Mathematics Education Research Journal

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-023-00474-w

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Mathematics identity instrument development for fifth

through twelfth grade students

Jennifer D. Cribbs1 · Juliana Utley1

Received: 13 October 2022 / Revised: 11 August 2023 / Accepted: 15 August 2023

© The Author(s) 2023

Abstract
Given the importance of mathematics identity for students continued participation
and engagement with mathematics, it is important for educators and researchers to
be able to explore students’ mathematics identity development. However, an instru-
ment with validity evidence that can be used to explore mathematics identity effi-
ciently and with groups of students is not currently available. This article draws on
prior research to test and validate items for a mathematics identity instrument to
be used with fifth through twelfth grade students. This study includes 1559 partici-
pants from two school districts in a midwestern state in the USA. Analysis includes
assessing four components of validity including content validity, internal structure,
relationship to other variables, and generalization. Findings provide evidence for
the reliability and validity of the items in the mathematics identity scale, giving
researchers and educators a way to explore this construct efficiently.

Keywords Mathematics identity · Middle grades · High school · Factor analysis

Research has increasingly highlighted the importance of mathematics identity on

students’ future goals and academic outcomes. For example, in a longitudinal study
with high school students conducted by Bohrnstedt et al. (2021), mathematics iden-
tity was found to be positively correlated with mathematics achievement. Other
research (e.g., Cribbs et al., 2016, 2020; Godwin et al., 2016) has repeatedly shown
that mathematics identity is a strong predictor for students’ career choice in a variety
of STEM fields, such as engineering, mathematics, and science. Given how strongly
mathematics identity connects to these student outcomes, developing a measure

* Jennifer D. Cribbs
[email protected]
Juliana Utley
[email protected]
1
School of Teaching, Learning & Educational Sciences, Oklahoma State University, 237 Willard
Hall, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 J. D. Cribbs, J. Utley

to use with middle grades and high school students could provide educators and
researchers with an efficient method of exploring mathematics identity in school or
informal classroom settings. Lutovac and Kaasila (2019) noted that work in teacher
identity could be extended by using both qualitative and quantitative approaches,
providing “a more versatile view of the phenomenon, as well as a greater gener-
alization of findings (Kelle & Buchholtz, 2015)” (p. 513). This is also the case for
research on learner identity, where researchers could extend work in the field by
using both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Additionally, having a meas-
ure for learner identity could be used to explore connections between learner and
teacher identity. However, an instrument with validity evidence is not yet available
for researchers to use for these purposes. The few quantitative studies on the topic
have either used items from the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Pro-
gress) data or researcher-designed assessment items, neither with validity or reliabil-
ity evidence for the measure being reported (Bohrnstedt et al., 2020, 2021; Ingels
et al., 2011; Lesko & Corpus, 2006). There is an existing mathematics identity
measure that has validity and reliability evidence, but these items were developed
for and have been validated with undergraduate students enrolled in single-variable
calculus (Cribbs et al., 2015).
Given the employment needs in STEM areas, the focus on persistence in STEM
careers such as in computer and mathematical science is important and is projected
to be one of the fastest growing fields in the USA from 2021 to 2031 (U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 2022). Other countries are seeing similar demands for STEM
workers, with the Department of Employment, Skills, Small and Family Busi-
ness (2019) predicting significant employment growth for professionals, particu-
larly with software and applications programmers. Likewise, it is anticipated that
Europe will have seven million STEM job openings by 2025 (Women in Aerospace
Europe, 2021). Along with the financial opportunities provided to individuals pursu-
ing these fields, developing a strong mathematics identity is important for students’
daily lives. Organizations such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
(NCTM) have made this point evident, stating, “those who understand and can do
mathematics will have significantly enhanced opportunities and options for shaping
their futures” (NCTM, 2000, p. 5). NCTM’s increased focus of mathematics identity
development for K-12 students was also made evident in a position statement noting
that “the NCTM Board has officially reframed its enquiry work to focus on Access,
Equity and Empowerment to capture the critical constructs of students’ mathemati-
cal identities, sense of agency, and social justice” (Larson, 2016, para. 5). This focus
was further supported in the Catalyzing Change series (NCTM, 2018a, b, c), which
highlights the essential role of mathematics identity and mathematical agency on
students learning. Additionally, the new NCTM accreditation standards for the
preparation of secondary mathematics teachers requires evidence from teacher can-
didates that demonstrates they understand a teacher’s impact on students’ mathe-
matical identities and can plan instruction to support positive identity development
(NCTM, 2020). The increased focus on developing productive mathematics identi-
ties for K-12 students is a byproduct of decades of research noting that how students
view themselves as a “mathematics person” has a significant role on their participa-
tion and future engagement with mathematics (Boaler & Greeno, 2000; Boaler &

13
Mathematics identity instrument development for fifth through…

Selling, 2017). In addition, research notes that what occurs in the classroom can
influence students’ mathematics identity development (Cribbs et al., 2020; Bishop,
2012; Cobb et al., 2009).
An instrument with supporting validity and reliability evidence could provide
an efficient method of exploring mathematics identity in informal and formal set-
tings for educators and researchers. In addition, in a review of research on learner
mathematics identity, Radovic et al. (2018) noted the relatively limited number of
studies exploring identity with middle school students (n = 8, 12%) in comparison
to other areas of research. However, research notes the importance of this stage in
students’ schooling, finding the largest drop in students’ attitude and interest toward
mathematics (Harter, 1981; Marsh, 1989) as well as the predictive nature of stu-
dents’ career goals to them ultimately complete a STEM degree (Maltese & Tai,
2011). With evidence of other affective measures for mathematics declining over
this period of students schooling, we might anticipate a similar decline in identity as
well. Given the importance of mathematics identity as well as the pivotal time the
middle grades are to students schooling, having a validated instrument to use by the
field would provide opportunities to assess students’ mathematics identity over this
time, particularly to align potential interventions or to test programs and interven-
tions being used in these settings. Currently, there are limited validated measures
for mathematics identity. The few quantitative measures available in the field either
do not provide validity evidence or were validated with a different population. For
example, Bohrnstedt et al. (2020, 2021) used a measure for mathematics identity,
but provided no supporting validity evidence for this measure. Kaspersen and Ytter-
haug (2020) created a measure for mathematics identity with supporting validity
evidence. However, this study used a different framework for their study (personal
mathematics identity), and did not include the same population, starting with 8th
graders, and was conducted in Norway. Calls from the field note a need to make
transparent validity evidence associated with measures being used and/or developed
(Bostic et al., 2019a, b). Furthermore, Graven and Heyd-Metzuyanim (2019) indi-
cated that all but two studies in their review of literature on mathematics learner
identity had eight or less participants, noting a gap in the literature with larger sam-
ple sizes. The current study proposes to fill these gaps in the literature through the
development of a mathematics identity instrument for 5th–12th grade students.

Theoretical framework

The ways in which mathematics identity is defined and operationalized in prior

research differ greatly and depend on the perspectives and approaches of the
researchers conducting the studies (Cribbs et al., 2020; Darragh, 2016; Graven
& Heyd-Metzuyanim, 2019; Radovic et al., 2018). For instance, researchers have
framed their work based on figured worlds (Holland & Lave, 2001), discourse
(Sfard & Prusak, 2005), and social factors, such as race (Larnell, 2016; Martin,
2000, 2006). These different settings and ways of conceptualizing the construct are
not mutually exclusive, but often overlap (Bishop, 2012), as seems inevitable when
investigating a complex concept in what is often a messy and dynamic environment,

13
 J. D. Cribbs, J. Utley

such as the classroom. These varied perspectives provide nuanced pictures of stu-
dents’ mathematics identity, but not necessarily the entire picture of students’ iden-
tity development as this would be informed by the specific approach taken. In addi-
tion to providing a way to understand how and why students position themselves in
the classroom in certain ways, the concept of mathematics identity helps us better
understand why students may or may not want to pursue mathematics (Cribbs et al.,
2020; Boaler & Greeno, 2000).
For the purpose of our work, we are situated explicitly within the theoreti-
cal perspective of core identity (Cobb & Hodge, 2011; Gee, 2001). Core identity
reflects an individual’s more enduring sense of identity. Drawing from this perspec-
tive, identity is viewed as a “thickening” process as described by Holland and Lave
(2001), “The person is necessarily ‘spread’ over the social environment, becoming
in substance a collection point of socially situated and culturally interpreted experi-
ences. And herein lie important sources of stability and thickening” (p. 19). Through
this perspective, it is anticipated that individuals accumulate experiences that inform
how they see themselves and that over time this sense of self becomes more stable.
Aligned to this perspective, we define mathematics identity as how individuals see
themselves in relation to mathematics, based upon their perceptions and navigation
of everyday experiences with mathematics (Enyedy et al., 2006). This definition
captures an essential aspect of examining identity as a self-perception. As Boaler
and Greeno (2000) stated that “what happens in mathematics classrooms matters
less within representations of figured worlds than the teachers’ and students’ per-
ceptions of what happens” (p. 189). Their statement highlights the importance of
capturing students’ perceptions about their own identity. In addition, our defini-
tion captures the significance of everyday, accumulating experiences in informing
an individuals’ mathematics identity development, which aligns to conceptualizing
identity as a process of thickening over time.
In terms of how mathematics identity is operationalized, we draw on the theo-
retical underpinnings of core identity. From this perspective, we explore how iden-
tity influences individuals’ long-term engagement and decisions related to mathe-
matics. For example, Carlone and Johnson (2007) noted that there were particular
aspects that contributed to women of color’s science identity as they transitioned
through college into science-related careers, finding three constructs which were
important to their participants science identity development: recognition, compe-
tence, and performance. However, Hazari and her colleagues (2010) endeavored
to draw on Carlone and Johnson’s (2007) work as well as Social Cognitive Career
Theory (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Lent et al., 1994, 1996) to examine physics iden-
tity as a measure of persistence in the field. In shifting this perspective, interest
was added as a fourth component of identity development. It is from these stud-
ies as well as prior studies in mathematics identity (Cribbs et al., 2015) that we
developed the four sub-factors of mathematics identity. Other work also supports
the inclusion of these factors for mathematics identity. For example, when asking
undergraduate students what it means to be a “math person,” the highest percentage
of responses indicated they view mathematics identity to be connected to interest,
competence, and performance (Cribbs et al., 2022). In addition, that study found
that students who lacked recognition by their teachers in particular self-reported a

13
Mathematics identity instrument development for fifth through…

lower mean for mathematics identity, highlighting the important role of recognition
(Cribbs et al., 2022). Reflecting on how we define mathematics identity, the four
sub-factors provide a picture of the perceptions individuals are reflecting on when
considering what it means to be a “math person.” Additionally, individuals reflect-
ing on their experiences are able to provide examples of how the experiences have
informed their identity (Cribbs et al., 2022). Prior work using a similar framework
(Cribbs et al., 2016, 2020; Godwin et al., 2016) provides evidence that the measure
is aligned to the core identity framework and can be used as a way of exploring
student persistence or engagement in the field. Other identity work notes the pow-
erful role of identity, finding that identity mediates between other affective meas-
ures (e.g., mathematics mindset, mathematics anxiety, self-efficacy) and student
outcomes (e.g., career interest, achievement; Cribbs et al., 2020; Bohrnstedt et al.,
2020; Stets et al., 2017). These four factors (interest, recognition, competence,
and performance) serve as sub-constructs of the mathematics identity scale, and
together provide a picture of an individual’s sense of self as it relates to the content.
Additionally, it is important to understand how each of these sub-constructs is
defined and situated within prior research. First, interest is defined as a student’s
desire or curiosity to think about and learn mathematics. Research has noted the
importance of interest on students’ attention (Harackiewicz, et. al., 2016), academic
motivation (Ainley, 1998), career choice (Lent et al., 2008; Renninger & Hidi, 2016;
Su et al., 2009), and identity (Mangu et al., 2015; Renninger, 2009). Next, recogni-
tion is defined as how students view themselves and how they perceive others to
view them in relation to mathematics. This sub-construct is consistent with how
other researchers have discussed mathematics identity indicating that “It [mathemat-
ics identity] also encompasses how others ‘construct’ us in relation to mathemat-
ics” (Martin, 2006, p. 2006). Expressing whether or not they are a math person is
a commonly used expression individuals use to discuss their own sense of identity.
Wang and Hazari (2018) found that the ways teachers used explicit and implicit rec-
ognizing strategies in the classroom influenced high school students’ physics iden-
tity. Students recognizing themselves as “good at mathematics” is also important
to student mathematics identity development (Darragh, 2015). Parents also inform
how students see themselves, with research noting the parents’ mathematics anxi-
ety and beliefs about mathematics influences their children’s mathematics attitudes
(Gunderson et al., 2012). Other research also supports the importance of recognition
finding it was a stronger predictor of mathematics identity than interest or compe-
tence/performance (Cribbs et al., 2015). Lastly, competence is defined as students’
beliefs about their ability to understand mathematics, and performance is defined
as their beliefs about their ability to perform in mathematics. Both competence and
performance are linked to self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997), which prior research has
shown to be linked to one’s identity (Hazari et al., 2010).
Prior research with this framework found that competence and performance load
together (Cass et al., 2011). While items for measuring mathematics identity using
this framework have been validated with undergraduate students (Cribbs et al., 2015),
they have not been validated with K-12 students. Additionally, much research in this
area has taken a narrative approach (Radovic et al., 2018; Hernandez-Martinez et al.,
2011), focused on a small group of participants (Smith, 2010), or has used a measure

13
 J. D. Cribbs, J. Utley

that has no validity or reliability evidence provided (Bohrnstedt et al., 2020, 2021;
Ingels et al., 2011). Thus, the current research project is focused on validating items
to measure 5th–12th grade students’ mathematics identity. The research question for
this study is: What are the psychometric properties for the Mathematics Identity scale
for grades 5–12?

Methods

This study employed a survey design, collecting data with a large sample (N = 1559)
of 5th–12th grade students at one point in time. The survey included items related to
student demographics (e.g., age, grade level), two open-ended items related to math-
ematics identity (not analyzed as part of the current paper), and questions for seven
different constructs (e.g., mathematics identity, mathematics anxiety).

Development of mathematics identity instrument

The development of the mathematics identity instrument was guided by the Stand-
ards for Educational and Psychological Measurement in Education (AERA, APA,
& NCME, 2014) and associated literature in mathematics education (Bostic et al.,
2019a), which provide clear guidelines for how researchers can provide validity
and reliability evidence for instrument development. In drafting items for the math-
ematics identity scale, prior items validated for use with undergraduate students
were used (Cribbs et al., 2015). That instrument consisted of 11 items using a Lik-
ert scale (1: strongly disagree; 5: strongly agree) and was composed of the three
sub-constructs of mathematics identity (interest, recognition, and competence/per-
formance) as detailed in the theoretical framework. However, it was important to
establish validity and reliability evidence for the population of interest. For example,
it is anticipated that children and adults might have differing reading levels, so it
was important to assess the readability and clarity of items developed for 5th–12th
grade students. There had also been considerable time since the last instrument was
developed, so a review of mathematics identity literature (e.g., Aguirre et al., 2013;
Bishop, 2012; Darragh & Radovic, 2018) was an important step when considering
drafting additional or revised items for the scale. The additional items considered
for the scale were intended to capture other potential sources of recognition, adding
an item related to recognition from friends to the measure given the role that peer
groups play in adolescents’ perceptions (Schunk & Meece, 2006). In addition, with
the prior instrument, competence and performance loaded as one factor (Cass et al.,
2011). However, we wanted to consider these constructs individually in our study
rather than assume they loaded together for this population as prior qualitative work
distinguishes between the constructs (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). For this reason,
we added additional competence and performance items to be sure they would have
at least 3 items needed to determine if they would load as separate factors with our
target sample. The next steps in the instrument development process are summarized
in Table 1 and described in more detail in the data analysis section. There are four

13
Mathematics identity instrument development for fifth through…

Table 1  Summary of validity Form of validity Evidence

evidence in the current study
Content validity • Expert panel content review
• Readability analysis
Internal structure • Correlation analysis
• Exploratory factor analysis
• Confirmatory factor analysis
Relationship to other variables • Correlation test
Generalization • Internal consistency

sources of validity addressed in this study (content validity, internal structure, rela-
tionship to other variables, and generalization) aligned to the guidelines provided in
the literature (AERA, APA, & NCME, 2014; Bostic et al., 2019a). Each source of
validity includes one or more components of evidence.

Measure used for validity evidence

As part of validity evidence in this study, mathematics anxiety was used as evidence
of a relationship between mathematics identity and a related construct. Given that
both mathematics identity and mathematics anxiety are predictive of similar out-
comes (e.g., mathematics achievement; Bohrnstedt et al., 2021; Donolato et al.,
2020) and correlated with similar constructs (e.g., self-efficacy; Bohrnstedt et al.,
2020; Huang et al., 2019), it is not surprising to find that these constructs are also
correlated with each other. This relationship has previously been established, with
one study finding that students’ mathematics anxiety was predictive of their math-
ematics identity (Cribbs et al., 2021). That study also found mathematics identity
was a full mediator for mathematics anxiety in predicting student’s STEM career
interest. Literature notes the potential connection between domain-specific anxiety
or stress and identity threat, indicating that self-perceptions in mathematics related
to the level of mathematics-specific stress students reported (Ramirez et al., 2017).
The modified Abbreviated Math Anxiety Scale (mAMAS; Carey et al., 2017) is
a self-report 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (low anxiety) to 5 (high anxi-
ety) indicating how anxious they felt during a variety of situations. The mAMAS
consists of nine items on two subscales: Learning Math Anxiety (LMA; 5 items)
and Mathematics Evaluation Anxiety (MEA; 4 items). Illustrative items are Starting
a new topic in math (LMA) and Taking a math test (MEA). Using a Cronbach alpha
analysis, Carey and colleagues (2017) found good internal consistency for the scale
overall (0.85), Learning Math Anxiety subscale (0.77), and Mathematics Evaluation
Anxiety subscale (0.79).

Participants and data collection

Researchers collaborated with educators in two large school districts to collect

data for this study, which occurred in the spring semester of 2022. These two
districts were chosen based on student demographics and prior relationships

13
 J. D. Cribbs, J. Utley

researchers had with these districts. One suburban district had demographics
representative of the overall student demographics for the state, while the sec-
ond large district was located in a rural area with a higher Native American
student population than the overall state demographics. Students in 5th and 6th
grades in one district completed a paper version of the survey, while all other
students in both districts completed an online survey via Qualtrics. The survey
was administered in either the students’ advisory (non-content-based class for
student advising purposes) or mathematics class. Teachers handed out the survey
or provided students with the survey link, read a script prepared by the research
team to students, provided students with an opportunity to review an assent form,
and provided time in the class for students to complete the survey. Paper sur-
veys were collected by a district contact, which was later collected by a research
team member. A total of 1655 completed surveys were received. After reviewing
the data set and removing anomalous responses (e.g., participants who answered
all Likert-type questions the same) and participants missing a substantial number
of responses (e.g., no responses on Likert-type questions), the sample size was
1559. In order to conduct the necessary analysis in this study, the sample was
split. This process involved grouping participants by grade level, then gender, and
then race to ensure representation across both samples. At that point, every other
participant was pulled to be added to a separate dataset. Table 2 provides an over-
view of the sample size and demographic information for both of these datasets
providing evidence of similar demographics across the two datasets.

Table 2  Summary demographic for EFA and CFA samples

EFA CFA EFA CFA

N 780 779 Race

Gender White (%) 55.4 55.7
Male (%) 47.2 44.0 Native American and White (%) 17.1 16.8
Female (%) 50.0 53.6 American Indian/Native American (%) 7.6 7.2
Other (%) 1.8 1.7 Multicultural (%) 5.7 6.0
Not specified (%) 1.0 1.7 Uncertain (%) 5.3 5.3
Age range 10–19 9–18 Black/African American (%) 3.7 3.3
Grade level African American and White (%) 2.6 2.6
5th (%) 17.2 17.2 Asian (%) 2.4 2.6
6th (%) 12.7 12.8 Other (%) 0.6 0.9
7th (%) 10.3 10.3 Hispanic (% Yes) 20.3 19.1
8th (%) 11.2 11.0
9th (%) 11.5 11.7
10th (%) 20.6 20.5
11th (%) 10.9 10.9
12th (%) 5.5 5.5

13
Mathematics identity instrument development for fifth through…

Data analysis

In order to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Mathematics Identity scale

for 5th–12th grade students, analysis aligned to each associated form of validity as
shown in Table 1 was conducted. The three identity experts provided qualitative
feedback on the instrument. The readability analysis was conducted through infor-
mal interviews with four children (one for each grade level from 5 to 8th grade) as
they completed the survey, and a readability analysis was done using by calculat-
ing the Flesch reading ease and Flesch-Kincaid grade level indicator (Kincaid et al.,
1975). All other analyses were conducted using R statistical software package (ver-
sion 4.1.2).
After determining that the missing data was missing completely at random, simple
random imputation (also known as hot deck imputation) was performed, which is a
better alternative to listwise or mean imputation (Schlomer et al., 2010) and is appro-
priate for relatively large sample sizes with less than 20% missing responses (Stavs-
eth et al., 2019). The current dataset has a sufficiently large sample size and less than
2% missing responses for all variables included in the study, making simple random
imputation suitable. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to explore the inter-
nal structure of instrument items. Promax rotation was used for both EFA as it is
theorized that the items are correlated. Analysis also included calculating overall cor-
relations between items, Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure, Bartlett’s test of sphericity,
item-total correlations, and parallel analysis (Horn, 1965). Confirmatory factor analy-
sis (CFA) was performed using the final model from the EFA. Drawing from litera-
ture, the following fit indices were reported in this study with recommended thresh-
old levels noted in parentheses: (a) NNFI (> 0.90), (b) CFI (> 0.90), (c) RMSEA
(< 0.08), and (d) SRMR (< 0.05) (Awang, 2015; Schumacker & Lomax, 2016).
A correlation test was conducted between the mathematics identity construct
(based on final items from the EFA and CFA) and mathematics anxiety to provide
evidence of a relationship between these variables as noted in prior research (Cass
et al., 2011). Finally, internal consistency was reported for the overall mathematics
identity measure as well as the sub-constructs using Cronbach’s alpha.

Results

Validity evidence from scale content

Expert panel content review

The expert panel consisting of four experts in the area of identity was asked to pro-
vide substantive feedback on instrument items developed for the measure. A brief
summary of the mathematics identity framework was also provided to aid the
experts prior to reviewing the items, with the prompt: Does the proposed Math Iden-
tity questionnaire align with the math identity framework provided? Please provide
us with issues/concerns that we should consider along with constructive ways we

13
 J. D. Cribbs, J. Utley

might address those concerns. In reviewing the instrument items, the panel was
asked to examine.

(a) The wording of each question for clarity and appropriateness for students,
(b) Whether each question accurately reflects the proposed sub-construct as laid out
in the framework, and
(c) For each sub-construct the set of questions as a whole and whether they capture
the sub-construct or whether additional items are needed

Some suggestions were made regarding how items were worded, such as using
“satisfaction” rather than “fulfillment,” which might be a term in which students are
familiar. We also removed a negatively worded item and some additional items that
were redundant, reducing the number of items from 22 to 18.

Readability

Prior to the administration of the mathematics identity scale in this study, four stu-
dents in grades 5, 6, 7, and 8 ranging from below-average to above-average reading
abilities were asked to read and complete the mathematics identity scale. During
this process, readers voiced ideas about their mathematics identity, which matched
their responses on the items. Students did not have issues or concerns regarding the
18 items in the mathematics identity measure, so all items were retained without
any additional revisions to the wording. Additionally, the Flesch reading ease and
Flesch-Kincaid grade level indicator (Kincaid et al., 1975) were calculated. The
Flesch-Kincaid grade level was 3.0. This suggests that students in the third grade or
above could read the mathematics identity scale items with ease. Additionally, the
Flesch reading ease score of 86.0 suggests that the material was easy to read for fifth
graders and above.

Validity evidence from internal structure

Exploratory factor analysis

In order to examine the internal structure of the construct, correlations were cal-
culated between all the variables in the measure. According to Field et al. (2012),
correlations below 0.3, as would be expected if measuring the same construct, and
greater than 0.8, to avoid potential multicollinearity, should be considered for pos-
sible exclusion. As shown in Table 3, there were no correlations less than 0.3. There
were three correlations greater than 0.8. Two of these occurrences were between
interest items with correlations of 0.83 and 0.81. Given that these correlations were
close to 0.8, that reducing the number of items in the sub-construct below four is
not ideal for subsequent analysis, and that the questions were distinct, the decision
was made to keep these items. The third high correlation was between two recog-
nition items. After reviewing the questions and considering the high correlation at
0.85, the decision was made to remove MR 4, reducing the number of items in the

13
 Table 3  Correlations between mathematics identity variables
MI 1 MI 2 MI 3 MI 4 MR 1 MR 2 MR 3 MR 4 MR 5 MC 1 MC 2 MC 3 MC 4 MC 5 MC 6 MC 7 MC 8 MC 9

MI 1 1
MI 2 .83 1
MI 3 .81 .79 1
MI 4 .76 .75 .77 1
MR 1 .68 .67 .72 .74 1
MR 2 .55 .54 .59 .58 .70 1
MR 3 .54 .55 .58 .61 .71 .68 1
MR 4 .58 .58 .58 .59 .73 .72 .85 1
MR 5 .56 .56 .55 .56 .63 .65 .70 .70 1
MC1 .56 .56 .54 .50 .52 .45 .48 .47 .48 1
MC 2 .59 .59 .60 .57 .58 .48 .52 .52 .53 .75 1
Mathematics identity instrument development for fifth through…

MC 3 .50 .50 .53 .53 .52 .43 .47 .44 .43 .64 .74 1
MC 4 .50 .50 .47 .49 .52 .49 .59 .58 .50 .47 .50 .49 1
MC 5 .53 .53 .52 .50 .54 .47 .53 .52 .53 .66 .68 .58 .54 1
MC 6 .55 .55 .50 .50 .50 .46 .51 .48 .51 .60 .67 .58 .55 .68 1
MC 7 .64 .64 .63 .60 .62 .53 .61 .59 .59 .71 .75 .67 .59 .71 .70 1
MC 8 .53 .53 .50 .49 .51 .46 .50 .51 .54 .63 .66 .54 .53 .72 .61 .71 1
MC 9 .60 .60 .63 .60 .66 .57 .59 .59 .56 .64 .71 .66 .54 .68 .63 .77 .65 1

MI mathematics interest, MR mathematics recognition, MC mathematics competence/performance

13
 J. D. Cribbs, J. Utley

sub-construct from five to four. Item-total correlations were also calculated, ranging
from 0.64 to 0.83. Additionally, dropping one of the items from the survey did not
increase the Cronbach alpha, indicating that no additional items should be dropped
based on this analysis.
An EFA was also conducted using promax rotation, as sub-constructs were
hypothesized to be correlated. The sample size of 780 was more than adequate given
the recommendation of 10 to 15 participants per variable (Field et al., 2012). This
guideline would indicate that a minimum sample size of 180 was needed to conduct
the desired analysis. Additionally, a sample size of 500 or greater is considered very
good for conducting factor analysis (Comrey & Lee, 2013). Prior to running the
EFA, sampling adequacy was examined through the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure,
which was 0.96, with individual items at 0.88 to 0.97, well above the recommended
0.5 and considered “marvelous” at or above 0.9 (Kaiser, 1974). Additionally, Bar-
lett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ2 (120) = 11,326, p < 0.001), indicating that
the items are acceptable for conducting the EFA. A Scree plot (see Fig. 1) and paral-
lel analysis determined that three factors should be retained.

Fig. 1  Scree plot for mathematics identity

13
Mathematics identity instrument development for fifth through…

Results of the EFA also support the inclusion of three factors, reported in Table 4.
One item was removed due to crossloading and a low loading score of 0.38 on the factor
it was intended to load onto (excluded from Table 4). After removing this item, 16 items
are included on the scale, with fit indices within recommended levels (Schumacker &
Lomax, 2016) and items having a loading score of 0.56 or greater. Additionally, items
loaded as theorized on the three sub-constructs (interest, recognition, and compe-
tence/performance). The sub-construct interest had the largest percentage of variance
explained at 33%, while recognition and competence/performance explained 21% and
17% of the variance. The three factors explained 71% of the cumulative variance.

Confirmatory factor analysis

CFA was conducted with maximum likelihood estimation. Results indicated that all
items were significant (p < 0.001) and variables loading as expected. Results of the
CFA are shown in Table 5 along with the standardized factor loadings, item reliabil-
ity for indicator variables, fit indices, and construct reliability and average variance
extracted from latent variables. Factor loadings were greater than 0.4, ranging from
0.70 to 0.92. Fit indices provided evidence of a good fit model, χ2 (97) = 399.736,
p < 0.001, TLI = 0.96, CFI = 0.97, RMESA = 0.063, C.I. = 0.057–0.070, SRMR = 0.028.
Item reliability (R2) ranged from 0.48 to 0.84. Chi-square is often significant for large
sample sizes (Schumacker & Lomax, 2016); therefore, other fit indices are used to
assess the model. Convergent validity (level of confidence that the construct is meas-
ured by the variables) was also calculated for each of the factors in the CFA analysis
using Average Variance Extracted (AVE). The AVE for the interest, recognition, and
competence/performance subscales were 0.74, 0.65, and 0.60, respectively, greater than
the acceptable value of 0.5 (Alarcón & Sánchez, 2015). Correlations across items were
0.3 or greater as would be expected. Overall, the CFA results provide evidence of a
good fit model based on the three mathematics identity subscales.

Validity evidence from relationships to other variables

First, the internal consistency was calculated for this administration of the mathematics
anxiety scale which resulted in Cronbach’s alpha of 0.88 for the overall scale, 0.80 for
the LMA subscale, and 0.88 for the MEA subscale. Then, a correlation test was con-
ducted between mathematics identity and mathematics anxiety using Pearson’s correla-
tion coefficient. Results of the correlation test indicated a significantly negative rela-
tionship between the constructs with r = −0.36, p < 0.001. This finding is consistent
with prior research noting a negative relationship between mathematics identity and
mathematics anxiety (Cribbs et al., 2021).

Internal consistency

A measure of internal consistency for the EFA sample was calculated for the Math-
ematics Identity scale and each of its subscales. For the overall scale, the internal
consistency using Cronbach’s alpha for the overall scale was 0.96. The internal

13
 Table 4  EFA results for mathematics identity (N = 780)

13
Latent variable Survey item Factor 1 loading Factor 2 loading Factor 3 loading

Interest (%VE = 33) I enjoy learning math .88

Math is interesting .88
I look forward to taking math .84
I find satisfaction in doing math .73
Recognition (%VE = 21) I see myself as a math person .56
My family sees me as a math person .79
My classmates see me as a math person .87
My teacher sees me as a math person .70
Competence/performance (%VE = 17) I understand the math I have studied .84
I feel confident that I can understand math in school .88
I feel confident that I can understand math outside of school .73
I can do well on math tests .83
I can overcome setbacks in math .73
I am good at solving math problems .76
I can get good grades in math .76
Doing math is easy for me .63
Index Actual Recommended
RMSR .02 < .05
RMSEA .07 .05 to .08
TLI .96 > .95

VE variance explained, RMSR root mean square residuals, RMSEA root mean square error of approximation, TLI Tucker-Lewis index
J. D. Cribbs, J. Utley
 Table 5  CFA results for mathematics identity (N = 779)
Latent variable Survey item Std. loading Item rel Fact. rel Avg. var. ext

Interest I enjoy learning math .92 .84 .93 .74

Math is interesting .88 .77
I look forward to taking math .88 .78
I find satisfaction in doing math .82 .67
Recognition I see myself as a math person .89 .78 .89 .63
My family sees me as a math person .78 .61
My classmates see me as a math person .78 .61
My teacher sees me as a math person .85 .73
Competence/performance I understand the math I have studied .75 .56 .93 .61
I feel confident that I can understand math in school .81 .66
I feel confident that I can understand math outside of school .70 .49
I can do well on math tests .78 .61
I can overcome setbacks in math .71 .50
Mathematics identity instrument development for fifth through…

I am good at solving math problems .86 .74

I can get good grades in math .76 .58
Doing math is easy for me .81 .66
Model χ2 = 399.74 Df = 97
Null Model χ2 = 10,036.45 Df = 120
TLI = 0.96
CFI = 0.96
RMSEA = 0.063 C.I. = 0.57–0.70
SRMR = 0.028

TLI Tucker-Lewis fit index, CFI comparative fit index, RMSEA root mean square error of approximation, SRMR standardized root mean square residual, CI confidence
interval, DF degrees of freedom

13
 J. D. Cribbs, J. Utley

consistency was 0.94 for the interest subscale, 0.89 for the recognition subscale, and
0.94 for the competence/performance subscale.

Discussion

Prior research has shown that mathematics identity plays an important role in stu-
dents’ career choice (Cribbs et al., 2016, 2020; Boaler & Greeno, 2000; Godwin
et al., 2016), outcomes such as mathematics achievement (Bohrnstedt et al., 2021),
and how students choose to engage with each other and the content in mathematics
classrooms (Bishop, 2012; Esmonde & Langer-Osuna, 2013; Langer-Osuna, 2017).
Evidence from other research notes that mathematics identity has more predic-
tive power on students’ mathematics achievement than other measures (math self-
efficacy and math interest) (Bohrnstedt et al., 2020). A major contribution of this
study is that it fills a gap in the literature. While there is an instrument to measure
undergraduate students’ mathematics identity (Cribbs et al., 2015), we were unable
to locate a validated and published mathematics identity measure for use with stu-
dents in grades 5–12. With the increased focus of mathematics identity as a topic
of study as well as calls, standards, and initiatives aligned to this focus, a measure
to assess and explore mathematics identity with children will benefit the field. This
measure takes a unique approach for how mathematics identity is explored, and with
the inclusion of recognition in the scale, the measure provides a unique perspective
of student perceptions that is not currently included in other measures (e.g., atti-
tudes, beliefs). Hence, we are hopeful that this measure provides a tool for research-
ers to explore the perceived mathematics identity of grades 5–12 students.
As Bostic and Sondergeld (2015) point out, it is critical for mathematics educa-
tion researchers to have “confidence that results from mathematics measures are con-
sistently measuring (reliability evidence) what we expect them to measure (validity
evidence)” (p. 289). Results of this study provide validity evidence for the proposed
mathematics identity measure in four forms: content, internal structure, relation-
ship to other variables, and generalization. Collectively, these four forms of validity
evidence provide converging evidence of adequate psychometric properties for the
16-item Mathematics Identity scale and that the scale is aligned to the theoretical
framework. Additionally, the readability analysis revealed the mathematics identity
scale is appropriate for use with 5th–12th grade students. To further advance research
related to mathematics identity, it is important to have the ability to not only analyze
grades 5–12 mathematics identity using qualitative methods (e.g., interviews) but
also through quantitative methods (e.g., mathematics identity scale).
Results of this study align with results for the mathematics identity measure
used with undergraduate students (Cribbs et al., 2015). Despite designing items on
the measure to consider competence and performance separately, these constructs
loaded as one factor, which is consistent with the previous study conducted with
undergraduate students. One explanation for this result could be that students com-
partmentalize these concepts, seeing competence and performance in mathematics
as synonymous. The current study results are consistent with the conceptual identity
framework from prior identity research with undergraduate students (Cribbs et al.,

13
Mathematics identity instrument development for fifth through…

2015, Godwin et al., 2016; Hazari et al., 2010). One finding of note is the amount
of variance explained from the three sub-factors of mathematics identity. In previ-
ous research with undergraduate students, interest accounted for the smallest per-
centage of cumulative variance explained (18%) and competence performance the
largest (44%; Cass et al., 2011). However, this is the reverse for the current study
with interest at 33% and competence/performance at 17%. This might be evidence
that there is a shifting in what is informing students’ mathematics identity over time
based on the various mathematical experiences accumulated. Better understanding
how these sub-factors of mathematic identity are informing students’ overall math-
ematics identity might inform researchers and educators as they develop methods for
supporting students’ identity development in classrooms, such as the model for sup-
porting mathematics identity proposed by Gresalfi and Hand (2019) or accreditation
standards for teacher practice (NCTM, 2020).

Limitations and suggestions for future research

It is important to note that there are some limitations to this study to keep in mind
when using the measure. First, while the sample was strategically collected across
grade levels and with consideration to demographics, the sample size is not neces-
sarily generalizable across all demographics and regions. For example, the sample
includes a proportionally small percentage of Black/African American students.
As noted by prior research, social and classroom norms as well as racial identity
inform how students see themselves with respect to mathematics (Cobb et al., 2009;
Martin, 2019; Nasir & Shah, 2011; Oyserman & Lewis, 2017). Second, the math-
ematics identity measure only captures students’ perceptions at one point in time.
While the relative stability of mathematics identity for undergraduate students might
be expected (Cribbs et al., 2022), there may be much more fluidity with children
who are still accumulating mathematical experiences in formal and informal spaces
on a daily basis. Future work might explore mathematics identity at various time
intervals throughout students’ schooling to determine how it might change over
time as well as potential factors influencing these changes (e.g., teacher instruction).
Additionally, this study explored mathematics identity through one particular per-
spective, core identity, that does not capture the nuanced picture that might be cap-
tured with other perspectives. Cobb and Hodge (2011) described three constructs
for analyzing students’ mathematics identity: normative, core, and personal. Addi-
tional research in this area might expand the fields’ understanding of mathematics
identity development and extend the work done in this study as well as the work
by the field at large. Finally, Darragh and Radovic (2018) discussed the commonly
agreed on aspects of mathematics learner identity, which are captured within the
measure we created. For example, “learners ways of being in the social activity of
doing mathematics” (p. 2) draws on work such as Gee (2001) and Cobb et al. (2009)
that underpin the theoretical framework used in this study. The aspect of being
recognized by others is also captured in our study as we see recognition as essen-
tial to identity development as well as capturing how individual’s identity is being
socially informed. However, one aspect of mathematics identity that is not included

13
 J. D. Cribbs, J. Utley

in the current study is the concept of multiple identities, such as gender identity or
membership in different communities or groups (Gee, 2001). This aspect of multi-
ple identities has been highlighted in work related to intersectionality (Ibourk et al.,
2022; Leyva, 2017). Although this study does not capture the aspect of multiple
identities, there is potential to explore these multiple identities in future work using
the Mathematics Identity scale.

Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to explore the psychometric properties of the Mathe-
matics Identity scale for grades 5–12. To this end, validation evidence supported the
inclusion of 16 items for the scale. This study adds to the field in several ways. First,
the mathematics identity scale provides an opportunity for mathematics identity to
be explored with larger groups of students and address questions that were poten-
tially challenging prior to having a valid scale for use. In a systematic review of
mathematics identity studies conducted between 2014 and 2018, only two of the 47
studies used quantitative methods (Graven & Heyd-Metzuyanim 2019). Addition-
ally, sample sizes for these studies were small (n ≤ 8) for all except two quantitative
studies. A measure for mathematics identity also provides a way to explore areas
with limited research, such as connections between learner and teacher identities or
teacher practices and mathematics identity development. Researchers and educa-
tors can also use the scale to explore the efficacy of learning activities designed
to support students’ mathematics identity development. Given the important role
that mathematics identity has on students’ future choices (Cribbs et al., 2016, 2020;
Boaler & Greeno, 2000; Boaler & Selling, 2017; Godwin et al., 2016) and outcomes
such as achievement (Bohrnstedt et al., 2021), being able to explore this construct
efficiently with a scale will benefit the field.

Author contribution Both authors substantially contributed to the study design, implementation, analysis,
and writing of this manuscript.

Declarations
Ethics approval IRB approval was attained through Oklahoma State University, IRB-22–78.

Consent to participate A letter of support was received from participating schools, parents were sent an
opt-out email, and participants were provided with a consent form prior to any data collection.

Competing interests The authors have any competing interests.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as
you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is
not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission

13
Mathematics identity instrument development for fifth through…

directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​
licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.

References
Aguirre, J., Mayfield-Ingram, K., & Martin, D. B. (2013). The impact of identity in K-8 mathematics
learning and teaching: Rethinking equity-based practices. NCTM.
Ainley, M. (1998). Interest in learning and the disposition of curiosity in secondary students: Investigat-
ing process and context. In L. Hoffman, A. Krapp, K. A. Renninger, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Interest
and learning: Proceedings of the Seeon conference on interest and gender (pp. 257–266). Kiel, Ger-
many: IPN.
Alarcón, D. & Sánchez, J. A. (2015, October 22). Assessing convergent and discriminant validity in
ADHD-R IV rating scale: User-written commands for Average Variance Extracted (AVE), Compos-
ite Reliability (CR), and Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT). Spanish STATA Meet-
ing. https://​www.​stata.​com/​meeti​ng/​spain​15/​abstr​acts/​mater​ials/​spain​15_​alarc​on.​pdf
American Educational Research Association, Association, A. P., Council, N., & on Measurement in
Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational
Research Association.
Awang, Z. (2015). A handbook on SEM (2nd ed.). Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Worth Publishers.
Bishop, J. P. (2012). “She’s always been the smart one. I’ve always been the dumb one”: Identities in the
mathematics classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43(1), 34–74. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​5951/​jrese​mathe​duc.​43.1.​0034
Boaler, J., & Greeno, J. G. (2000). Identity, agency, and knowing. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspec-
tives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 171–200). Ablex Publishing.
Boaler, J., & Selling, S. K. (2017). Psychological imprisonment or intellectual freedom? A longitudinal
study of contrasting school mathematics approaches and their impact on adults’ lives. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 48(1), 78–105. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5951/​jrese​mathe​duc.​48.1.​
0078
Bohrnstedt, G. W., Cohen, E. D., Yee, D., & Broer, M. (2021). Mathematics identity and discrepancies
between self-and reflected appraisals: Their relationships with grade 12 mathematics achievement
using new evidence from a US national study. Social Psychology of Education, 24(3), 763–788.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11218-​021-​09631-0
Bohrnstedt, G. W., Zhang, J., Park, B. J., Ikoma, S., Broer, M., & Ogut, B. (2020). Mathematics identity,
self-efficacy, interest and their relationships to mathematics achievement: A longitudinal analysis.
In R. Serpe, R. Stryker, & B. Powell (Eds.), Identity and Symbolic Interaction: Deepening Founda-
tions; Building Bridges (pp. 169–210). Springer.
Bostic, J. D., & Sondergeld, T. A. (2015). Measuring sixth-grade students’ problem solving: Validating
an instrument addressing the mathematics common core. School Science and Mathematics, 115(6),
281–291. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​ssm.​12130
Bostic, J., Krupa, E., & Shih, J. (2019a). Quantitative measures of mathematical knowledge: Researching
instruments and perspectives. Routledge.
Bostic, J., Krupa, E., & Shih, J. (2019b). Assessment in mathematics education contexts: Theoretical
frameworks and new directions. Routledge.
Carey, E., Hill, F., Devine, A., & Szucs, D. (2017). The modified abbreviated math anxiety scale: A valid
and reliable instrument for use with children. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(11), Article 11. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​3389/​fpsyg.​2017.​00011
Cass, C., Hazari, Z., Cribbs, J., Sadler, P., & Sonnert, G. (2011). Examining the impact of mathematics
identity on the choice of engineering careers for male and female students. Paper presented at Fron-
tiers in Education Conference, Rapid City, SD.
Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of
color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187–
1218. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​tea.​20237

13
 J. D. Cribbs, J. Utley

Cobb, P., Gresalfi, M., & Hodge, L. L. (2009). An interpretive scheme for analyzing the identities that
students develop in mathematics classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
40(1), 40–68. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5951/​jrese​mathe​duc.​40.1.​0040
Cobb, P., & Hodge, L. L. (2011). Culture, identity, and equity in the mathematics classroom. In E. Yackel,
K. Gravemeijer, & A. Sfard (Eds.), A journey in mathematics education research: Insights from the
work of Paul Cobb (pp. 179–195). Springer. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-​90-​481-​9729-3
Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (2013). A first course in factor analysis. Psychology Press.
Cribbs, J., Hazari, Z., Sadler, P. M., & Sonnert, G. (2015). Establishing an explanatory framework for
mathematics identity. Child Development, 86(4), 1048–1062. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​cdev.​12363
Cribbs, J., Cass, C., Hazari, Z., Sadler, P., & Sonnert, G. (2016). Mathematics and student persistence in
engineering. International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(1), 163–171.
Cribbs, J., Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G., & Sadler, P. (2020). College students’ mathematics-related career
intentions and high school mathematics pedagogy through the lens of identity. Mathematics Educa-
tion Research Journal. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s13394-​020-​00319-w
Cribbs, J., Huang, X., & Piatek-Jimenez, K. (2021). Relations of math mindset, math anxiety, math
identity, and math self-efficacy to STEM career choice: A structural equation modeling approach.
School Science and Mathematics, 121(5), 275–287. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​ssm.​12470
Cribbs, J., Tassell, J., Hazari, Z., Sadler, P., & Sonnert, G. (2022). Unpacking mathematics identity:
Exploring undergraduate students’ enduring experiences. International Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education (RIPEM), 12(2), 68–91. https://​doi.​org/​10.​37001/​ripem.​v12i2.​2923
Darragh, L. (2015). Recognising ‘good at mathematics’: Using a performative lens for identity. Math-
ematics Education Research Journal, 27, 83–102.
Darragh, L. (2016). Identity research in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
93(1), 19–33. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10649-​016-​9696-5
Darragh, L., & Radovic, D. (2018). Mathematics learner identity. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
mathematics education. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Department of Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business. (2019). Employment Outlook to May
2024. Canberra: DESSFB, December. https://​cica.​org.​au/​wp-​conte​nt/​uploa​ds/​Emplo​yment-​Outlo​ok-​
to-​May-​2024.​pdf
Donolato, E., Toffalini, E., Giofrè, D., Caviola, S., & Mammarella, I. C. (2020). Going beyond math-
ematics anxiety in primary and middle school students: The role of ego-resiliency in mathematics.
Mind, Brain, and Education, 14(3), 255–266. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​mbe.​12251
Enyedy, N., Goldberg, J., & Welsh, K. M. (2006). Complex dilemmas of identity and practice. Science
Education, 90(1), 68–93. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​sce.​20096
Esmonde, I., & Langer-Osuna, J. M. (2013). Power in numbers: Student participation in mathematical
discussions in heterogeneous spaces. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(1), 288–
315. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5951/​jrese​mathe​duc.​44.1.​0288
Field, A., Miles, J., & Field, Z. (2012). Discovering statistics using R. Sage.
Gee, J. P. (2001). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education,
25, 99–125. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​11673​22
Godwin, A., Potvin, G., Hazari, Z., & Lock, R. (2016). Identity, critical agency, and engineering: An
affective model for predicting engineering as a career choice. Journal of Engineering Education,
105(2), 312–340. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​jee.​20118
Graven, M., & Heyd-Metzuyanim, E. (2019). Mathematics identity research: The state of the art and
future directions. ZDM, 51(3), 361–377. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11858-​019-​01050-y
Gresalfi, M., & Hand, V. M. (2019). Coordinating situated identities in mathematics classrooms with
sociohistorical narratives: A consideration for design. ZDM, 51(3), 493–504. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s11858-​019-​01034-y
Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2012). The role of parents and teachers in
the development of gender-related math attitudes. Sex Roles, 66(3–4), 153–166. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s11199-​011-​9996-2
Harackiewicz, J. M., Smith, J. L., & Priniski, S. J. (2016). Interest matters: The importance of promoting
interest in education. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(2), 220–227. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1177/​23727​32216​655542
Harter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the classroom: Moti-
vational and informational components. Developmental Psychology, 17(3), 300–312.

13
Mathematics identity instrument development for fifth through…

Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M., & Shanahan, M. C. (2010). Connecting high school physics experi-
ences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 978–1003. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​tea.​20363
Hernandez-Martinez, P., Williams, J., Black, L., Davis, P., Pampaka, M., & Wake, G. (2011). Students’
views on their transition from school to college mathematics: Rethinking ‘transition’ as an issue
of identity. Research in Mathematics Education, 13(2), 119–130. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​14794​802.​
2011.​585824
Holland, D., & Lave, J. (Eds.). (2001). History in person: Enduring struggles, contentious practice, inti-
mate identities. School of American Research Press.
Horn, J. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2),
179–185.
Huang, X., Zhang, J., & Hudson, L. (2019). Impact of math self-efficacy, math anxiety, and growth
mindset on math and science career interest for middle school students: The gender moderat-
ing effect. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 34, 621–640. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10212-​018-​0403-z
Ibourk, A., Hughes, R., & Mathis, C. (2022). “It is what it is”: Using Storied-Identity and intersectional-
ity lenses to understand the trajectory of a young Black woman’s science and math identities. Jour-
nal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(7), 1099–1133.
Ingels, S. J., Pratt, D. J., Herget, D. R., Burns, L. J., Dever, J. A., Ottem, R., Rogers, J. E., Jin, Y., & Leinwand,
S. (2011). High school longitudinal study of 2009 (HSLS:09). Base-Year Data File Documentation (NCES
2011–328). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. http://​nces.​ed.​gov/​pubse​arch
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36.
Kaspersen, E., & Ytterhaug, B. O. (2020). Measuring mathematical identity in lower secondary
school. International Journal of Educational Research, 103, 101620. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijer.​
2020.​101620
Kelle, U., & Buchholtz, N. (2015). The combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods in
mathematics education: A “mixed methods” study on the development of the professional knowl-
edge of teachers. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to qualita-
tive research in mathematics education (pp. 321–361). Springer.
Kincaid, J., Fishburne, R., Rogers, R., & Chissom, B. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas
(automated readability index, fog count and flesch reading ease formula for navy enlisted person-
nel. Research Branch Report 8–75. Millington, TN: Naval Technical Training, U. S. Naval Air Sta-
tion, Memphis, TN.
Langer-Osuna, J. M. (2017). Authority, identity, and collaborative mathematics. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 48(3), 237–247. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5951/​jrese​mathe​duc.​48.3.​0237
Larnell, G. V. (2016). More than just skill: Examining mathematics identities, racialized narratives, and
remediation among black undergraduates. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 47(3),
233–269. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5951/​jrese​mathe​duc.​47.3.​0233
Larson, M. (2016). A renewed focus on access, equity, and empowerment. NCTM. https://​www.​nctm.​
org/​News-​and-​Calen​dar/​Messa​ges-​from-​the-​Presi​dent/​Archi​ve/​Matt-​Larson/​A-​Renew​ed-​Focus-​on-​
Acces​s,-​Equit​y,-​and-​Empow​erment/
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and
academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79–122.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G., et al. (1996). Career development from a social cognitive per-
spective. In D. Brown & L. Brooks (Eds.), Career choice and development (3rd ed., pp. 373–422).
Jossey-Bass.
Lent, R. W., Sheu, H. B., Singley, D., Schmidt, J. A., Schmidt, L. C., & Gloster, C. S. (2008). Longitudi-
nal relations of self-efficacy to outcome expectations, interests, and major choice goals in engineer-
ing students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(2), 328–335. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jvb.​2008.​07.​
005
Lesko, A. C., & Corpus, J. H. (2006). Discounting the difficult: How high math-identified women
respond to stereotype threat. Sex Roles, 54(1), 113–125. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11199-​005-​8873-2
Leyva, L. A. (2017). Unpacking the male superiority myth and masculinization of mathematics at the
intersections: A review of research on gender in mathematics education. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 48(4), 397–433.
Lutovac, S., & Kaasila, R. (2019). Methodological landscape in research on teacher identity in mathemat-
ics education: A review. ZDM, 51, 505–515. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11858-​018-​1009-2

13
 J. D. Cribbs, J. Utley

Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2011). Pipeline persistence: The effects of school experiences on earning
degrees in STEM. Science Education, 95(5), 877–907. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​sce.​20441
Mangu, D. M., Lee, A. R., Middleton, J. A., & Nelson, J. K. (2015). Motivational factors predicting
STEM and engineering career intentions for high school students. In 2015 IEEE Frontiers in Educa-
tion Conference (FIE) (pp. 1–8). IEEE.
Marsh, H. W. (1989). Age and sex effects in multiple dimensions of self-concept: Preadolescence to early
adulthood. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 417–430. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0022-​0663.​
81.3.​417
Martin, D. B. (2000). Mathematics success and failure among African-American youth: The roles of soci-
ohistorical context, community forces, school influence, and individual agency. Erlbaum.
Martin, D. B. (2006). Mathematics learning and participation as racialized forms of experience: Afri-
can American parents speak on the struggle for mathematics literacy. Mathematical Thinking and
Learning, 8(3), 197–229. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1207/​s1532​7833m​tl0803_2
Martin, D. B. (2019). Equity, inclusion, and antiblackness in mathematics education. Race Ethnicity and
Education, 22(4), 459–478. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​13613​324.​2019.​15928​33
Nasir, N. I. S., & Shah, N. (2011). On defense: African American males making sense of racialized nar-
ratives in mathematics education. Journal of African American Males in Education (JAAME), 2(1),
24–45.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics.
Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2018a). Catalyzing change in early childhood and ele-
mentary mathematics: Initiating critical conversations. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2018b). Catalyzing change in middle school mathematics:
Initiating critical conversations. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2018c). Catalyzing change in high school mathematics:
Initiating critical conversations. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2020). Standards for the preparation of secondary math-
ematics teachers. Author.
Oyserman, D., & Lewis, N. A., Jr. (2017). Seeing the destination AND the path: Using identity-based
motivation to understand and reduce racial disparities in academic achievement. Social Issues and
Policy Review, 11(1), 159–194. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​sipr.​12030
Radovic, D., Black, L., Williams, J., & Salas, C. E. (2018). Towards conceptual coherence in the research
on mathematics learner identity: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Studies in Math-
ematics, 99(1), 21–42. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10649-​018-​9819-2
Ramirez, G., McDonough, I. M., & Jin, L. (2017). Classroom stress promotes motivated forgetting of
mathematics knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(6), 812–825. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1037/​edu00​00170
Renninger, K. A. (2009). Interest and identity development in instruction: An inductive model. Educa-
tional Psychologist, 44(2), 105–118. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00461​52090​28323​92
Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2016). The power of interest for motivation and engagement. Routledge.
Schlomer, G. L., Bauman, S., & Card, N. A. (2010). Best practices for missing data management in coun-
seling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(1), 1–10. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0018​
082
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2016). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Law-
rence Erlbaum Associates.
Schunk, D. H., & Meece, J. L. (2006). Self-efficacy development in adolescence. In T. Urdan & F.
Pajares (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 71–96). Information Age Publishing.
Sfard, A., & Prusak, A. (2005). Identity that makes a difference: Substantial learning as closing the gap
between actual and designated identities (pp. 37–52). Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 29th
Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.
Smith, C. (2010). Choosing more mathematics: Happiness through work? Research in Mathematics Edu-
cation, 12(2), 99–115. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​14794​802.​2010.​496972
Stavseth, M. R., Clausen, T., & Røislien, J. (2019). How handling missing data may impact conclusions:
A comparison of six different imputation methods for categorical questionnaire data. SAGE Open
Medicine, 7, 1–12. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​20503​12118​822912
Stets, J. E., Brenner, P. S., Burke, P. J., & Serpe, R. T. (2017). The science identity and entering a science
occupation. Social Science Research, 64, 1–14. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ssres​earch.​2016.​10.​016

13
Mathematics identity instrument development for fifth through…

Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and things, women and people: A meta-analysis of sex
differences in interests. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 859–884. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0017​364
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2022). Employment projections - 2021–2031. (USDL-22–1805) https://​
www.​bls.​gov/​news.​relea​se/​pdf/​ecopro.​pdf
Wang, J., & Hazari, Z. (2018). Promoting high school students’ physics identity through explicit and
implicit recognition. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 14(2), 020111. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1103/​PhysR​evPhy​sEduc​Res.​14.​020111
Women in Aerospace Europe. (2021). STEM education in Europe. Author. https://​www.​wia-​europe.​org/​
wia-e-​worki​ng-​groups-​downl​oad/

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

13