Validación Estructural Del R-SPQ-2f: Un Análisis Factorial Confirmatorio

Abstract

RESUMENEl motivo del presente estudio es validar la estructura interna del Cuestionario Revisado de Procesos de Estudio, Dos factores (Revised-Study Process Questionnaire-2 Factors; Biggs, Kember & Leung, 2001), en una muestra heterogénea de 269 participantes universitarios y no universitarios. Se aplicó la metodología de ecuaciones estructurales para probar varios modelos de medición: unidimensional, cuatro factores relacionados y con estructura jerárquica, y dos factores (ortogonales y oblicuos). Se halló que los modelos basados en cuatro factores no mostraron un ajuste satisfactorio, y uno tuvo problemas de convergencia ocasionados por la muy alta correlación interfactorial. El modelo de dos factores (profundo y superficial), con errores correlacionados, tuvo satisfactorio ajuste. La consistencia interna también fue satisfactoria. Se discute la utilidad del instrumento y su reformulación teórica.Palabras clave: enfoque de estudio, validez, modelamiento de ecuaciones estructurales. ABSTRACTThe aim of this study is to validate the internal structure of the Revised-Study Process Questionnaire-2 Factors (Biggs, Kember & Leung, 2001), through a heterogeneous sample of 269 university and non-university participants. The structural equation methodology is used to test several measurement models: one-dimensional, four factors and hierarchical structure, and two factors (orthogonal and oblique).Theodels based on four factors did not show a satisfactory adjustment, and one had convergence problems caused by a very high interfactorial correlation. The two-factor model (deep and shallow) with correlated errors had a satisfactory adjustment. The internal consistency was satisfactory. The usefulness of the instrument and its theoretical reformulation is discussed.

Study Approaches in Higher Education Mathematics: Investigating the Statistical Behaviour of an Instrument Translated into Norwegian

“…[M1]-Justicia et al [15] [M2]-Önder and Besoluk [18] [M3]-Merino and Kumar [17] [M4]-Xie [ There seems to be a consistency in the results of previous studies presented in Table 1. They corroborate the theoretical explanation of indicators measuring the DA and the SA as proposed in [9] with an exclusion of additional subdivisions of each factor into motive and strategy.…”

“…The negative standard correlation coefficients found in all the studies between the deep approach and the surface approach subscales are indicative of discriminant validity. A close look at the results of Merino and Kumar [17] as well as Önder and Besoluk [18] suggests a better fit of their models as compared to others. This can be deduced from their reduced χ 2 -values and RMSEA within the range suggested in [19,20].…”

“…Non-admissible solutions and poor fits for the hypothesized models in [9] were also reported in a study involving 269 university and non-university students [17]. Following confirmatory factor analysis results, a first-order two-factor model was identified as the best explanation for the construct validity of the R-SPQ-2F.…”

“…Studies on the cultural specificity of the R-SPQ-2F can broadly be classified into two major categories. The first category represents those that report first-order two-factor structures-the deep approach (DA) and the surface approach (SA)-as the best explanatory models for the instrument with ten items on each subscale [15][16][17][18]. This first category can further be divided into those that include error covariance-the presence of a systematic commonly shared variance-between indicators (e.g., [17]) and those that did not include the covariance (e.g., [16]).…”

“…The first category represents those that report first-order two-factor structures-the deep approach (DA) and the surface approach (SA)-as the best explanatory models for the instrument with ten items on each subscale [15][16][17][18]. This first category can further be divided into those that include error covariance-the presence of a systematic commonly shared variance-between indicators (e.g., [17]) and those that did not include the covariance (e.g., [16]). However, Biggs et al [9] were the first to start a discussion on the factor structure of their then newly developed instrument, the R-SPQ-2F, by hypothesizing and testing two models.…”