Reliabity and Validity of the Trichotomous and 2×2 Achievement Goal Models in Turkish University Physical Activity Settings

• Authors: Bulent Agbuga
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The present research is designed to continue exploration of the reliability and validity of the 2 × 2 and trichotomous achievement goal frameworks in Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) Turkish undergraduate physical activity courses. One hundred and fifty eight Turkish undergraduate students (116 males; 42 females) served as participants. They completed both the trichotomous and 2 × 2 achievement goal scales. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed to examine and construct the validity of both the 2 × 2 and trichotomous achievement goal models. The results showed that the 2 × 2 achievement goal model represents an adequate fit to the data (X 2/df = 1.66, CFI = 0.91, GFI = 0.93, NNFI = 0.89, and RMSEA = 0.06). Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the mastery-approach, performance-approach, mastery-avoidance, and performance-avoidance goals were 0.65, 0.68, 0.72, and 0.60, respectively, indicating acceptable internal consistency. However, CFA analysis pointed out that the trichotomous achievement goal model provided a poor fit to the data (X 2/df = 1.59, CFI = 0.85, GFI = 0.88, NNFI = 0.69, and RMSEA = 0.06), although Cronbach's alpha coefficients in the trichotomous achievement goal model indicated acceptable reliability (mastery goals = 0.70, performance-approach goals = 0.73, and performance-avoidance goals = 0.64). Results from the present study indicate that only the 2 × 2 achievement goal model provides a reliable and valid measure of achievement goals for Turkish undergraduate students.

Keywords

EN

physical activity; validity; reliability; measurement

• Publisher: De Gruyter Open
• Journal: Journal of Human Kinetics
• Year: 2009
• Volume: 22
• Pages: 77-82

Dates

published

1 - 1 - 2009

online

13 - 1 - 2010

Contributors

author

Bulent Agbuga

• School of Sport Sciences and Technology, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey

References

• Agbuga, B., Xiang, P. Achievement goals and their relations to self-reported persistence/effort among Turkish students in secondary physical education. J Teach Phys Educ, 2008. 27:179-191.
• Ames, C. Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. J Educ Psychol, 1992. 84:261-272.[Crossref]
• Browne, M.W., Gudeck, R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Testing structure equation models. K.A. Bollen and J.S. Long, eds. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 1993. pp.136-162.
• Chen, A. A theoretical conceptualization for motivation research in physical education: An integrated perspective. Quest, 2001. 53:35-58.[Crossref]
• Cury, F. New directions for achievement goals theory in sport: Development and predictive validity of the AAASQ. J Sport Exercise Psy, 1999. 20: S15.
• Cury, F. Predictive validity of the approach and avoidance achievement in sport model. J Sport Exercise Psy, 2000. 22: S32.
• Cury, F., Da Fonseca, D., Rufo, M., Peres, C., Sarrazin, P. The trichotomous model and investment in learning to prepare for a sport test: A mediational analysis. Brit J Educ Psychol, 2003. 73: 529-543.[Crossref]
• Cury, F., Elliot, A., Sarrazin, P., Da Fonseca, D., & Rufo, M. The trichotomous achievement goal model and intrinsic motivation: A sequential mediational analysis. J Exp Soc Psychol, 2002. 38:473-481.[Crossref]
• Dweck, C.S. Motivational processes affecting learning. Am Psychol, 1986. 41:1040-1048.[Crossref]
• Elliot, A.J. Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educ Psychol, 1999. 34, 169-189.
• Elliot, A.J. Integrating the "classic" and "contemporary" approaches to achievement motivation: A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. In: Advances in motivation and achievement. M.L. Maehs and P.R. Pintrich, eds. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press., 1997. pp. 243-279.
• Elliot, A.J., Church, M.A. A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. J Pers Soc Psychol, 1997. 72:218-232.[Crossref]
• Elliot, A.J., Thrash, T.M. Achievements goals and the hierarchical model of achievement motivation. Edul Psychol Rev, 2001. 13:139-156.[Crossref]
• Elliot, A.J., Harackiewicz, J.M. Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. J Pers Soc Psychol, 1996. 70:461-475.[Crossref]
• Elliot, A.J., McGregor, H.A. A 2*2 achievement goal model. J Pers Soc Psychol, 2001. 80:501-519.[Crossref]
• Guan, J., McBride, R., Xiang, P. Reliability and validity evidence for achievement goal models in high school physical education settings. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci, 2007. 11:109-129.[Crossref]
• Harackiewicz, J.M., Barron, K.E., Carter, S.M., Lehto, A.T., Elliot, A.J. Determinants and consequences of achievement goals in the college classrooms: Maintaining interest and making the grade. J Pers Soc Psychol, 1997. 73:1284-1295.[Crossref]
• Hatcher, L. A step by step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc, 1994.
• Hu, L., Bentler, P.M. Evaluating model fit. In: Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications., R.H. Hoyle, ed. London: Sage. 1995. pp.76-99.
• Jöreskog, K., Sörbom, D. LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1993.
• Kaplan, A., Middleton, M.J., Urdan, T., Midgley, C. Achievement goals and goal structures. In: Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning. C. Midgley, ed. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. 2002. pp.21-53.
• Levy, I., Kaplan, A., Patrick, H. Early adolescent's achievement goals, social status, and attitudes towards cooperation with peers. Soc Psychol Educ, 2004. 7:127-159.[Crossref]
• Maehr, M.L. On doing well in science: Why Johnny no longer excels: why Sarah never did. In: Learning and motivation in the classroom. S.G. Paris, G.M. Olson, and H.W. Stevenson, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 1983. pp.179-210.
• McIver, J.P., Carmines, E.G. Unidimensional scaling. Quant Appl Soc Sci, 1981. 24:96-107.
• Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., Maehr, M.L., Urdan, T., Anderman, L.H., et al. The development and validation of scales assessing students' achievement goal orientations. Contemp Educ Psychol, 1998. 23:113-131.[PubMed][Crossref]
• Nicholls, J.G. The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989.
• Smith, M., Duda, J., Allen, J., Hall, H. Contemporary measures of approach and avoidance goal orientations: Similarities and differences. Brit J Educ Psychol, 2002. 72:155-190.[Crossref]
• Solmon, M.A., Boone, J. The impact of student goal orientation in physical education classes. Res Q Exerc Sport, 1993. 64:418-424.[PubMed][Crossref]
• Spray, C.M., Biddle, S.J.H. Achievement goal orientations and participation in physical education among male and female sixth-form students. Eur Phys Educ Rev, 1997. 3:83-90.[Crossref]
• Walling, M.D., Duda, J.L. Goals and their associations with beliefs about success in and perceptions of the purposes of physical education. J Teach Phys Educ, 1995. 14:140-156.
• Wang, C.K., Biddle, S.J.H., Elliot, A.J. The 2×2 achievement goal framework in a physical education context, Psychol Sport Exerc, 2007. 8:147-168.[Crossref]
• Xiang, P., Lee, A. Achievement goals, perceived motivational climate, and students' self-reported mastery behaviors. Res Q Exerc Sport, 2002. 73:58-65.[Crossref][PubMed]

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/v10078-009-0026-1