Principal Component Analysis of the Achievement Goal Questionnaire - Revised

Scott R. Furtwengler, University of HoustonEPSY 8300 Advanced MeasurementThursday, April 25, 2013

Outline

Overview of the problem Purpose of the current study Brief overview of extant literature Methodology Results Discussion/Implications References Questions

Overview of the problem

Mean differences between honors versus traditional high-ability students on several measures remain largely unexplained.

Purpose of the current study

The purpose of the study is to test the construct validity of the AGQ-R.

Research question: Do latent factors such as the adoption of a specific Achievement Goal Orientation predict who among high ability students will participate in a community college honors program and those who do not?

Achievement Goal Orientation

Dweck (1986), Maehr (1983), Nicholls (1984)

Mastery goals: developing competence through task mastery

Performance goals: developing competence relative to others

Achievement Goal Orientation

Elliot (1999), Elliot & Harackiewicz (1996) Extended to a 2 x 2 model

Definitions of competence: mastery & performance

Valences of competence: approach & avoidance

Achievement Goal Orientation

Law, Elliot, & Murayama (2012) Performance-approach goals: high effort,

high persistence, high level of aspiration, high academic performance

Performance-avoidance goals: disorganized study strategies, high test anxiety, low academic performance, low intrinsic motivation

Perceived competence is a moderator for the performance dimension

Achievement Goal Orientation

The 2 x 2 Framework of Achievement Goal Orientations  Approach Valence Avoidance Valence

Mastery-Goal Definition Focus on learning Focus on avoiding

misunderstanding

Performance-Goal Definition

Focus on out-performing others

Focus on avoiding the appearance of incompetence, avoiding negative judgments

Methodology

Participants Instrument Procedure

Methodology: participants

N = 398, 3.25 GPA on at least 12 hours Groups: 120 honors, 278 non-honors Cum. GPA: 3.25 - 4.00 (M = 3.55, SD = 0.29) Age: 15 - 70 (M = 29.27, SD = 11.00) Gender: 293 Female, 105 Male  Ethnicity: 159 White or Caucasian, 116 Hispanic or

Latino Origin, 23 Black or African American, 37 Asian, 7 Native American or Alaskan, 19 International, and 37 Unknown or Not Reported

Status: 383 Continuing, 15 FTIC

Methodology: instrument

Achievement Goal Questionnaire – Revised or AGQ-R (Elliott & Murayama, 2008)

12-item survey, each item consisting of a five-point summative response scale

Cronbach’s alphas: • Mastery-approach, .84• Mastery-avoidance, .88• Performance-approach, .92• Performance-avoidance, .94

Revised several questions to diminish ambiguity.

Methodology: procedure

1606 e-mail invitations San Jacinto College 12 hours of college-level courses 3.25 cumulative GPA 400 students responded by completing the instrument for

a 25.91% response rate. 1 respondent was excluded because he/she could not be identified. 1 eighteen-year-old, Hispanic female originally identified as “honors” and “continuing” was excluded based on 0.66 GPA.

Results

Cronbach’s alphas: Mastery-approach, .88 (.84) Mastery-avoidance, .71 (.88) Performance-approach, .91 (.92) Performance-avoidance, .90 (.94)

Descriptive StatisticsTable 1

Means and Standard Deviations for Achievement Goal Orientation Scales

      95% CI

Item N M (SD) LL UL

Mastery-approach_1 368 4.50 (.795) 4.42 4.58

Mastery-approach_2 368 4.67 (.684) 4.59 4.73

Mastery-approach_3 368 4.59 (.733) 4.51 4.65

Mastery-avoidance_1 368 4.63 (.792) 4.54 4.70

Mastery-avoidance_2 368 3.82 (1.401) 3.67 3.96

Mastery-avoidance_3 368 4.22 (1.067) 4.11 4.33

Performance-approach_1 368 4.25 (1.054) 4.14 4.36

Performance-approach_2 368 4.27 (1.073) 4.16 4.38

Performance-approach_3 368 4.00 (1.164) 3.88 4.11

Performance-avoidance_1 368 4.23 (1.145) 4.12 4.35

Performance-avoidance_2 368 3.95 (1.230) 3.83 4.08

Performance-avoidance_3 368 3.98 (1.231) 3.85 4.10

Note: CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit, UL = upper limit.

Principal Component AnalysisTable 2Factor Loadings for Principal Components with Varimax Rotation of Achievement Goal Orientation Scales

Scale Performance Mastery Approach Avoidance

Mastery-approach_1 .183 .819 .141

Mastery-approach_2 .156 .878 .127

Mastery-approach_3 .155 .881 .176

Mastery-avoidance_1 .228 .692 .302

Mastery-avoidance_2 .133 .224 .795Mastery-avoidance_3 .119 .338 .817Performance-approach_1 .826 .319 -.017

Performance-approach_2 .902 .258 -.020

Performance-approach_3 .869 .138 .170

Performance-avoidance_1 .863 .211 .183

Performance-avoidance_2 .716 .048 .573Performance-avoidance_3 .770 .038 .480Note: Factor loadings > .400 are in boldface.

Results

ANOVA: No statistically significant difference in goal orientation between groups, although honors students maintained higher mean scores in Mastery-Avoidance.

Logistic Regression: The present study offers no evidence of predictive accuracy for goal orientation for high-ability students choosing to participate in a community college honors program.

Results

Logistic Regression Results for Predicting Whether High Ability Students Participate in a Community College Honors Program Using Goal Orientation Scores as Independent Variables

            95.0% CI for Exp (B)

Step Variable B Wald Significance Exp (B) Lower Upper

1 Mast_App -.145 .410 .522 .865 .555 1.348

  Mast_Av .289 2.359 .125 1.335 .923 1.929  Perf_App -.109 .281 .596 .897 .600 1.340  Perf_Av -.012 .003 .953 .988 .670 1.459  Constant -.902 1.300 .254 .406    

Discussion

Achievement Goal Orientation: The purpose was to test the structural validity of the AGQ-R, which is based on a 2x2 model of goal orientation. The present findings indicate that this model may not be the best fit.

Discussion

Achievement Goal Orientation: In this sample, AGO was not an accurate predictor of high-ability students’ decisions to participate in an honors program. Similar research in more established contexts may yield different results.

Limitations: sample size, community college population (generalizability), lack of awareness.

Implications

Achievement Goal Orientation: Further research on co-activation of performance-approach and avoidance dimension and discrimination between mastery-avoidance and performance-avoidance valences. Additional dimensions.

Exploration of a subscale for performance-avoidance: adaptive & maladaptive.

Implications

Explore other factors that might account for differences in participation and academic outcomes between the two groups: academic self-concept, achievement goal orientation, attributional style, expectancy-values theory, parents’ level of education, SES.

References

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.

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. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.461

Law, W., Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2012). Perceived competence moderates the relation between performance-approach and performance-avoid goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 806-819.

Maehr, M. L. (1983). On doing well in science: Why Johnny no longer excels, why Sarah never did. In S. Paris, G. Olson, & H. Stevenson (Eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom (pp. 179–210). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation terminology, theory, and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 92–104.

Questions?

Contact information

Scott R. FurtwenglerHonors Program, San Jacinto College13735 Beamer RoadHouston, TX 77089281-929-4614scott.furtwengler@sjcd.edusrfurtwengler@uh.edu