Abstract

The assessment of students' motivation can be a powerful tool in enhancing and understanding students' learning. One valid and often applied self-report measure is the Academic Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-A) which is grounded in the self-determination theory. However, to date, there is still no German equivalent to the English version of this questionnaire. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to adapt and validate the SRQ-A on a representative German student sample, consisting of 672 children (327 girls), ages 8–14 from one primary and two secondary German schools. First, the translation-back-translation method was used to ensure the linguistic equivalence of the German questionnaire. Second, item analysis of the generated scores of the German SRQ-A were conducted. Third, the multidimensional factorial structure of the original measure was tested with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using maximum likelihood estimation. Last, additional construct validity of the German SRQ-A was tested using correlational analyses with convergent and divergent measures. After conducting CFA, four items were excluded from the original questionnaire, due to loadings lower than 0.40, resulting in 28 items. The German SRQ-A showed good internal consistency for all subscales, with Chronbach's α ranging between 0.75 and 0.88. The simplex-structure of the original measurement could also be confirmed, however, the four-factorial model could not be replicated. The measurement showed good convergent and discriminant validity with other related questionnaires. In summary, the German SRQ-A is a reliable and valid self-report instrument for the assessment of self-determined motivational styles within the school context.

Highlights

  • Within the academic context, motivational abilities are frequently considered by parents and teachers to be one of the most crucial factors explaining the child’s scholastic success

  • Two fundamental claims ground this theory: First, different types of motivation—or more broadly spoken—behavioral regulation are postulated with respect to the degree they represent autonomous or self-determined functioning on a continuum from low—i.e., external regulation and introjected regulation— to high values of self-regulation—i.e., identified regulation and intrinsic regulation

  • The purpose of the present study was: (a) To translate the Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-A) into German with the most comparable fit to the original target group aged 8 years and older, (b) To complete an item analysis of scores generated by the German SRQ-A, (c) to test the multidimensional factorial structure proposed by the original measure with a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), (d) to test the convergent and divergent validity of the translated version by assessing relations to other measures in a large sample of German primary and junior high school children

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Motivational abilities are frequently considered by parents and teachers to be one of the most crucial factors explaining the child’s scholastic success. Intrinsic motivation is the most self-determined motivational style It is defined as the motivational style in which children engage in an activity because of interest and enjoyment, rather than because of external incentives. Studies showed that teachers, who are utilizing autonomy supporting behaviors, have students who experience more positive feelings in class and during the learning process (e.g., Vallerand et al, 1989). There are positive effects of considering the students’ basic needs within the context of interpersonal relatedness: Students, who are highly interpersonally related tend to accept scholastic behavioral rules better than their less related peers (Tsai et al, 2008). Some studies have investigated gender differences regarding basic needs and self-determined motivational styles and have revealed rather inconsistent results. While Grolnick and Ryan (1990) showed that girls felt more autonomous than boys, other investigations did not reveal significant differences (Deci et al, 1992)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call