2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijer.2015.04.011
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The advantages of task-based and other-based achievement goals as standards of competence

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

12
31
0
7

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(50 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
12
31
0
7
Order By: Relevance
“…As in previous studies (Diseth, 2015), some factors yielded higher correlations: specially other-approach an other-avoidance goals. However, these factors could be considered equal.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 82%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…As in previous studies (Diseth, 2015), some factors yielded higher correlations: specially other-approach an other-avoidance goals. However, these factors could be considered equal.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 82%
“…Each item represents the types of achievement goals which students can follow or not to pass a subject in psychology and they are assessed through a 7-point likert scale from 1 (not true of me) to 7 (extremely true of me). The 3 × 2 has been translated and validated to the Chinese (Wu, 2012), Norwegian (Diseth, 2015), and Hungarian (Urbán, Orosz, Kerepes, & Jánvári, 2014), confirming its structure in all cases. Similarly, it has been adapted to the sport context (Mascret, Elliot, & Cury, 2015) and to physical education (Méndez-Giménez, Cecchini-Estrada, & Fernández-Río, 2014).…”
Section: Connections Between Achievement Goals and Relevant Outcomesmentioning
confidence: 68%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Más tarde, Diseth (2015) concluyó que las MAT y las MAO se relacionan con aspectos importantes de las variables motivacionales (e.g., autoeficacia, estrategias de aprendizaje), mientras que las metas basadas en el yo (tanto de aproximación como de evitación) muestran un patrón opuesto de relación con estas variables (e.g., menos logro académico o peores estrategias de aprendizaje). El reciente estudio de Méndez-Giménez, Cecchini, Fernández-Río, Méndez-Alonso y Prieto-Saborit (2017) reveló que las MAT y las MAY son predictores positivos del índice de autodeterminación, mientras que las MAO y MET ejercen como predictores negativos.…”
Section: Introductionunclassified