Development of the 3 × 2 achievement goal questionnaire (AGQ) advanced approach and avoidance goals in three goal types within the achievement goal framework: task-, self-, and other-based. The purpose of the present study was to examine empirical support for the construct validity, reliability, and measurement invariance of factors on the questionnaire and compare model fit of the 3 × 2 configuration to other alternatives. In addition to validating some of the findings reported in earlier studies, especially the inclusion of task-based goal orientations, the study highlights a limitation and potential boundary of the 3 × 2 AGQ. While the 3 × 2 model was found to be structurally valid, we found multiple validity supports for a definition-based model of the AGQ scale, which does not differentiate between goal approach or avoidance. The study provides some indications that approach and avoidance goals can be indistinguishable to some respondents. Nonetheless, the scale was invariant across multiple groups making group comparison possible.

Background Student persistence in undergraduate engineering majors often depends on how they perform in foundational engineering courses. Although mastery of prerequisite knowledge affects how students perform in these courses, research suggests that achievement goal orientations and task‐value and self‐efficacy beliefs play prominent roles in predicting students' achievement. Purpose/Hypothesis Drawing on achievement goal, expectancy‐value, and self‐efficacy theories, this study explores the relationships and relative predictive significance of students' achievement goal orientations and task‐value and self‐efficacy beliefs on academic achievement when prior knowledge and class attendance in a foundational engineering course were accounted for. Design/Method Participants were students enrolled in engineering statics at a primarily White institution. A multiple regression analysis was conducted using achievement goals, self‐efficacy for learning performance, task value, absence, and prior knowledge as predictor variables, and participants' achievement scores as the outcome variable. Results Positive relationships were observed between the different achievement goal constructs. The final regression model explained 50% of the variance in participants' achievement scores. Self‐efficacy and task‐value belief effects remained significant predictors of achievement, even after prior knowledge and regular class attendance were considered. Further, the combined effect of self‐efficacy and task‐value beliefs on achievement was larger than that of prior knowledge alone. Conclusions Pedagogical approaches that seek to improve engineering students' task‐value and self‐efficacy beliefs may be more efficacious at promoting achievement than those that focus on fostering achievement goal orientations. Instructors should consider such approaches along with those that effectively address differences in prior knowledge in foundational engineering courses.

The Academic Resilience Scale (ARS) was developed to measure resilience factors in educational contexts. However, there is no clarity on whether the scale could be used as a measure of unidimensional academic resilience scores or just to obtain multidimensional academic resilience factors. How a scale is scored can affect the validity of inferences based on scores obtained by using the scale in research and practice. This study uses confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and ancillary bifactor measures to examine the dimensionality of the scale. There was no sufficient support for using the scale to obtain unidimensional academic resilience score. Rather, the scale should only be considered as a measure of multiple dimensions of academic resilience factors.

No abstract

No abstract