In Search For Qualified Engineers: Construction of The Best Engineering Traits (BET) Inventory

Running Head: Best Engineering Traits
In Search for Qualified Engineers: Construction of the
Best Engineering Traits (BET) Inventory
Carlo Magno
Marife Mamauag
De La Salle University – Manila

Best Engineering Traits 2
In Search for Qualified Engineers: Construction of the Best Engineering Traits
The role of engineers has much relevance in contributing to the growth
and development of nations. The engineers are responsible for the development
of big infrastructures such as buildings, roads, and machineries. Although
engineering is a vast field, this study focused on measuring the constructs for
civil engineers. Civil engineers can address problems related to housing,
infrastructure, flooding, water crisis, pollution, urban traffic, and disaster
mitigation. The most common specialization in the field of civil engineering are
structural engineering, construction technology and management, hydraulics and
water resources engineering, transportation engineering, and geotechnical
engineering. In order to succeed in the field of civil engineering one needs to
have a sufficient background in mathematics, physical and natural sciences.
There is a great call to produce more graduates who are technically inclined and
equipped with right abilities. Scinta (2006) reported that the Bureau of Labor
Statistics predicts the need for science and engineering graduates will grow by
26% of 1.25 million by 2012. The number of graduates in these fields, however,
has remained relatively flat for two decades. A synthesis of the Commission on
Higher Education’s (CHED) national survey on graduates from across the
Philippines indicated that engineers are the highest paid and the most
employable. Jonquieres (2006) reported that skills of the graduates from Asia do
not match the needs of the world industry. A Duke University study has found that
the degrees taken by many of the almost 1M new engineering graduates in
China and India in 2004 were much less demanding than in the US and some
graduates were qualified to be a little more than technicians. In proportion to its
population, the US actually conferred 55 per cent more computer science, IT and
engineering degrees than China and almost four times more than India. Given
this demand on engineers, the skills necessary to be a qualified engineer needs
to be monitored.
There is a need to construct a battery of measures that can validly screen
in students who are qualified to be engineers. The assessment should start at the
level of tertiary education to filter in the students who are qualified to take the
course and raise the level of probability of their success in the field. Screening
qualified engineers through paper and pencil tests is not new. In the Philippines,
the Philippine Regulation Commission (PRC) screens engineers qualified to
practice the profession by passing the licensure examination. All technical
institutes in India administer the Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering (GATE),
an exam for admission and benchmark test for engineering graduates. Many
countries perform the screening of students who are most qualified but in the
Philippines, qualified engineers are all based on the admission exams of different
universities which cannot be benchmarked from each other because of the lack
of standard-based measures especially in the field of engineering. The purpose
of this study is to construct a battery of measures to screen in students who are
qualified to be future engineers. The series of test in the battery will include
measures of attitude, achievement and aptitude. These battery of tests can serve
as standardized admission tests and screening for qualified students who can
take the engineering course.

The Civil Engineering Curriculum
Civil Engineering is comprised of different specializations that include
structural engineering, construction technology and management, hydraulics and
water resources engineering, transportation engineering, and geotechnical
engineering.
Structural Engineering. This field provides technical support in the
infrastructure development. There is opportunity for students to be trained in the
planning, analysis, design, construction, inspection, rehabilitation, and
preservation of structures which includes residential and office buildings, bridges,
and a large variety of structures using various materials such as steel, concrete,
and timber, taking into consideration technical, economic, environmental, and
social aspects (DLSU-Manila Webpage, 2006).
Construction Technology and Management. This field prepares students
for the effective planning and implementation of construction projects by giving
them basic knowledge of construction materials and technology, and project
management concepts. Project management includes topics in plans and
specifications, cost engineering, accounting, and organization. The program also
envisions that some graduates may immediately join their family construction
business or may ultimately put up their own firms. Subjects that deal with
estimating, bidding, marketing, business organization, economics, and strategy
are tackled to prepare them for this prospect (DLSU-Manila Webpage, 2006).
Hydraulics and Water Resources Engineering. This field responds to the
needs of the country in solving water resources related problems such as water
supply crisis, power shortage, insufficient food supply due to poor irrigation,
water pollution, and disasters due to flood flows. It covers a broad field
encompassing the following major sub-fields: analysis of water occurrences and
flows, control of water, utilization of water, water quality analysis, watershed
management and planning, and sedimentation in channels (DLSU-Manila
Webpage, 2006).
Transportation Engineering. This field produces transportation and
highway engineers who can provide technical support in the government’s
program of improving and expanding the transportation system and
infrastructures of the country such as the LRT, MRT, flyovers, skyways, airports,
and harbors. It addresses issues related to transport planning, urban traffic
engineering and management, and the design and construction of road
pavements (DLSU-Manila Webpage, 2006).
Geotechnical Engineering. This field focuses on the study of the
principles of soil mechanics in terms of physical properties, stability, flow of water
in soils, settlements, deformations, bearing capacities, and the relationship to the
analysis and design of foundations. It aims to develop Geotechnical Engineers
who can solve problems on how to provide adequate foundation to various types
of structures. A graduate in this program is expected to provide sound technical
advice in arriving at a safe, economical, and practical design of foundations
(DLSU-Manila Webpage, 2006).
The exemplified curriculum in civil engineering of different universities are
reviewed to show the benchmarks on training different students who would be

civil engineers. The Civil Engineering programs in most Universities are designed
to prepare the student for a productive career in government or the private
sector, as well as for advanced graduate study. Most of the curriculum builds a
sound foundation in basic sciences and mathematics, followed by courses in
engineering science and design that provide a solid base for life-long
professional learning. Engineering courses and laboratories provide an
opportunity for students to experience those principles and standard practices
that they will encounter in their careers. There is a pattern in the curriculum
oriented to develop a student's ability to think logically and to apply the
knowledge gained to the design and synthesis of complex civil engineering
projects. Most programs provide an integration of design experience from the
freshman year to the senior year. The senior courses provide a comprehensive
design experience for students that encompasses ethical, societal, economic and
safety issues. Engineering design, team problem solving and communication
skills are emphasized throughout the curriculum. Civil engineering principles and
practices are covered in courses dealing with fluid, solid, and soil mechanics;
design of highways and other transportation facilities, including traffic control
systems; design and construction of all types of structures; water resources
(hydraulics and hydrology); and environmental studies, with emphasis on water
supplies/treatment/distribution, wastewater collection/treatment/disposal, and
solid/hazardous waste management.
In the freshman and sophomore years, all civil engineering majors take an
engineering and technology overview course, as well as courses in engineering

graphics and surveying. They also complete classes in calculus, chemistry,
physics, English composition, public speaking, and electives in humanities and
social sciences. During the junior and senior years, requirements focus primarily
on civil engineering courses, with supplemental work in industrial and systems,
chemical, mechanical, and electrical and computer engineering. Some of the
required major courses include Water and Wastewater Treatment, Fluid
Mechanics, Hydraulics, Structural Theory, Steel Design, Concrete Design, Soils,
and Transportation.
In some universities, students may can take tracks environmental,
structural, geotechnical, transportation, or water resources engineering with the
proper selection of electives.
Civil Engineering Tests
One of the widely known engineering test for students is the Graduate
Aptitude Test in Engineering (GATE) in India. The GATE is held every year
across the country in over 100 cities. At present nearly 60,000 students take
GATE every year. Candidates can choose a single paper of 3 hours duration to
appear in GATE from different mathematics, science and technical disciplines.
The GATE score of a candidate is a statistical performance index in the range 0
to 1000. It reflects the ability of a candidate, irrespective of the paper or year in
which he/she has qualified. Candidates with same GATE score from different
disciplines and/or years can be considered to be of equal ability (Vyom
Technosoft, 2006).
The available standardized tests that measure whether a student is fit to
take an engineering course are interest, vocational and aptitude tests. The most
common measures are mechanical ability tests. These tests are particularly
effective in requiring machinery, construction and certain engineering positions.
Some standardized tests are Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test (Bennet,
1980). The BMCT consists of 68 items, each which require the application of a
physical law or a mechanical operation. One study using the BMCT and several
other instruments determined that the BMCT was best single predictor of job
performance for a group of employees manufacturing electrochemical
components (Muchinsky, 1993).
A study by Ajobeje (2005) investigated the extent to which cognitive entry
characteristics and continuous assessment measured or predicted student’s
academic performance among Polytechnic Engineering Students. In
particular, the study determined the relationship between WASC, PCEE, and
semester Examination scores, and determined the contribution of year CPA and
second year GGPA of the polytechnic engineering technology student. The score
of cognitive entry characteristics, continuous assessment results and the results
of the academic performance of the subject were assessed using correlation
analysis, regression analysis and analysis variances. The results of the analysis
revealed that both cognitive entry characteristics and continuous assessment
results seem to have predictive strength on the academic performance of the
subject. Continuous assessment shows higher predictive strength than cognitive
entry characteristics.
Skills Necessary to be a Civil Engineer
The study by Newport and Elms (1997) defined an effective engineer and
investigated engineers in the workplace to determine what qualities make an
engineer more effective than others. The data was gathered using questionnaires
designed to measure the predominance of the qualities in engineering
individuals. Qualities associated with mental agility, enterprise and interpersonal
capability correlated most significantly with effectiveness. Effectiveness did not
correlate with achievement in the tertiary education. The results showed that
many of the qualities associated with effective engineer behavior are learnable
and can be taught within an education program.
Kubler and Forkes (2002) in their study came up with a profile for
engineers who are suited for employment. Creating profiles for employability
indicate the skills that typically can be developed through the study of different
subjects. The researchers came up with a long list of skills expected of an
engineering student anchored on the employers’ needs that include brain power,
generic competencies, personal capabilities, subject specific knowledge and
technical ability.
On the other hand the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education
(2000) also came up with a list of skills to benchmark engineers. They have
included understanding based on mathematics, science and technology,
integrated with business and management which can be acquired through
education and professional formation. It was further stated that engineers must
be able to exercise original thought, have good professional judgment and be

able to take responsibility for the direction of important tasks. The taxonomy in
the study includes intellectual abilities, practical skills, and general transfer skills.
The study by Magno (2003) recognizes that skills necessary to be good
engineers are structured on the relationship between technical attitude and
achievement on mathematics and science. In order to succeed in an engineering
course the student needs to have technical inclinations that can be measured
through an attitude test. In the study attitude towards technical education is
measure through task value and expectancy. Task Value includes attainment
value, intrinsic value, and utility value (Meece et al. 1982) and expectancies are
the perceived probability for success (Meece et al. 1982). The results of the
study showed a relationship between science achievement and task value but
not on Mathematics. This supports the claims that engineering skills can be
developed through an educational program and predicting the structure may not
yet be evident without taking the actual engineering course.
Subtests of the Best Engineering Traits (BET) Inventory
Practical Inclination. One of the many skills that are important for
engineers to acquire is practical inclination. This includes the disposition to use a
wide range of tools, techniques and equipments; use of laboratory and workshop
equipment to generate valuable data and materials, and; develop, promote and
apply safe systems of work. Sternberg (2003) defines practical inclination as an
intelligent factor which consist of subfactors on verbal, quantitative and figural:

Practical–Verbal: Everyday reasoning. Students are presented with a set
of everyday problems in the life of an adolescent and have to select the
option that best solves each problem.
Practical–Quantitative: Everyday math. Students are presented with
scenarios requiring the use of math in everyday life (e.g., buying tickets for
a ballgame) and have to solve math problems based on the scenarios.
Practical–Figural: Route planning. Students are presented with a map of
an area (e.g., an entertainment park) and have to answer questions about
navigating effectively through the area depicted by the map.
Sternberg, Castejón, Hautamäki, and Grigorenko (2001) defined practical
intelligence as adaptation to, shaping of, and selection of real-world
environments. People high in practical intelligence are strong in using,
implementing, and applying ideas and products. Laypersons have long
recognized a distinction between academic intelligence (book smarts) and
practical intelligence (street smarts). This distinction is represented in everyday
parlance by expressions such as “learning the ropes” and “getting your feet wet.”
This distinction also figures prominently in the implicit theories of intelligence held
by both laypeople and researchers. Sternberg, Conway, Ketron, and Bernstein
(1981) asked samples of laypeople in a supermarket, a library, and a train
station, as well as samples of academic researchers who study intelligence, to
provide and rate the importance of characteristics of intelligent individuals. Factor
analyses of the ratings supported a distinction between academic and practical
aspects of intelligence for laypeople and experts alike.

Analytical Interest. According to Clough (2004) engineering-based
analytical thinking is more essential than ever in a growing range of pursuits.
Peters (1998) refers analytical interest among engineers as technical thought
and matrix thinking. The goal in analytical interest is to discover knowledge, and
such thinking deals with concepts, hypotheses and theories, and abstractions.
Scientific method is linear and hierarchical and aims to be independent of the
thinker's personal and cultural value system so that results can be repeated by
anyone. Santi and Higgins (2005) explained that engineering geologists or
hydrogeologists can gain the technical knowledge and skills they need through
experience and self-education. Part of this skill is analytical interest. Analytical
thinking skills can be taught through a variety of exercises that enhance the
geology curriculum without adding new topics, including in-class discussion
questions, homework and laboratory problems, and add-ons to mapping and
semester projects.
Dunn (1982) described analytical thinkers to be linear sequential and
logical. Analytic individuals capture and remember information best when it is
presented in a step-by-step, methodical, sequential, little by little, leading toward
an understanding of the concept or lessons presented. Analytics are usually
persistent because they follow directions to complete a task and do things
“sequentially.” They move from the beginning of a task to the end in a series of
small, focused and goal-oriented steps.

Intellectual Independence. Intellectual independence can be defined as
the ability of a learner to make knowledge claims independent of the traditional
authorities of the teacher and textbook (Oliver & Nichols, 2001). Intellectual
independence is that singular feature that makes science uniquely science. Only
when humankind became aware that knowledge could be created as a result of
the examination of empirical evidence, independent of the traditional authority of
gods, muses, or kings, did science come to exist. In using intellectual
independence in teaching, the main point for the teacher to keep constantly in
mind is that his student is an investigator, seeking by means of his own efforts to
find out what is truth-not a mere imitator or verifier of the results obtained by
others. The conclusions reached must be deductions from the evidence
observed, not statements memorized from a text or learned from a teacher. The
laws and principles derived must be inferences warranted by the conclusions
from the evidence.
In describing an intellectual independent student, they should learn to trust
his own powers and grow strong in the assurance of first-hand knowledge. He
tests and observes for himself, and receives nothing upon mere authority. No
other exercise so develops the freedom and confidence of independent thinking
(Poteat, 1999). Poteat (1999) dissuaded teaching that would encourage students
to accept assertions "upon mere authority."
Assertiveness. Paterson (2000) defined assertiveness as the ability to
express one’s needs, wants, and feelings directly and honestly and to see the
needs of others as equally important. Social or generalized assertiveness is the

capacity to express the real self (Lieberman, 1972) without any sense of guilt
(McFall & Lillesand, 1971). It is the ability to say "no" or "yes," as appropriate, to
requests-to express positive/negative feelings and conveniently initiate, sustain
or terminate a social discuss (Lazarus, 1973). Difficulties with assertiveness may
even represent a core vulnerability for severe psychopathology and contribute to
the maintenance of social and occupational impairment.
Most cross-cultural studies of assertiveness have suggested that it is
culture bound (Brown & Cross, 1991; Furnham, 1979; Garrison & Jenkins, 1986;
Hall & Beil-Warner, 1978; Lineberger & Calhoun, 1983; Ness, Donnan, &
Jenkins, 1983). Researchers have found differences that support the contention
that there are cultural variations in the situational determinants of assertiveness
(Hall & Beil-Warner; Zane, Sue, Hu, & Kwon, 1991) and in perceptions of
assertive and aggressive behavior (Garrison & Jenkins, 1986). Yet, there is little
research that has examined how behavioral definitions of assertiveness differ
across cultural groups and the extent to which the definitions are similar. Such
empirically based information could prove useful when assisting clients from
different cultures to formulate assertive responses. A study by Yashioka (2000)
administered a sample of 115 low-income African American, Hispanic, and
Caucasian women who participated in 6 assertiveness role plays. A content
analysis of their responses indicated that there are substantive differences in
terms of what constitutes passive, assertive, and aggressive responses. On the
other hand, Niikura (1999) investigated modes of self-expression as they reflect
the quality of assertiveness among Japanese, Malaysian, Filipino, and U.S.

white-collar workers. The author collected respondents' answers to a
questionnaire consisting of 33 items involving assertiveness related to modes of
expression typical of the Japanese people. Several modes of expression
considered specific to the Japanese people-styles of group-oriented behavior,
younger people's courtesy toward older people, and the deference of the
individual to group consensus-were also found among the Malaysian and the
Filipino respondents. These behaviors were in contrast to those observed among
the U.S. respondents.
Engineering Aptitude
Aptitude is variously defined as innate learning ability, the specific ability
needed to facilitate learning a job, aptness, suitability, readiness, tendency, or
natural or acquired disposition or capacity for a particular activity. Aptitude
assessments are used to predict success or failure in an undertaking. For
vocational/career guidance and planning they are used to measure different
aptitudes such as general learning ability, numerical ability, verbal ability, spatial
perception, and clerical perception. Objective aptitude tests are based on timed
sub-tests. Engineers need to have aptitude on mechanical, structural spatial,
logic and abstract reasoning.
Mechanical. Measures the ability to understand the underlying principles
behind machines. High scores in this test indicate proficiency in engineering and
mechanical work. This is concerned with reasoning through mechanical problems
in a logical way. It measures the ability to perceive and understand the
relationship of physical forces and mechanical elements in practical situations.

This type of aptitude is important in jobs and training programs that require the
understanding and application of mechanical principles. The individual who
scores high in mechanical comprehension tend to learn easily the principles of
the operation and repair of complex devices (Bennet, 1980).
Structural Visualization. Space relations involves the ability to visualize
and think in three dimensions or picture mentally the shape, the size and
positions of objects when shown only a picture or pattern. The cognitive tests
used to measure Spatial Visualization Ability include mental rotation tasks and
cognitive tests like the VZ-1 (Form Board), VZ-2 (Paper Folding), and VZ-3
(Surface Development) tests (Downing, Moore, & Brown, 2005). Over the years,
structural visualization has proven to be the most consistent aptitude found
among engineers. Virtually all engineering specialties draw upon this core
aptitude. People with structural visualization can envision how pieces of a 3D
puzzle fit together or how something drawn as a blueprint will look when it's
finished. Structural visualization is not in your hand's ability to fit the pieces
together, but rather in your mind's ability to visualize objects from different
perspectives, rotate them in your mind, and envision how the pieces fit together.
This aptitude also provides the ability to classify pieces and understand how they
relate to the whole, which is useful in many engineering tasks (Alonso & Norman,
1998).
Logic. Involves the evaluation of arguments where individuals are tasked
to advance an account of valid and fallacious inference, and to allow one to
distinguish logical from flawed arguments (Hodges, 2001). Logic measures the
ability to make deductions that lead rationally to a certain probability or
conclusion. Includes verbal evaluation, interpreting data and diagramatic series
(Scriven, 1976).
Abstract Reasoning. The ability to reason with visual configurations. The
questions in this assessment contain patterns and series, which have to be
completed. They are a non-verbal measure of reasoning ability and as such are
regarded by many occupational psychologists as a good measure of raw
intelligence. This aptitude is all about understanding processes and how they
work - a critical skill needed by engineers. Analytical reasoning allows individuals
to organize concepts, arrange ideas in a logical sequence, and classify things. It
also helps you organize information to solve word problems in math, set up a
science experiment, and plan work (Anastasi & Urbina, 2001)
Engineering Achievement
Engineering skills are emphasized not only among students taking this
course but to lower years. Dr Ioannis Miaoulis, director of the National Center for
Technological Literacy indicates that States should incorporate engineering
questions into their science assessments. Miaoulis is on a mission to see that all
students are required to take technology and engineering courses (Mohr, 2006).
Related to this is the new blueprint outlining the content that students will
encounter on the science version of the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP). The said blueprint places too little emphasis on applying
science to technology, engineering, and real-world problem-solving, and a
number of critics contend (Cavanagh, 2005).

The report by Downie, Lucena, Moskal, and Parkhurst (2006) offers and
tests an approach to conceptualizing the global competency of engineers. It
begins by showing that the often-stated goal of working effectively with different
cultures is fundamentally about learning to work effectively with people who
define problems differently. The paper offers a minimum learning criterion for
global competency and three learning outcomes whose achievement can help
engineering students fulfill that criterion. It uses the criterion to establish a
typology of established methods to support global learning for engineering
students. It introduces the course, Engineering Cultures, as an example of an
integrated classroom experience designed to enable larger numbers of
engineering students to take the critical first step toward global competency, and
it offers a test application of the learning criterion and outcomes by using them to
organize summative assessments of student learning in the course.
Honawar (2005) reported that US national businessman and political
leaders are worried about the US schools' ability to stimulate student's interest in
math and science which is the area of weakness that they say has led to the
growing influence of Asian countries in the field of engineering and technology.
Among the most common examples of the deficiency in education attainment are
the results of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study that has
for years found American high schoolers performing at levels lower than those of
their peers in other developed countries. Some observers of international
education say that comparing the US with foreign countries based on such test
results may not always lead to accurate assumptions.

Shuster (2005) reported that high school students from the United States
scored below international averages on a comprehensive test of applied
mathematics and problem solving administered in 2003. The test, given to
students 15 years of age in 40 countries, was administered by the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development, an intergovernmental group
representing 30 highly industrialized countries. The US students achieved an
overall score of 483, the international average being 500. To account for possible
statistical errors, each country received two rankings, and the United States
place 25th and 28th. The test - the Program for International Student Assessment
- had two main parts, mathematics literacy and problem solving.
Method
Construction of the Attitude Scale
Search for Content Domain. A review of literature was conducted to
determine what specific personality and interests dominate most engineering
students and engineers. Four clusters were identified based on the framework
produced by Elton (1971) which is based on Holland’s Theory. The arrived areas
are assertiveness, analytical interest, practical inclination, and intellectual
independence. A survey was conducted to determine how these four areas are
manifested among engineering students (see Appendix A). The survey was
sampled out among 50 respondents through convenience sampling.
Item Writing. The items were written based on the definition of the four
concepts and the data that was generated from the survey. Various definitions of
the constructs were arrived at from previous studies and they were compared.
The definition that suits the qualities of engineers in their profession are chosen
as a guide in writing the items. The data strands from the survey were clustered
in their commonalities and the ones that are fitted for every area (assertiveness,
analytical interest, practical inclination, and intellectual independence). Most of
the responses are geared towards these areas because each question into the
survey are open-ended inquiring about each area. There were 60 items
constructed for each area with a total of 240 items.
Item Review. The 240 items were placed in a checklist and categorized
according to each area. For each area the definition was provided in order to
guide the item reviewer whether the items are within its limits. Each item is then
judged whether it is accepted, rejected, or needs revision. The items were given
to three experts in the field of testing, measurement and evaluation. The first two
experts reviewed the items independently and gave their comments. After the
revising the items according to the comments of the first two reviewers, the third
reviewer decided which comment was acceptable in constructing the pool of
items. It was further recommended to reverse some of the items for correction
purposes.
After the item review, the pre-test form was assembled to contain the 240
items (see Appendix B). The items that were rejected during the review were
replaced with better items. Table 1 shows the table of specifications for the pre-
test form.
Table 1
Table of Specifications
Area Positive items Negative Items Total

Practical Inclination 30 30 60
Analytical Interest 46 14 60
Intellectual Independence 43 17 60
Assertiveness 44 16 60
Total 163 77 60
Scaling Technique. The scaling technique used is a 4-point likert scale
(strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree). The likert scale is selected
because the items reflect attitude and predisposes the individual to manifest the
characteristics. The neutral scale was not included so that the students will really
have to make a stand for each item and minimize them from “playing safe,” thus
avoiding the tendency to choose the midpoint.
Pilot Testing. The final form with 240 items was laid-out in a booklet form
with a separate answer sheet. The cover of the booklet gives an elaborate
description on what the test is all about and how to answer with a brief
description. The positive and negative items were arranged interchangeable so
that the respondents would not “fake good” the answers. The test is self-
administered and was given to 45 engineering students in a university who are in
their second to third year of study. The respondents were given the instruments
and they answered for about 30 to 40 minutes.
Data Analysis. Item Analysis was conducted using Item Response Theory
(IRT) Rasch Analysis. Before proceeding with the Rasch analysis, the
dimensionality of the items were evaluated because unidimensionality is
considered the most critical and basic assumption of Rasch models. An

exploratory factor analysis for ordered polytomous data by using the principal
components analysis (PCA) was conducted. The items can be said to be roughly
unidimensional if the first eigenvalue is relatively large in comparison to the
second eigenvalue and if the second eigenvalue is not much larger than any of
the other eigenvalues. Having satisfied the unidimensionality assumption, the two
polytomous Rasch models were compared by first investigating whether scoring
category transitions remained similar across all of the items.. The results with the
PCA indicated that the scoring category transitions across many items were
similar enough to support the selection of the Rasch. Next, the Rasch reliability
indices were obtained from the four factors. The Rasch analogue to Cronbach's
alpha is called "person separation reliability" which refers to the ability to
differentiate persons on the measured variable and the replicability of person
placement across other items measuring the same construct. The index ranges
from 0 to 1, with values equal to or greater than .80 being regarded as
acceptable. The scores of item separation reliability were compared, which refers
to the ability to define a distinct hierarchy of items along the measured variable
and the replicability of item placement within the hierarchy across other samples.
Proposed Construction of the Achievement Test
Search for Content Domain. The different sequence of subjects that are
taken by freshmen civil engineering students were gathered from different
universities locally and abroad. The purpose of integrating the subjects is to
come up with the common subjects taken by civil engineering freshmen students
that will cover the items in the achievement test part of the battery.
Item Writing. The items were written by different experts in the field of
mathematics, sciences, and English. The areas that cover the items are algebra
trigonometry, geometry, differential and integrated calculus, physics, chemistry
and communications. The items were distributed in the revised bloom’s taxonomy
and the appropriate time frame for each subject area was determined together
with the percentage for each of the cognitive skills in bloom’s taxonomy. Table 2
shows the table of specifications of the items. A total of 200 items was formed.
The number of items for each area and skill was determined by dividing the
allotted time with total time and multiplied by the percentage and the total number
of items.
Table 2
Areas Hours Recall Understanding Application Analysis Evaluation Creating Total

a 5% 15% 25% 20% 20% 15%
week
Algebra 180 1 3 5 4 4 3 18
Trigonometry 180 1 3 5 4 4 3 18
Geometry 360 2 5 9 7 7 5 36
Differential 180 1 3 5 4 4 3 18
Calculus
Integral Calculus 180 1 3 5 4 4 3 18
Mensuration 180 1 3 5 4 4 3 18
Physics 180 1 3 5 4 4 3 18
Chemistry 360 2 5 9 7 7 5 36
Communications 180 1 3 5 4 4 3 18
TOTAL 1980 10 30 50 40 40 30 200
Item Review. The items will be reviewed by experts in engineering,
education and cognitive psychology. As well as experts in the construction of
achievement tests. During the review the table of specifications will be shown
and the corresponding items. The reviewers will judge whether the items are
representative of the subject area and if the items really measure the cognitive
skill placed.
Pilot Testing. The instrument will be administered to 200 civil engineering
freshmen students from high and low end universities. During the administration
the instructions and time allotment will be followed based on the manual that will
be constructed.
Proposed Construction of the Aptitude Test
Search for Content Domain. The areas that were included in the aptitude
test were based on different standardized aptitude tests. The factors included are
the ones prescribed for engineers. The areas include mechanical, structural
visualization, logic and abstract reasoning.
Item Writing. Then items will also be written by different experts in the
field of mathematics, sciences, and Engineering. The areas that cover the items
are mechanical, structural visualization, logic and abstract reasoning. The items
will also be distributed in the revised bloom’s taxonomy and the appropriate units
for each subject area will be determined together with the percentage for each of
the cognitive skills in bloom’s taxonomy. Table 3 shows the table of specifications
of the items. A total of 100 items will be formed. The number of items for each
area and skill was determined by dividing the allotted time with total time and
multiplied by the percentage and the total number of items.
Table 2
Areas Units Recall Understanding Application Analysis Evaluation Creating Total

5% 15% 25% 20% 20% 15%
Mechanical 5 1 4 6 5 5 4 25
Structural 5 1 4 6 5 5 4 25
Visualization
Logic 5 1 4 6 5 5 4 25
Abstract 5 1 4 6 5 5 4 25
Reasoning
TOTAL 20 5 15 25 20 20 15 100
Item Review. The items will be reviewed by experts in engineering,
education and cognitive psychology, as well as experts in the construction of
aptitude tests. During the review, the table of specifications will be shown and the
corresponding items. The reviewers will judge whether the items are
representative of the subject area and if the items really measure the cognitive
skill placed.
Pilot Testing. The instrument will be administered to 200 civil engineering
freshmen students together with the achievement test constructed from high and
low end universities. During the administration the instruction sand time allotment
will be followed based on the manual that will be constructed.
Data Analysis for the achivement and aptitude tests. To describe the
distribution of the scores, the mean, standard deviation, kurtosis, and skewness
will be obtained. The reliability of the items were evaluated using the Kuder
Richardson #20.
Item Analysis will be conducted using both Classical Test Theory (CTT)
and Item Response Theory (IRT). In the CTT the item difficulty and item
discrimination were determined using the proportion of the high group and the
low group. Item difficulty is determined by getting the average proportion of
correct responses between the high group and low group. The Item
discrimination is determined by computing for the difference between the high
group and the low group. The estimation of Rasch item difficulty and person
ability scores and related analyses will be carried out. The provisional central
estimates of item difficulty and person ability parameters, compares expected
responses based on these estimates to the data, constructs new parameter
estimates using maximum likelihood estimation, and then reiterates the analysis
until the change between successive iterations is small enough to satisfy a
preselected criterion value. The item parameter estimates are typically scaled to
have M = 0, and person ability scores are estimated in reference to the item
mean. A unit on this scale, a logit, represents the change in ability or difficulty
necessary to change the odds of a correct response by a factor of 2.718, the
base of the natural logarithm. Persons who respond to all items correctly or
incorrectly, and items to which all persons respond correctly or incorrectly, are
uninformative with respect to item difficulty estimation and are thus excluded
from the parameter estimation process.

Results and Discussion
Attitude Scale
The attitude scale of the BET Inventory has four hypothesized factors
(practical inclination, analytical interest, intellectual independence and
assertiveness). The hypothesized factors are analyzed by describing its
distribution, analyzed for reliability using the cronbach’s alpha, correlating the
scores for convergent validity, determined the dimensions using joining tree
clustering and principal components analysis and if the data set fits a four factor
dimension using confirmatory factor analysis. The items that are acceptable are
determined if the data fits the Rasch Model.
The distribution of the scores for each factor is presented in Table 1.
Table 1
Score Distribution of the BET
N M SE SD Skewness Kurtosis
Practical Inclination 45 2.28 0.02 0.15 -0.57 0.86
Analytical Interest 45 3.00 0.04 0.25 -0.68 0.96
Intellectual
Independence 45 2.22 0.02 0.16 -0.20 1.34
Assertiveness 45 2.45 0.02 0.15 -0.64 2.20
The highest possible score that can be obtained in the attitude scale in the
BET is 4.00 and the lowest is 1.00. Analytical interest was rated highly among the
respondents than the other factors. The variances showed by the standard
deviation and standard errors are low indicating low dispersion of the scores. All
the scores tend to be negatively skewed and the distribution tends to be
mesokurtic for practical inclination and analytical interest but leptokurtic for
intellectual independence and assertiveness.
The Cronbach’s alpha obtained for the entire test is .94 indicating high
internal consistency of the items. The Cronbach’s alpha for the factors practical
inclination, analytical interest, intellectual independence, and assertiveness are
.84, .91, .83 and .82 respectively all indicating high internal consistency.
Table 2
Correlation Matrix
Practical Analytical Intellectual

Inclination Interest Independence Assertiveness
Practical Inclination 1 0.56** 0.51** 0.31**
Analytical Interest 1 0.77** 0.54**
Intellectual
Independence 1 0.56**
Assertiveness 1
** p<.01
The scores for each factor were summated and intercorrelated using
Pearson r to prove the convergent validity of the test. All the four factors are
significantly related to each other where coefficients are different form zero. The
correlation coefficients range from moderate to high relationship. Very high
relationship exists between analytical interest and intellectual independence.
The significant and high correlation coefficients indicate that the factors
are measuring the same construct because of the same positive magnitude
evidenced with the scores.

A joining tree clustering was conducted to further study the factor structure
of the attitude scale of the BET. As shown in Figure 1, the result of the tree
clustering is consistent with the correlation matrix. Practical Inclination is closest
to intellectual independence and they seem to converge with assertiveness.
Analytical interest has the farthest proximity to the other three factors. Table 3
shows the Squared Euclidean distances among the four factors.
Figure 1
Joining Tree Clustering
Tree Diagram for Variables

Single Linkage
Euclidean distances
practical
intellectual independence
assertiveness
analytical interest
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

Linkage Distance
Table 3
Squared Euclidean Distances


Inclination Interest Independence Assertiveness
Practical Inclination 0 25.59 1.19 2.72
Analytical Interest 0 29.08 15.77
Intellectual
Independence 0 3.36
Assertiveness 0
To explore further the factors of the attitude scale of the BET, principal
components analysis was conducted. Given 25 iterations in the analysis, there
are 35 factors extracted in the principal components analysis with eigenvalues
greater than 1.00. However, the principal components analysis only puts together
items with high correlation and not really looking into the content of the items
(see Appendix C). The results of the principal components are with the factor
loadings of the items are not the only basis for item selection in the final form of
the test. The Goodness of fit for each items in the Rasch Model were also
considered.
Table 4
Eigenvalues for the BET Factors
Componen Rotation Sums of Squared

t Initial Eigenvalues Loadings
% of Cumulative % of Cumulative
Total Variance % Total Variance %
1 49.93 21.34 21.34 26.37 11.27 11.27
2 14.38 6.14 27.48 24.17 10.33 21.60
3 12.93 5.53 33.01 23.49 10.04 31.64
4 12.03 5.14 38.15 15.24 6.51 38.15
Figure 2
Scree Plot
Scree Plot
50
40
Eigenvalue
30
20
10
147111122233344445556667777888999111111111111111111111111111111111122222222222
036925814703692581470369258147000011122233334445556666777888999900011122223
036925814703692581470369258147036925814703692
Component Number
The confirmatory factor analysis using the covariance approach and
general least squares technique was used to prove the factor structure of the
attitude scale for the BET. The parameter estimate loadings of each factor
composing the BET construct are all significant with estimates .09, .22, .13 and
.09 respectively for practical inclination, analytical interest, intellectual
independence and assertiveness.

Figure 3
Factor Structure of Best Engineering Traits
.01 .01 .01 .01

e1 e2 e3 e4
1 1 1 1
Inclination Assertiveness
Interest Independence
.09 .22 .13 .09
1.00
Engineering Traits
Table 5
Parameter Estimates of the factors of other BET
Estimate P CR
analyticalinterest <--- Engineering Traits .219** .031 7.003
intellectualindependence <--- Engineering Traits .133** .020 6.733
assertiveness <--- Engineering Traits .091** .021 4.279
practical <--- Engineering Traits .091** .022 4.204
** p<.01
The estimates show that analytical interest and intellectual independence
have the heaviest loadings on the BET. The assertiveness and practical
inclination factors may have low eights but they are still considered significant
p<.01.
Table 6
Error Estimates for Each Factor of the BET
Estimate SE CR P
Engineering Traits 1.000
E1 .014** .003 4.350 .000
E2 .012 .006 2.015 .044
E3 .006 .002 2.435 .015
E4 .014** .003 4.334 .000
** p<.05
The errors terms fro each factor in the model shows that the error for
practical inclination and assertiveness are significantly different from zero. This
shows that few variances occur in the scores for these factors.
The factor structure of the BET have a rather good fit, χ2(8, N=45) = .889,
p<.01. The BET with a four factor structure is a best fit model given a very low
error of .000 using the RMSEA and having a baseline of .965 when other model
are explored. The other fit indices (see Appendix D) are also consistent showing
the data to be fit in the model (RMR=.99, Parsimony-adjusted=.333, NCP=.000,
FMIN=.020, AIC=16.384, ECVI=.348, and HOELTER=456).
In the Rasch Analysis, the scales for each item,are transformed into a
dichotomy. The BET measure using the Rasch Model is interpreted by extreme
high and low manifestation of the characteristic with the probability of getting a
high score is calibrated at 50%. Each item in the Rasch corresponds to a log
value and the goodness of fit for each of the items are tested using a t-value. The
t-values of items with 1.6 and below are considered to be fitted in the Rasch
model and the items with very high t values are removed in the pool. In the
analysis very few items are removed having high t-values. For Practical
inclination, 8 items are removed, for analytical interest 19 items are removed, for
intellectual independence 10 items are removed, and for assertiveness 8 items
are removed.
However it was decided that each factor needs to have equal weights and
representation for the whole test in general. A total of 50 items were retained for
each factor with items showing good content and low fit index. The final pool of
items is composed of 200 items (see Appendix E). The item reliability obtained
from the Rasch analysis is .37, .42, .41 and .36 respectively for practical
inclination, analytical interest, intellectual independence, and assertiveness.
Interpretation of BET Scores
The scores obtained in the BET Inventory will be interpreted as follows:
Scale
Points Continuum of Values Interpretation
4 (SA) 3.50-4.00 Most likely to manifest the traits

described in a particular subscale
3 (A) 2.50-3.49 Likely to manifest the traits

2 (D) 1.50-2.49 Unlikely to manifest the traits

1 (SD) 1.00-1.49 Least unlikely to manifest the traits

Reverse scoring must be done first for the negatively-stated items before final
scoring will be computed. Mean scores per subscale will likewise be obtained.
Low scorers in a particular subscale maybe advised for career guidance and
counseling. High scorers, on the other hand, may indicate possession of
desirable traits for someone to become an effective engineer.
Recommendations for Future Research
Based on the initial item analysis performed for the BET Inventory, the
following are recommended for further investigation and action:
1. Establish the relationship of the BET with the other components such
as the achievement and aptitude tests
2. Develop parallel forms and test further its reliability
3. Conduct convergent validation of the test with the ISHI (Interest and
Study Habits Inventory)
4. Get a bigger number of students to take the pre-testing of the aptitude
and achievement components of the battery, probably in both low-end
and high-end engineering schools
5. Test the BET with identified outstanding engineers to establish further
its construct validity
References
Academic standards (2000). Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
Ajobeje (2005). Cognitive entry characteristics and continuous assessment as

predictors of academic performance among polytechnic engineering technology
students. The African Symposium: An On Line Journal of African Educational
Research Network.
Alonso, D.L. and Norman, K.L. (1998). Apparency of contingencies in single

panel and pull-down menus. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,
49, 59 – 78.
Anastasi, A. & Urbina, S. (2001). Psychological testing. New York: Prentice Hall.
Bennet, G. K. (1980). Bennet mechanical comprehension test. San Antonio, TX:

The Psychological Corporation.
Brown, N. W., & Cross, E. J. (1991). Capitalizing on personality differences of

Black and White engineering students. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 18(1),
43-50.
Cavanagh, S. (2005). Experts disagree over what to include in revised NAEP.

Education Week, 25, 10.
Clough, W. (2004). Once an engineer, always an engineer. ASEE Prism, 13, 56.
College of Engineering. (2006). www.dlsu.edu.ph
Downey, G. L., Lucena, J. C., Moskal, B. M., Parkhurst, R. et al. (2006). The
globally competent engineer: Working effectively with people who define
problems differently. Journal of Engineering Education, 95, 107-113.
Downing, R.E., Moore, J.L., and Brown, S.W. (2005). The effects and interaction
of spatial visualization and domain expertise on information seeking. Computers
in Human Behavior, 21, 195 – 209.
Dunn, (1982). Hands-on approaches to learning styles: A practical guide to

successful schooling. PA: Thompson House.
Garrison, S., & Jenkins, J. O. (1986). Differing perceptions of Black

assertiveness as a function of race. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and
Development, 14(4), 157-166.
Hall, J. R., & Beil-Warner, D. (1978). Assertiveness of male Anglo and Mexican
American college students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 105, 175-178.
Hodges, W. (2001). Logic. An introduction to Elementary Logic, Penguin Books.
Honawar, V. (2005). U.S. Leaders Fret Over Students' Math and Science
Weaknesses. Education Week, 25, 1-2.
Jonquieres, G. (2006, June 3). Asia cannot fill the world's skills gap. Financial
Times, p. 13
Kubler and Forkes (2002). Engineering subject centre: Student employability

profile. The higher Education Academy.
Lazarus, A. A. (1973). Assertive training: A brief note. Behavior Theory, 4, 697-

699.
Lieberman, R. P. (1972). A guide to behavioral analysis and therapy. New York:

Pergamon Press.
Lineberger, M. H., & Calhoun, K. S. (1983). Assertive behavior in Black and

White American undergraduates. The Journal of Psychology 113, 139-148.
Magno, C. (2003). The relationship between the attitude towards technical

education and achievement in mathematics and science. An unpublished
master’s thesis, Ateneo de Manila University, Philippines.
McFall, R. M., & Lillesand, D. B. (1971). Behavior rehearsal with modelling and
coaching in assertion training. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 77, 313-323.
Meece, J., Eccles-Parsons, J et al. (1982). Sex Differences in Math Achievement:

Toward a Model of Academic Choice. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 324-348.
Mohr, P. (2006). NCTL: Engineering skills should be assessed. Education Daily,

39, 81.
Muchinsky, P. M. (1993). Validation of intelligencer and mechanical aptitude tests

in selecting employees for manufacturing jobs. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 7, 373-382.
Ness, M. K., Donnan, H. H., & Jenkins, J. (1983). Race as an interpersonal

variable in negative assertion. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39, 361-369.
Newport and Elms (1997). Efective engineers. International Journal for

Engineering Education, 13, 325-332.
Niikura, R. (1999). Assertiveness among Japanese, Malaysian, Filipino, and U.S.

white-collar workers. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 690-700.
Oliver, J. S. & Nichols, B. K. (2001). Intellectual independence as a persistent

theme in the literature of science eduction: 1900-1950. School Science and
Mathematics, 101, 49-58.
Paterson, R. J. (2000). The assertiveness workbook. Oakland CA: New

Harbinger Publications.
Poteat, W. L. (1901). The laboratory as a means of culture. School Science, 1(6),

285-287.
Santi, P. M. and Higgins, J. D. (2005). Preparing geologists for careers in

engineering geology and hydrogeology. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53,
513-522.
Scinta, C. (2006, July 26). U.S. firms search for technical talent. Wall Street
Journal, p. B2D
Scriven, M. (1976). Reasoning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shuster, L. A. (2005). U.S. Students Perform below Average on International

Math and Problem-Solving Test. Civil Engineering, 75, 25.
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). A broad view of intelligence: The theory of successful

intelligence. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 55, 139-
154.
Sternberg, R. J., Castejón, J.L., Prieto, M.D., Hautamäki, J., & Grigorenko, E. L.
(2001). Confirmatory factor analysis of the sternberg triarchic abilities test in
three international samples an empirical test of the triarchic theory of intelligence.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17, 1-16.
Sternberg, R. J., Conway, B. E., Ketron, J. L., & Bernstein, M. (1981). People's
conception of intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 37-
55.
The Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering (GATE) (2006). Wikipedia.com
Vyom Technosoft (2006). The Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering
Yoshioka, M. (2000). Substantive differences in the assertiveness of low-income

African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian Women. The Journal of Psychology,
134, 243-250.
Zane, N. W. S., Sue, S., Hu, L., & Kwon, J. H. (1991). Asian American assertion:
A social learning analysis of cultural differences. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 38, 63-70.
Appendix A
Engineering Characteristics Survey Questionnaire
1. How do you show your expertise in different situations in being an Engineering student?
2. How do you apply engineering theories in your everyday life?
3. What are the instances that an Engineer needs to be assertive?
4. In what ways can an Engineer be independent in his intellectual thinking?
5. What do you think are other personality traits or characteristics that would make you an
effective engineer?
Appendix B
Items in the Pretest Form
1. I am inclined to fix broken things in the house.

2. I hate to buy things in hardware stores.
3. I love to help out anyone in fixing broken things at home.
4. I am not good at estimating precisely sizes of any objects.
5. I do manual computation if there is no available calculator.
6. I am afraid to explore all the features of the computer because it might be damaged.
7. I like to tinker with things.
8. I cannot imagine myself driving a bulldozer in action.
9. I use gadgets and machines to make my work easier.
10. I am not bothered every time I see flooding as an effect of ill-constructed drainage
systems.
11. I make wise use of my body in any physical activity with my knowledge about the
principles of force.
12. My family does not rely on me to fix anything that goes wrong in the comfort room.
13. I use available batteries and wires to produce light if there is no electricity.
14. I cannot make a way if there is a leak in the water pipes.
15. I am likely to prevent fire accidents through my knowledge of flame formation.
16. I am not usually relied on to check appliances if something is wrong with it.
17. I choose appliances with low power output to save on electricity.
18. I cannot be expected to keep a complete set of tools in the house.
19. I tend to measure the length of objects even without any ruler.
20. My family does not expect me to fix broken objects.
21. I am likely to easily size up any object without using any gadget at hand.
22. I am not likely to pinpoint the damage that occurs in an appliance if it is broken.
23. I am likely to estimate the velocity of a moving car when I cross the street.
24. I do not know the brand of appliances that are durable.
25. I know how to choose the right materials in building objects.
26. I am less likely to improvise tools when building objects.
27. I tend to predict the outcome of events using fundamental principles in engineering.
28. There are a lot of broken objects in our house because I cannot easily remedy them.
29. I find it easy to detect problems in defective appliances.
30. I am least likely consulted by my relatives on any building construction.
31. I like to fix defective objects in the house.
32. It is unlikely for me to remedy water leaks from the ceiling during heavy rains.
33. I take precautions given my knowledge on proper handling of appliances.
34. I am least likely expected to fix anything that goes wrong with our electricity.
35. I am likely to cut the pizza pie evenly across its radius.
36. I do not care about bringing out solutions to disaster mitigation.
37. I tend to calculate the amount of calories that I can burn after eating.
38. I have little concern over the problems of the country’s housing industry.
39. I am inclined to approximate the amount of heat required in cooking foods.
40. I do not go around the lawn to check the house after a heavy rain.
41. I am most likely the “handyman” at home.
42. I do not know how to use variety of tools in the house.
43. I know the good materials needed in constructing durable objects.
44. I am not usually relied on to help build things in the house.
45. I most likely know how durable a material is by its mere look and appearance.
46. I do not know what to do with the car when it suddenly stops while driving.
47. I like to handle building tents during outings and picnics.

48. I have little involvement in planning our house renovation.
49. I can easily operate new appliances in the house without reading their manuals first.
50. I am less likely expected to fix a busted faucet or shower.
51. I tend to inspect the drainage outside the house after a heavy rain.
52. I do not tend to keep scrap materials for future use.
53. I can use varied ways to fix clogged water drains.
54. I can easily estimating the cost needed in building an object.
55. I am unable to create an object with limited resources.
56. I can jumpstart an object if there is faulty wiring.
57. I am unlikely to be approached in operating electronic devices.
58. I am expected to demonstrate the operation of any electronic devices.
59. I am likely to throw away scrap materials than recycle them to build something else.
60. I can use alternative materials to create an object.
61. I like watching repairmen when they are fix something.
62. I am not interested to know the processes involved in making a gadget.
63. I enjoy looking at electronic gadgets in stores.
64. I dislike inventing things.
65. I enjoy doing computations.
66. I do not rely on mathematical solutions in arriving at conclusions.
67. I like subjects that use mathematical formulas and equations.
68. I am not interested to watch shows that feature electronic gadgets.
69. I like using formula to solve problems.
70. I hate science fiction movies.
71. I think that the scientific method is important in giving accurate data.
72. I dislike learning anything about science.
73. I find numbers exciting.
74. I am not interested in watching car shows.
75. I like thinking of different ways to quantify objects.
76. I hate studying about the universe and the solar system.
77. I love to collect tools and gadgets.
78. I hate talking about buildings and construction.
79. I can easily solve mathematical problems just by looking at the given parameters.
80. I enjoy any math subject.
81. I enjoy making models of objects.
82. I like to help others who are poor in math.
83. I enjoy teaching people who have difficulty in problem solving.
84. I can easily visualize how a machine works.
85. I am able to translate my imagination into physical objects.
86. I love playing building blocks.
87. I enjoy solving brainteasers and jig-saw puzzles.
88. I enjoy looking for various ways to solve a problem.
89. I like assessing the designs of others.
90. I enjoy solving word problems.
91. I enjoy using quantitative approaches in solving problems.
92. I am interested to know how each of my body systems work.
93. I enjoy using various softwares in solving a problem.
94. I like creating computer programs that efficiently handle tasks that are time-
consuming.
95. I enjoy using mathematical equations for varied purposes.
96. I can easily detect any malfunction of a machine.
97. I enjoy crossword puzzles.
98. I find thinking “out of the box” difficult to do.
99. I dislike explaining things in a scientific manner.
100. I think that it is only through scientific reasoning that I could speculate how the world
works.
101. I enjoy following step-by-step procedure in completing tasks.

102. I like generating conclusions using accurate facts.
103. I am not interested in designing any product.
104. I do not enjoy playing games of chance.
105. I love doing tasks that engage me to use various strategies.
106. I enjoy playing magic cubes.
107. I love solving puzzles and mazes.
108. I hate scrutinizing every detail of things.
109. I love watching suspense and detective films.
110. I appreciate the wonders of computers.
111. I love to explore on new computer softwares.
112. I enjoy surfing in using the internet .
113. I do not enjoy building systems on how things work.
114. I love science subjects.
115. I hate to assemble anything.
116. I enjoy computer games.
117. I dislike playing with puzzles.
118. I enjoy playing chess.
119. I enjoy films that require me to analyze the story.
120. I love playing strategy games.
121. I gather necessary information before making decisions.
122. I need not validate an accepted theory.
123. I usually observe before making any judgment.
124. I do not feel that discussing things helps clarify my ideas as well as those of others.
125. I support my claims with facts and evidences.
126. I am impressed with people who do not stand for their own belief.
127. I enjoy exploring ideas than verifying data from others.
128. I do not question some ideas even if they do not seem to work.
129. I rely on textbooks for the information I need to do a task.
130. I am not convinced with the outcomes of science and technology.
131. I like to verify information before accepting them at face value.
132. I do not find it necessary to ask questions about lessons from my teachers.
133. I believe that an experiment is the best way to prove an assumption.
134. I hate to challenge the beliefs of other people.
135. I love to pursue an idea when others are against it.
136. I do not enjoy classes where the teacher dominates the discussion.
137. I rely on experts’ opinion rather than exploring on my own.
138. I do not like to probe further into the explanation of my teacher for fear that I might
flank in the course.
139. I believe that there is a single right way of doing things.
140. I usually do not expect rewards for performing well in class.
141. I believe that any policy should be open for discussion before it gets implemented.
142. I need not look for the scientific evidence when faced with unusual events.
143. I believe that learning is acquiring accepted truths than rethinking knowledge in our
own terms.
144. I easily believe in what an authority figure is saying about things.
145. I discern first on my own before consulting with others.
146. I believe that students learn best if they agree with authority.
147. I am confident that the directions I give are correct.
148. I often feel that my personal opinion in an issue does not count at all.
149. I make firm goals and decisions to obtain success in my chosen career.
150. I believe that teachers and students do not need to have an academic discourse in
the classroom.
151. I fully trust my abilities in doing certain tasks.
152. I enjoy solving problems without doubt in producing excellent solutions.
153. I can anticipate problems that may arise in implementing projects.
154. I can finish a task by myself.

155. I can effectively give instructions in accomplishing a task.
156. I am not easily swayed by the ideas of others.
157. I love to solve mathematical problems by myself.
158. I enjoy reasoning out technically with others.
159. I can decide on my own during critical circumstances.
160. I take chances and probabilities to pursue my idea even without the help of others.
161. I support my ideas with knowledge-based information.
162. I believe that I have the competency for an engineering course.
163. I am certain I get a high score in a math intelligence test.
164. I usually assess the accuracy of facts before I accept them.
165. I believe in things that can demonstrate its usefulness in whatever I am doing.
166. I conduct my own inquiry to find the truthfulness of things.
167. I love to explore multiple sources to verify a fact.
168. I believe that conclusions are valid only when based upon scientific observations.
169. I think that the scientific method is the most accurate way in arriving at new
knowledge.
170. I support conclusions that I deduced from accurate evidences.
171. I believe that the teacher is the ultimate source of knowledge.
172. I do not resist tradition even when it hinders my development.
173. I hate teachers that discourage students from arguing with their ideas in class.
174. I challenge others to change their predetermined roles to produce alternative ones.
175. I love to argue with others especially with people of authority.
176. I am not comfortable to be working in a team.
177. I prefer to work on my own first before I get derailed with the inefficiency of others.
178. I like teachers who know how to facilitate learning in the classroom.
179. I tend to be overly critical of the ideas of others.
180. I can work with a team, but I need to do my tasks first before I get contaminated with
how others work.
181. I express my thoughts freely during discussions.
182. I rather be nice to someone than face any confrontations.
183. I love to actively participate in group activities.
184. I am reluctant to express my opinions, especially when others do not seem to agree
with me.
185. I make sure I give my ideas in a discussion.
186. I give up easily when engaging even in a simple debate with friends.
187. I make sure to inform other people what needs to be done immediately.
188. I feel uncertain about discussing new ideas.
189. I like convincing people to follow my ideas.
190. I can am submissive to the whims of others.
191. I make sure that I contribute ideas during discussions.
192. I tend to get the approval of others before my idea gets through.
193. I take the risk of informing people about the problem even though I know it will hurt
them.
194. I have difficulty in responding to the arguments of others.
195. I take a stand to defend my beliefs.
196. I prefer to keep silent about what I think for fear that others might not like it.
197. I usually support my claims so that others will accept my idea.
198. I am confident that what I will say and do could be acceptable by others.
199. If an opinion is flawed I can easily disagree with it.
200. I feel that my participation is important in every project I undertake.
201. I call the attention of others who are doing things the wrong way.
202. I easily could express to others what bothers me.
203. I make sure I finish what I am supposed to say before others get their way.
204. I can tell other people to stop if they are annoying me.
205. I cannot tolerate accepting rules and policies that are flawed.
206. I can tactfully express my disagreement with the opinions of others without hurting
their feelings.
207. I enjoy arguing with others when necessary.
208. I can easily tell others what I feel about them even at the expense of their feelings.
209. I can confidently answer questions in order to get the position I want.
210. I can easily voice out my opinion regarding a matter even to people of authority.
211. I stand up to what I believe is right.
212. I can point out the mistakes of others without hurting their feelings.
213. I can defend my own viewpoints no matter what others say.
214. I can advice anyone to go straight to the point when engaging in a discussion with
me.
215. I easily get frustrated when I am not given a chance to talk.
216. I seldom take pride in my accomplishments.
217. I am too dependent upon the opinions of others.
218. I can easily discuss my ideas without showing disrespect with people of authority.
219. I spend a lot of time planning that it leaves me too little time for implementing
anything.
220. I cannot easily accept the viewpoints of others.
221. I tend to beat around the bush when I express my ideas.
222. I get discouraged if my opinion is not solicited by my peers.
223. I love to argue just for the sake of argument.
224. I easily accept ideas at face value rather than ask more questions about them.
225. I can easily tell my superiors if I cannot tackle a task long before they would discover
that I have not done anything about it.
226. I just keep quiet when someone argues with me.
227. I easily show outbursts of temper.
228. I say things in my mind even at the expense of hurting others.
229. I can argue with anyone that women can be good engineers.
230. I get easily overwhelmed when caught in a crowd of opposing ideas.
231. I feel uncomfortable facing others whom I know do not like my ideas.
232. I am described to be straight forward even with people whom I seldom deal with.
233. I stand out in a crowd because of the brilliant ideas I give.
234. I rather keep quiet when facing an uncomfortable situation than speaking up my
mind.
235. I love to hear from others what they think about my ideas.
236. I speak up what easily comes to my mind without considering the feelings of others.
237. I have difficulty in telling others what I feel when I am in an uncomfortable situation.
238. I cannot stand pressure when faced with difficulty in doing a task.
239. I am overly impatient with people who tend to argue with me.
240. I cannot easily speak up for my rights even if others are already hurting my feelings.
Appendix C
Factor Loadings
Component
1 2 3 4
item1 0.512935
item2 0.481538
item3 0.558332
item4 0.46251
item5
item6
item7 0.617517
item8 0.538428
item9
item10
item11 0.41187 0.542488
item12 0.422346
item13
item14 0.533252
item15 0.428465
item16 0.536117
item17 0.547442
item18 0.838947
item19 0.46466
item20 0.530962
item21
item22 -0.43194 -0.6271
item23
item24
item25 0.584475
item26 -0.594 -0.47053
item27 0.696474
item28 -0.73988
item29 0.535058
item30 -0.55794
item31 0.471739
item32 0.609731
item33 0.429233 0.440907
item34 0.784736
item35
item36 0.572421
item37
item38 0.798228
item39 0.501908
item40 0.688884
item41 0.48045
item42
item43 0.437115
item44 -0.43194 -0.6271
item45 0.461782
item46 -0.49855
item47 0.405139
item48
item49 0.404042
item50 -0.41849
item51 0.523805
item52
item53 0.625485
item54 -0.57386
item55
item56 0.532365
item57 -0.67231
item58 0.609731
item59 -0.40429
item60 0.437033
item61 0.507948
item62 -0.61902
item63 0.410656
item64 0.507564
item65 0.488117
item66 0.51305 0.551679
item67 0.407306
item68 0.534759
item69 0.489515 0.416114
item70
item71 0.484562
item72 0.435028
item73 0.40109
item74 0.448181
item75 0.417305
item76 -0.51054
item77 0.553948
item78 0.441854
item79 0.401046 0.477479
item80 -0.55658
item81 0.414102
item82
item83
item84
item85 0.451895
item86 0.441032
item87
item88 0.417284 0.48341
item89
item90 0.518454
item91 0.464253
item92 0.476683
item93 0.565831
item94 0.514582
item95 0.547287
item96 0.528332
item97 0.679795
item98
item99
item100
item101 0.4121 0.458825
item102
item103 0.589009
item104 0.481184
item105 0.498296 0.495203
item106
item107 0.443574
item108 -0.40661 -0.54208
item109 0.505033
item110 0.760738
item111
item112 0.539781
item113 -0.4636 -0.406
item114
item115 -0.53651 -0.45689
item116 0.621547
item117 -0.57042
item118
item119 0.443257
item120 0.682689
item121 0.584206
item122
item123 0.435767 0.453982
item124 -0.60603
item125 0.481493 0.448807
item126 -0.62563
item127 0.734402
item128 -0.61172
item129 -0.71224 -0.48082
item130 -0.42072
item131 0.598901
item132 -0.62782 -0.43626
item133 0.401974
item134
item135 0.471493
item136 -0.45943
item138 -0.40428 -0.43936
item139
item140 -0.56256
item141 0.682725 0.402714
item143 -0.55777
item145
item147 0.441529
item149 0.457287
item151 0.59465
item152
item153 0.620779
item154
item155 0.414337
item156 -0.46537
item157 0.476361
item158 0.424969
item159 0.610599
item160 0.538209
item161 0.615823
item162 0.529086
item163 0.410947
item164 0.584676
item165 0.57434
item166 0.472081
item167 0.49181
item168 0.438345
item169 0.500371
item170 0.455313 0.446085
item171
item172
item173 0.442211
item174 0.631754 0.408025
item175
item176
item177
item178 0.738229
item179 0.578598
item180
item181
item182
item183
item184 -0.69697
item185 0.409812 0.407655
item186
item187 0.422537
item188
item189
item190
item191 0.447876
item192 -0.45628
item193 0.415401
item194 -0.74792
item195 0.564552 0.455935
item196 -0.6281
item197 0.580962
item198 0.411103
item199 -0.53744
item200
item201 0.502361
item202 0.403861 0.456802
item203 0.40906
item204 0.453943
item205
item206
item207 0.453978
item208 -0.5943
item209 0.531564
item210
item211 0.541114 0.423452
item212 0.452338
item213 0.407601 0.487064
item214 0.578371 0.468505
item215 0.431705
item216
item217 -0.49067 -0.51477 -0.4432
item218 0.459647
item219 -0.4131
item220 -0.43017
item221
item222
item223 -0.57292
item224
item225 0.444372
item226 -0.63343
item227 -0.54378
item228 -0.60266
item229 0.644436
item230 0.402577
item231 0.490669 0.514766 0.443199
item232 0.44202
item233 0.560605
item234 -0.68045
item235
item236 -0.56307
item237 -0.41329
item238 -0.49257
item239
item240 -0.5043 -0.41057
Appendix D
Model Fit Summary
CMIN
Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF
Default model 8 .889 2 .641 .444
Saturated model 10 .000 0
Independence model 4 75.956 6 .000 12.659
RMR, GFI
Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI
Default model .001 .990 .948 .198
Saturated model .000 1.000
Independence model .014 .516 .194 .310
Baseline Comparisons
NFI RFI IFI TLI
Model CFI
Delta1 rho1 Delta2 rho2
Default model .988 .965 1.015 1.048 1.000
Saturated model 1.000 1.000 1.000
Independence model .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Parsimony-Adjusted Measures
Model PRATIO PNFI PCFI
Default model .333 .329 .333
Saturated model .000 .000 .000
Independence model 1.000 .000 .000
NCP
Model NCP LO 90 HI 90
Default model .000 .000 4.878
Saturated model .000 .000 .000
Independence model 69.956 45.487 101.874
FMIN
Model FMIN F0 LO 90 HI 90
Default model .020 .000 .000 .111
Saturated model .000 .000 .000 .000
Independence model 1.726 1.590 1.034 2.315
RMSEA
Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE
Default model .000 .000 .235 .671
Independence model .515 .415 .621 .000
AIC
Model AIC BCC BIC CAIC
Default model 16.889 18.940 31.342 39.342
Saturated model 20.000 22.564 38.067 48.067
ECVI
Model ECVI LO 90 HI 90 MECVI
Default model .384 .409 .520 .430
Saturated model .455 .455 .455 .513
HOELTER
HOELTER HOELTER
Model
.05 .01
Default model 297 456
Independence model 8 10
Minimization: .015
Miscellaneous: .078
Bootstrap: .000
Total: .093
Appendix E
Final Form
1. I like watching repairmen when they are fixing something.

2. I gather necessary information before making decisions.
3. I hate to buy things in hardware stores.
4. I express my thoughts freely during discussions.
5. I love to help out anyone in fixing broken things at home.
6. I enjoy looking at electronic gadgets in stores.
7. I need not validate an accepted theory.
8. I rather be nice to someone than face any confrontations.
9. I am not good at estimating precisely of any objects.
10. I enjoy doing computations.
11. I do not feel that discussing things helps clarify my ideas as well as those of others.
12. I am reluctant to express my opinions, especially when others do not seem to agree
with me.
13. I am afraid to explore all the features of the computer because it might be damaged.
14. I do not rely on mathematical solutions in arriving at conclusions.
15. I support my claims with facts and evidences.
16. I make sure I give my ideas in a discussion.
17. I like to tinker with things.
18. I like subjects that use mathematical formulas and equations.
19. I am not impressed with people who do not stand for their own belief.
20. I give up easily when engaging even in a simple debate with friends.
21. I cannot imagine myself driving a bulldozer in action.
22. I am not interested to watch shows that feature electronic gadgets.
23. I enjoy exploring ideas than verifying data from others.
24. I make sure to inform other people what needs to be done immediately.
25. I use gadgets and machines to make my work easier.
26. I like devising formulas to solve problems.
27. I do not question some ideas even if they do not seem to work.
28. I feel uncertain about discussing new ideas.
29. I am not bothered every time I see flooding as an effect of ill-constructed drainage
systems.
30. I hate science fiction movies.
31. I do not find it necessary to ask questions about lessons from my teachers.
32. I like convincing people to follow my ideas.
33. My family does not rely on me to fix anything that goes wrong in the comfort room.
34. I think that the scientific method is important in giving accurate data.
35. I believe that an experiment is the best way to prove an assumption.
36. I am submissive to the whims of others.
37. I use available batteries and wires to produce light if there is no electricity.
38. I find numbers exciting.
39. I hate to challenge the beliefs of other people.
40. I take the risk of informing people about the problem even though I know it will hurt
them.
41. I cannot make a way if there is a leak in the water pipes.

42. I am not interested in watching car shows.
43. I love to pursue an idea when others are against it.
44. I have difficulty in responding to the arguments of others.
45. I am likely to prevent fire accidents through my knowledge of flame formation.
46. I like thinking of different ways to quantify objects.
47. I do not enjoy classes where the teacher dominates the discussion.
48. I prefer to keep silent about what I think for fear that others might not like my opinion.
49. I am not relied on to check appliances if something is wrong with it.
50. I hate studying about the universe and the solar system.
51. I rely on experts’ opinion rather than exploring on my own.
52. I support my claims so that others will accept my idea.
53. I choose appliances with low power output to save on electricity.
54. I love to collect tools and gadgets.
55. I do not like to probe further into the explanation of my teacher for fear that I might
flank in the course.
56. I am confident that what I will say and do could be acceptable to others.
57. I cannot be expected to keep a complete set of tools in the house.
58. I hate talking about buildings and construction.
59. I believe that there is a single right way of doing things.
60. If an opinion is flawed, I can easily disagree with it.
61. I tend to measure the length of objects even without any ruler.
62. I can easily solve mathematical problems just by looking at the given parameters.
63. I believe that any policy should be open for discussion before it gets implemented.
64. I call the attention of others who are doing things the wrong way.
65. My family does not expect me to fix broken objects.
66. I enjoy any math subject.
67. I need not look for the scientific evidence when faced with unusual events.
68. I can easily express to others what bothers me.
69. I am likely to easily size up any object without using any gadget at hand.
70. I enjoy making models of objects.
71. I believe that learning is acquiring accepted truths than re-thinking knowledge in our
own terms.
72. I make sure I finish what I am supposed to say before others get their way.
73. I am not likely to pinpoint the damage that occurs in an appliance if it is broken.
74. I enjoy teaching people who have difficulty in problem solving.
75. I easily believe in what authority figure is saying about things.
76. I can tell other people to stop if they are annoying me.
77. I am likely to estimate the velocity of a moving car when I cross the street.
78. I can easily visualize how a machine works.
79. I discern first on my own before consulting with others.
80. I cannot tolerate accepting rules and policies that are flawed.
81. I do not know the brand of appliances that are durable.
82. I am able to translate my imagination into physical objects.
83. I believe that students learn best if they agree with authority.
84. I can tactfully express my disagreement with the opinions of others without hurting
their feelings.
85. I am less likely to improvise tools when building objects.
86. I had great fun with playing building blocks when I was young.
87. I am confident that the directions I give are correct.
88. I enjoy arguing with others when necessary.
89. I tend to predict the outcome of events using fundamental principles in engineering.
90. I enjoy solving brainteasers and jig-saw puzzles.
91. I feel that my personal opinion in an issue does not count at all.
92. I can easily tell others what I feel about them even at the expense of their feelings.
93. There are a lot of broken objects in our house because I cannot easily remedy them.
94. I enjoy looking for various ways to solve a problem.

95. I make firm goals and decisions to obtain success in my chosen career.
96. I can confidently answer questions to prove my stand on certain issues.
97. I find it easy to detect problems in defective appliances.
98. I like assessing the designs of engineers.
99. I believe that teachers and students do not need to have an academic discourse in
the classroom.
100. I can easily voice out my opinion regarding a matter even to people of authority.
101. I am least likely consulted by my relatives on any building construction.
102. I enjoy solving word problems.
103. I fully trust my abilities in doing certain tasks.
104. I can point out the mistakes of others without hurting their feelings.
105. I like to fix defective objects in the house.
106. I enjoy using quantitative approaches in solving problems.
107. I enjoy solving problems without doubt in producing excellent solutions.
108. I can advice anyone to go straight to the point when engaging in a discussion with
me.
109. It is unlikely for me to remedy water leaks from the ceiling during heavy rains.
110. I am interested to know how each of my body systems work.
111. I can finish a task by myself.
112. I easily get frustrated when I am not given the chance to talk.
113. I am least likely expected to fix anything that goes wrong with our electricity.
114. I enjoy using various softwares in solving a problem.
115. I love to solve mathematical problems by myself.
116. I take pride in my accomplishments.
117. I am likely to cut the pizza pie evenly across its radius.
118. I like creating computer programs that efficiently handle tasks that are time-
consuming.
119. I enjoy reasoning out technically with others.
120. I am too dependent upon the opinions of others.
121. I tend to calculate the amount of calories that I can burn after each meal.
122. I enjoy using mathematical equations for varied purposes.
123. I can decide on my own during critical circumstances.
124. I can easily discuss my ideas without showing disrespect with people of authority.
125. I have little concern over the problems of the country’s housing industry.
126. I can easily detect any malfunction of a machine.
127. I take chances and probabilities to pursue my idea even without the help of others.
128. I cannot easily accept the viewpoints of others.
129. I am inclined to approximate the amount of heat required in cooking foods.
130. I enjoy crossword puzzles.
131. I believe that I have the competency of an engineering course.
132. I tend to beat around the bush when I express my ideas.
133. I am most likely the “handyman” at home.
134. I find thinking “out of the box” difficult to do.
135. I am certain I get a high score in a math intelligence test.
136. I get discouraged if my opinion is not solicited by my peers.
137. I do not know how to use a variety of tools in the house.
138. I dislike explaining things in a scientific manner.
139. I assess the accuracy of facts before I accept them.
140. I love to argue just for the sake of argument.
141. I know the good materials needed in constructing durable objects.
142. I know that through scientific reasoning, I can speculate how the world works.
143. I conduct my own inquiry to find the truthfulness of things.
144. I easily accept ideas at face value rather than ask more questions about them.
145. I am not relied on to help build things in the house.
146. I enjoy following step-by-step procedure in completing tasks.
147. I love to explore multiple sources to verify a fact.

148. I can easily tell my superiors if I cannot tackle a task long before they would discover
that have not done anything about it.
149. I most likely know how durable a material is by its mere look and appearance.
150. I like generating conclusions using accurate facts.
151. I believe that conclusions are valid only when based upon scientific observations.
152. I just keep quiet when someone argues with me.
153. I do not know what to do with the car when it suddenly stops while driving.
154. I love doing tasks that engage me to use various strategies.
155. I think that the scientific method is the most accurate way in arriving at new
knowledge.
156. I say things in my mind even at the expense of hurting others.
157. I like to handle building tents during outings and picnics.
158. I enjoy playing with magic cubes.
159. I support conclusions that I deduced from accurate evidences.
160. I can argue with anyone that women can be good engineers.
161. I have little involvement in planning our house renovation/
162. I love solving puzzles and mazes.
163. I believe that the teacher is the ultimate source of knowledge.
164. I get easily overwhelmed when caught in a crowd of opposing ideas.
165. I can easily operate new appliances in the house without reading their manuals first.
166. I hate scrutinizing every detail of things.
167. I do not resist tradition even when it hinders my development.
168. I feel uncomfortable facing others whom I know do not like my ideas.
169. I am less likely expected to fix a busted faucet or a shower.
170. I love watching suspense and defective films.
171. I hate teachers that discourage students from arguing with their ideas in class.
172. I am described to be straight forward even with people whom I seldom deal with.
173. I tend to inspect the drainage outside the house after a heavy rain.
174. I love to explore on new computer softwares.
175. I challenge others to change their predetermined roles to produce alternative ones.
176. I stand out in a crowd because of the brilliant ideas I give.
177. I do not tend to keep scrap materials for future use.
178. I do not enjoy building systems on how things work.
179. I love to argue with others especially with people of authority.
180. I rather keep quiet when facing an uncomfortable situation than speaking up my
mind.
181. I can use varied ways to fix clogged water drains.
182. I love science subjects.
183. I am not comfortable to be working in a team.
184. I love to hear from others what they think about my ideas.
185. I can jumpstart an object if there is faulty wiring.
186. I hate to assemble objects.
187. I prefer to work on my own before I get derailed with the inefficiency of others.
188. I speak up what easily comes to my mind without considering the feelings of others.
189. I am unlikely to be approached in operating electronic devices.
190. I enjoy playing chess.
191. I like teachers who know how to facilitate learning in the classroom.
192. I have difficulty in telling others what I feel when I am in am uncomfortable situation.
193. I am expected to demonstrate the operation of any electronic devices.
194. I enjoy watching movies that require me to analyze the story.

In Search For Qualified Engineers: Construction of The Best Engineering Traits (BET) Inventory

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

In Search For Qualified Engineers: Construction of The Best Engineering Traits (BET) Inventory

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Running Head: Best Engineering Traits

In Search for Qualified Engineers: Construction of the

Best Engineering Traits (BET) Inventory

De La Salle University – Manila

In Search for Qualified Engineers: Construction of the Best Engineering Traits

The role of engineers has much relevance in contributing to the growth

of big infrastructures such as buildings, roads, and machineries. Although

civil engineers. Civil engineers can address problems related to housing,

infrastructure, flooding, water crisis, pollution, urban traffic, and disaster

structural engineering, construction technology and management, hydraulics and

water resources engineering, transportation engineering, and geotechnical

engineering. In order to succeed in the field of civil engineering one needs to

have a sufficient background in mathematics, physical and natural sciences.

Higher Education’s (CHED) national survey on graduates from across the

the degrees taken by many of the almost 1M new engineering graduates in

graduates were qualified to be a little more than technicians. In proportion to its

this demand on engineers, the skills necessary to be a qualified engineer needs

There is a need to construct a battery of measures that can validly screen

the Philippine Regulation Commission (PRC) screens engineers qualified to

practice the profession by passing the licensure examination. All technical

institutes in India administer the Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering (GATE),

of standard-based measures especially in the field of engineering. The purpose

of this study is to construct a battery of measures to screen in students who are

take the engineering course.

The Civil Engineering Curriculum

Civil Engineering is comprised of different specializations that include

structural engineering, construction technology and management, hydraulics and

water resources engineering, transportation engineering, and geotechnical

Structural Engineering. This field provides technical support in the

infrastructure development. There is opportunity for students to be trained in the

planning, analysis, design, construction, inspection, rehabilitation, and

preservation of structures which includes residential and office buildings, bridges,

and timber, taking into consideration technical, economic, environmental, and

social aspects (DLSU-Manila Webpage, 2006).

Construction Technology and Management. This field prepares students

for the effective planning and implementation of construction projects by giving

them basic knowledge of construction materials and technology, and project

management concepts. Project management includes topics in plans and

specifications, cost engineering, accounting, and organization. The program also

estimating, bidding, marketing, business organization, economics, and strategy

Hydraulics and Water Resources Engineering. This field responds to the

encompassing the following major sub-fields: analysis of water occurrences and

flows, control of water, utilization of water, water quality analysis, watershed

management and planning, and sedimentation in channels (DLSU-Manila

Transportation Engineering. This field produces transportation and

highway engineers who can provide technical support in the government’s

program of improving and expanding the transportation system and

and harbors. It addresses issues related to transport planning, urban traffic

engineering and management, and the design and construction of road

pavements (DLSU-Manila Webpage, 2006).

Geotechnical Engineering. This field focuses on the study of the

principles of soil mechanics in terms of physical properties, stability, flow of water

in soils, settlements, deformations, bearing capacities, and the relationship to the

analysis and design of foundations. It aims to develop Geotechnical Engineers

of structures. A graduate in this program is expected to provide sound technical

advice in arriving at a safe, economical, and practical design of foundations

(DLSU-Manila Webpage, 2006).

The exemplified curriculum in civil engineering of different universities are

reviewed to show the benchmarks on training different students who would be

to prepare the student for a productive career in government or the private

sound foundation in basic sciences and mathematics, followed by courses in

professional learning. Engineering courses and laboratories provide an

opportunity for students to experience those principles and standard practices