VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF 3 X 2 ACHIEVEMENT GOAL MODEL SCALE IN TURKISH UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS

Year 2014, Volume: 25 Issue: 3, 109 - 117, 01.06.2014

Bülent Ağbuğa

Abstract

The present research is designed to explore the reliability and validity of the 3 x 2 model of achievement goals in School of Sport Sciences and Technology undergraduate students. Three hundred and three Turkish undergraduate students (170 males, 133 females; Xage = 21.51 ± 2.27) served as participants. They completed 3 x 2 achievement goal model scale, developed by Elliot et al. (2011), immediately before their final exams. The scale consists of 18 items and each item was rated on a 7-point scale. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed to examine and construct the validity of 3 x 2 model of achievement goals. The results showed that the 3 x 2 model of achievement goals represents an adequate fit to the data (χ²/df =2.60, CFI = 0.95, GFI = 0.91, NNFI = 0.94, and RMSEA = 0.07). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for whole scale, the task-approach, self-approach, otherapproach, task-avoidance, self-avoidance, other-avoidance goals were 0.94, 0.87, 0.78, 0.86, 0.80, 0.78, and 0.91 respectively, indicating acceptable internal consistency. Results from the present study indicate that only the 3 x 2 model of achievement goals provides a reliable and valid measure of achievement goals for Turkish undergraduate students.

Keywords

3 x 2 Achievement Goal Model, Validity, Reliability

3 X 2 BAŞARI HEDEF MODELİ ÖLÇEĞİNİN TÜRK LİSANS ÖĞRENCİLERİ İÇİN GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI.

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı 3 x 2 Başarı Hedef Modeli Ölçeğinin Spor Bilimleri ve Teknolojisi Yüksekokulu öğrencileri için geçerlik ve güvenirliğini saptamaktır. Araştırmaya, toplam 303 (170 erkek ve 133 kadın; Xyaş = 21.51 ± 2.27) Türk üniversite öğrencisi gönüllü olarak katılmıştır. Elliot ve diğ. (2011) tarafından geliştirilen 18 maddeli 7’li Likert tipi 3 x 2 Başarı Hedef Modeli Ölçeği öğrencilerin final sınavından hemen önce verilmiştir. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonuçlarına göre tüm değerlerin (χ²/df =2.60, CFI = 0.95, GFI = 0.91, NNFI = 0.94, SRMR = 0.045, ve RMSEA = 0.07) altı faktörlü yapıda tüm değerlerin kabul edilebilir düzeyde olduğu görülmektedir. Ölçeğin iç tutarlılığını belirlemede kullanılan Cronbach Alfa değerleri ölçeğin geneli, görev-yaklaşım, öz-yaklaşım, diğer-yaklaşım, görev-kaçınım, öz-kaçınım, diğer-kaçınım alt boyutları için sırasıyla 0.94, 0.87, 0.78, 0.86, 0.80, 0.78, ve 0.91 olarak bulunmuştur. Elde edilen güvenirlik katsayıları ölçeğin yüksek güvenirliğe sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu araştırmanın sonucunda, 3 x 2 Başarı Hedef ModeliÖlçeğinin Spor Bilimleri ve Teknolojisi Yüksekokulu öğrencileri özelinde üniversite öğrencileri düzeyinde kabul edilebilir tatmin edici psikometrik özellikler gösterdiği tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

3 x 2 Başarı Hedef Modeli, Geçerlik, Güvenirlik

References

• Agbuga, B. (2009). Reliabity and validity of the trichotomous and 2 x 2 achievement goal models in Turkish university physical activity settings. Journal of Human Kinetics, 22, 77-82.
• Agbuga B, Xiang P. (2008). Achievement goals and their relations to self-reported persistence/effort in secondary physical education: A trichotomous achievement goal framework. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27, 179–191.
• Agbuga B, Xiang P, McBride R. (2010). Achievement goals and their relations to children’s disruptive behaviors in an after-school physical activity program. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 29, 278-294.
• Alpar, R. (2001). Spor Bilimlerinde Uygulamalı İstatistik. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
• Ames, C. (1984). Competitive, cooperative, and individualistic goal structures: A cognitivemotivational analysis. (C Ames, R Ames, Eds.), Research on motivation in education. New York, NY: Academic Press. s. 177–207.
• Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–267.
• Ames, C., Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: students’ learning strategies and motivation process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267.
• Arbucke, J. L. (2003). Amos 5.0 update to the Amos user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SmallWaters.
• Browne, M. W., Gudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. (KA Bollen, JS Long, Eds.), Testing 3 x 2 Başarı Hedef Modeli Ölçeği 117 structure equation models. Newbury Pdiğ, CA: Sage. s. 136–162.
• Church, M.A., Elliot, A. J., Gable, S. L. (2001). Perceptions of classroom environment, achievement goals, and achievement outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 43–54.
• Duda, J. L. (1992). Motivation in sport settings: A goal perspective approach. (GC Roberts, Ed.), Motivation in sport and exercise. Champaign, IL:Human Kinetics. s. 57-92.
• Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. The American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.
• Dweck, C. S, Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.
• Elliot, A. J. (1997). Integrating the “classic” and “contemporary” approaches to achievement motivation: A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. (M L Maehs, PR Pintrich, Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. s. 243-279.
• Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169-189.
• Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. (A Elliot, C Dweck, Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation. New York, NY: Guilford Press. s. 52-72.
• Elliot, A. J, Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218-232.
• Elliot, A. J., Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461-475.
• Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A. (1999). Test anxiety and the hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,76, 628-644.
• Elliot, A. J., McGregor H. A. (2001). A 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501–519.
• Elliot, A. J., Murayama, K., Pekrun, R. (2011). A 3 x 2 Achievement Goal Model, Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 632-648.
• Frias, C. M., Dixon, R. A. (2005). Confirmatory factor structure and measurement invariance of the memory compensation questionniare. Psychological Assessment, 17(2), 168-178.
• Guan, J., McBride, R., Xiang, P. (2007). Reliability and validity evidence for achievement goal models in high school physical education settings. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Sciences, 11, 1-21.
• Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
• Hu, L., Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. (RH Hoyle, Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. London: Sage. s. 76-99.
• Kalaycı, Ş. (2006). Faktör Analizi. SPSS Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli İstatistik Teknikleri. (Ş Kalaycı, Ed.), Ankara: Asil Yayın Dağıtım LTD.ŞTİ.
• Kaplan, A., Maehr, M. L. (2007). The contributions and prospects of goal orientation theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 141-184.
• Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (2’inci Baskı) New York: Guilford Press.
• Maehr, M. L, Nicholls, J. G. (1980). Culture and achievement motivation: A second look. (N Warren, Ed.), Studies in cross cultural psychology. New York: Academic Press. s. 221-267.
• McIver, J. P., Carmines, E. G. (1981). Unidimensional scaling. Quantitative Applications in Social Science, 24, 96–107.
• Murayama, K., Elliot, A. J., Friedman, R. (2012). Achievement goals and approach-avoidance motivation. (R M Ryan, Ed.) The Oxford handbook of human motivation. s. 191-207. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328–346.
• Pintrich, P. R. (2000). An achievement goal theory perspective on ıssues in motivation terminology, theory, and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 92-104.
• Thompson, B. (2000). Ten commandments of structural equation modeling. (L Grim, P Yarnold, Ed.), Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics. s. 261-284. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Xiang, P., Lee, A. (2002). Achievement goals, perceived motivational climate, and students’ self-reported mastery behaviors. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73, 58–65.
• Wilhelmsson, M. (2013). A personalized achievement system for educational games: Targeting the achievement goals of the student. Master thesis, University of Skövde.