Belief in genetic determinism (BGD) has been associated with increased social stereotyping and prejudicial views and consequently is of significant concern to science educators. The Public Understanding and Attitudes towards Genetics and Genomics (PUGGS) instrument was developed to measure relationships among BGD, genetics knowledge, and demographic variables. PUGGS validity evidence has relied primarily on Classical Test Theory frameworks and Brazilian samples. Using a more advanced psychometric framework (Rasch analysis) and a large North American undergraduate sample (n > 800), we further evaluate validity claims by studying (1) dimensionality and function of PUGGS item sets; (2) magnitudes of item endorsement across human traits (social, biological) and taxonomic (animal, plant) categories; and (3) degree of trait-level genetic overattribution. Similar to Gericke et al. (Sci Educ 26:1223–1259, 2017), we identified a two-dimensional structure for the BGD scale (i.e., social, biological) and the genetics knowledge scale (i.e., gene-environment interactions [GEI], genetics and genomics knowledge [GGK]). However, there were several problems with the functioning of the item sets (e.g., low reliability for GEI, problematic rating scale for BGD biological). We report that the magnitudes of GEI and GGK did not differ by taxonomic context. Finally, genetic over- (and under-) attribution was identified for both biological and social traits, indicating that students harbored considerably diverse and frequently non-normative conceptions about genetic contributions to traits. Importantly, psychometric and theoretical concerns reported here raise questions about the operationalization of the PUGGS BGD construct. Recommendations for PUGGS revisions and educational implications are discussed.

中文翻译：

---

测量遗传决定论的信念：对 PUGGS 仪器的心理测量评估

对遗传决定论 (BGD) 的信仰与社会刻板印象和偏见观点的增加有关，因此受到科学教育者的极大关注。公众对遗传学和基因组学的理解和态度 (PUGGS) 工具旨在衡量 BGD、遗传学知识和人口统计变量之间的关系。PUGGS 有效性证据主要依赖于经典测试理论框架和巴西样本。使用更先进的心理测量框架（Rasch 分析）和大型北美本科生样本（n > 800），我们通过研究（1）PUGGS 项目集的维度和功能来进一步评估有效性声明；(2) 跨人类特征（社会、生物）和分类（动物、植物）类别的项目认可程度；(3)性状水平遗传过度归因的程度。类似于 Gericke 等人。（Sci Educ 26:1223–1259, 2017），我们确定了 BGD 量表（即社会、生物）和遗传学知识量表（即基因-环境相互作用 [GEI]、遗传学和基因组学知识）的二维结构[GGK]）。然而，项目集的功能存在一些问题（例如，GEI 的可靠性低，BGD 生物的评级量表有问题）。我们报告说，GEI 和 GGK 的大小在分类背景下没有差异。最后，确定了生物学和社会特征的遗传过度（和不足）归因，这表明学生对遗传对特征的贡献有着相当多样且经常是非规范的概念。重要的，此处报告的心理测量和理论问题引发了有关 PUGGS BGD 结构的可操作性的问题。讨论了 PUGGS 修订和教育意义的建议。