. Kefalas, M. J., Furstenberg, F. F., Carr, P. J., & Napolitano, L. (2011). “Marriage is more than being together”: the meaning of marriage for young adults. Journal of Family Issues, 32(7), 845–875. doi: 10.1177/0192513X10397277. van Buuren, S., & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, K. (2011). mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 45(3), 1–67. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v045.i03.

GAENE1, everyone should understand evolution, sits at the middle of the scale (Fig. 3). Along the logic of GAENE8, the misfit of GAENE1 is likely caused by responses from students who accept evolution, but nonetheless do not view it as a necessity for engaging in other courses of study or for advancing one’s quality of life. GAENE6 sits at the top of the Rasch difficulty scale along with GAENE8 (Fig. 3). This item states: I would be willing to argue in favor of evolution in a public forum such as a school club, church group, or meeting of public school parents. Fear of public speaking is quite common (Harris et al. 2002), and it is straightforward to argue that one can display acceptance of evolution without extraversion. In addition to evolution acceptance this item measures willingness to engage in public discourse; the latter having little to do with evolution acceptance. Corwin LA, Runyon C, Robinson A, Dolan EL. The laboratory course assessment survey: a tool to measure three dimensions of research-course design. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2015;14(4):37. Preacher, K. J., & MacCallum, R. C. (2003). Repairing Tom Swift’s electric factor analysis machine. Understanding Statistics, 2(1), 13–43. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328031US0201_02.Waynforth, D. (2007). Mate choice copying in humans. Human Nature, 18(3), 264–271. doi: 10.1007/s12110-007-9004-2. Robbins JR, Roy P. The natural selection: identifying & correcting non-science student preconceptions through an inquiry-based, critical approach to evolution. Am Biol Teacher. 2007;69:460–6. Hawley PH, Short SD, McCune LA, Osman MR, Little TD. What’s the matter with Kansas? The development and confirmation of the Evolutionary Attitudes and Literacy Survey (EALS). Evolution. 2011;4:117–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-010-0294-1. Benjamin, D. J., Berger, J. O., Johannesson, M., Nosek, B. A., Wagenmakers, E. J., Berk, R., … Cesarini, D. (2018). Redefine statistical significance. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0189-z.

Nadelson and Southerland ( 2012) developed the I-SEA to make measures of evolution acceptance more fine-grained, embracing the possibility that evolution acceptance may comprise multiple related constructs which account for the specific type of evolution being considered. The authors cite that micro- and macroevolution are viewed differently by students (Nehm and Ha 2011). Specifically, many who reject macroevolution may readily accept ideas about microevolution (Scott 2005), and further, even those who accept evolution over long time scales often believe that humans are exempt from the process of evolution (Gallup 2010). Rutledge ML, Warden MA. The development and validation of the measure of acceptance of the theory of evolution instrument. School Sci Math. 1999;99(1):13–8. Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model. 1999;6(1):1–55. Figueredo, A. J., Vásquez, G., Brumbach, B. H., Schneider, S. M., Sefcek, J. A., Tal, I. R., … Jacobs, W. J. (2006). Consilience and life history theory: From genes to brain to reproductive strategy. Developmental Review, 26(2), 243–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2006.02.002. We also find that the two-dimensional parametrization aligns well with the more recent model of Ha et al. ( 2012), which describes evolution acceptance as manifesting through both conscious and unconscious neurological pathways. Our acceptance of truth dimension aligns most closely with the unconscious pathway which is based upon a student’s intuitive feeling of certainty. For example, evolution is a good explanation for how humans first emerged on the earth (from the GAENE) solicits an appraisal based on one’s feeling of certainty built from extracurricular experience, and not necessarily analysis of the credibility of an idea based on logic. On the other hand, the rejection of incredible ideas dimension aligns most closely with the student’s conscious, reflective thinking supported by his/her process of understanding and logical reasoning around conceptual ideas underlying evolutionary theory. For example, expressing disagreement with the statement, species were created to be perfectly suited to their environment, so they do not change (from the I-SEA) requires a student to first consider the specific idea and then decide to reject that idea. Although the decision to reject an idea is affective in nature, it is in itself a comparatively logical and reflective process.Fisher, M., Cox, A., Bennett, S., & Gavric, D. (2008). Components of self-perceived mate value. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2(4), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099347. Boone WJ, Scantlebury K. The role of Rasch analysis when conducting science education research utilizing multiple-choice tests. Sci Educ. 2006;90(2):253–69. Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.101.