Validation of the Measure of Peer Argumentive Discourse Style (PADS) in a Science Context: Evidence for the Construct Validity and Reliability

Abstract Scientific argumentation is an important practice for developing scientific literacy. This study provides an exploratory validation of the Peer Argumentive Discourse Style (PADS) measure—originally developed in Hebrew—within an English-speaking science education context. Confirmatory factor analysis of data from 383 U.S. undergraduates supported the original four-factor structure (deliberative argumentation, disputative argumentation, quick consensus-seeking, and private deliberation), with satisfactory model fit and discriminant validity. This finding contrasts with prior cross-disciplinary validation that supported a three-factor structure, underscoring the potential role of disciplinary context in the manifestation of argumentative discourse styles. However, suboptimal convergent validity and reliability—particularly for the quick consensus-seeking and private deliberation subscales—indicate that the PADS remains a developing instrument requiring refinement. These measurement limitations raise questions about whether quick consensus-seeking should be retained as a distinct dimension or whether alternative factor specifications may ultimately prove more robust. The study advances the theoretical understanding of argumentative discourse style as a multifaceted, potentially context-sensitive construct, while acknowledging the need for continued psychometric scrutiny. Future research should prioritize item refinement, systematic comparison of four-factor and three-factor structures, cross-cultural validation, and instructional applications to develop the PADS into a robust tool for both research and the promotion of evidence-based argumentative discourse in science classrooms.