validation of the achievement goal questionnaire – revised in Argentinean university students (A-AGQ-R)

Abstract

The psychometric properties of a Spanish adaptation of the AGQ-R (Elliot & Murayama, 2008) were tested in a sample of Argentinean university students (292). The hypothesized factor and dimensional structures of the measure were confirmed and shown to be superior to a host of alternatives. Each of the four achievement goal factors had a high degree of internal consistency. Effects of the four achievement goals scales on task value, social academic self-efficacy, enjoyment, shame, and academic performance, provided support to utility of the scales. The A-AGQ-R provides a measure that attested valid and reliable scores. Finally, these findings provide a validated version of the AGQ-R for its use in Argentinean university students. RESUMENSe evaluaron las propiedades psicométricas de una adaptación al español del AGQ-R (Elliot & Murayama, 2008) en una muestra de estudiantes universitarios argentinos (292). Se confirmaron las estructuras factoriales y dimensionales hipotetizadas, las cuales también demostraron ser superiores a otros modelos alternativos. Los valores de consistencia interna para cada escala fue elevada. Se obtuvo evidencias de la utilidad de las escalas al evaluar los efectos de las cuatro metas de logro sobre valor de la tarea, autoeficacia social académica, disfrute, vergüenza y rendimiento académico. De esta manera, el A-AGQ-R sería un instrumento con buenas propiedades de validez y confiabilidad. Finalmente, estos resultados brindan una versión validada del AGQ-R para su uso en estudiantes universitarios argentinos. .

Measuring achievement goal motivation, mindsets and cognitive load: validation of three instruments’ scores

“…performance‐approach:performance‐avoidance and mastery‐avoidance:performance‐avoidance) and lowest correlation among domains with no shared concepts (i.e. mastery‐avoidance:performance‐approach and mastery‐approach:performance‐avoidance) . Internal consistency reliability has, with infrequent exceptions, been acceptable (Cronbach's alpha > 0.70) .…”

“…strong content evidence). Nearly all studies exploring the factor structure of AGQ‐R scores have employed confirmatory factor analysis; although several of these confirmed the hypothesised 2 × 2 model as the best of several alternatives at least three studies found suboptimal fit for the 2 × 2 model . Moreover, one exploratory factor analysis found a three‐factor solution .…”

“…mastery‐avoidance:performance‐approach and mastery‐approach:performance‐avoidance) . Internal consistency reliability has, with infrequent exceptions, been acceptable (Cronbach's alpha > 0.70) . Looking at associations with achievement outcomes such as test scores and course grades (evidence of relationships with other variables), correlations have typically been small (|r| approximately 0.10–0.20 for all domains) .…”

“…9,17,[33][34][35][36][38][39][40] Internal consistency reliability has, with infrequent exceptions, been acceptable (Cronbach's alpha > 0.70). 9,[34][35][36][37]39,40 Looking at associations with achievement outcomes such as test scores and course grades (evidence of relationships with other variables), correlations have typically been small (|r| approximately 0.10-0.20 for all domains). 17,34,35,40 Looking at associations with motivation outcomes such as task value or interest, mastery-approach scores have typically shown moderate to large correlations, whereas correlations with other AGQ-R domains have been small or negligible.…”

A Spanish Version of the Achievement Task Value Scale for University Students: Internal, Convergent, and Criterion Validity and Reliability in Argentinian Students

“…This also occurs in empirical research analyzing relationships between task value and other constructs such as motivation, emotions, instruction, coping and learning strategies, cognitive resources, engagement, or academic performance (Acee & Weinstein, 2010;Jones, Johnson, & Campbell, 2015;Sánchez-Rosas, 2015a, 2015bSánchez-Rosas & Bedis, 2015;Sán-chez-Rosas & Esquivel, 2016;Sánchez-Rosas & Pérez, 2015;Sánchez-Rosas, Takaya, & Molinari, 2016b). Furthermore, studies do not usually include instruments using all of the task value components (Durick, Hulleman, & Harackiewicz, 2014;McCoach & Siegle, 2002;Rozek et al, 2014).…”