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

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• 3 x 2 Achievement Goal Model, Validity, Reliability

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

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• 3 x 2 Başarı Hedef Modeli, Geçerlik, Güvenirlik

Kaynakça

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Alpar, R. (2001). Spor Bilimlerinde Uygulamalı İstatistik. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
5. 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.
6. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–267.
7. Ames, C., Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: students’ learning strategies and motivation process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267.
8. Arbucke, J. L. (2003). Amos 5.0 update to the Amos user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SmallWaters.

9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. The American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.
13. Dweck, C. S, Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.
14. 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.
15. Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169-189.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. Elliot, A. J., McGregor H. A. (2001). A 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501–519.
21. Elliot, A. J., Murayama, K., Pekrun, R. (2011). A 3 x 2 Achievement Goal Model, Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 632-648.
22. Frias, C. M., Dixon, R. A. (2005). Confirmatory factor structure and measurement invariance of the memory compensation questionniare. Psychological Assessment, 17(2), 168-178.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. Hu, L., Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. (RH Hoyle, Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. London: Sage. s. 76-99.
26. Kalaycı, Ş. (2006). Faktör Analizi. SPSS Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli İstatistik Teknikleri. (Ş Kalaycı, Ed.), Ankara: Asil Yayın Dağıtım LTD.ŞTİ.
27. Kaplan, A., Maehr, M. L. (2007). The contributions and prospects of goal orientation theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 141-184.
28. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (2’inci Baskı) New York: Guilford Press.
29. 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.
30. McIver, J. P., Carmines, E. G. (1981). Unidimensional scaling. Quantitative Applications in Social Science, 24, 96–107.
31. 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.
32. Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328–346.
33. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). An achievement goal theory perspective on ıssues in motivation terminology, theory, and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 92-104.
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. Wilhelmsson, M. (2013). A personalized achievement system for educational games: Targeting the achievement goals of the student. Master thesis, University of Skövde.