Contemporary measures of approach and avoidance goal orientations: Similarities and differences

Michaela Smith · Joan L. Duda · Justine B. Allen · Howard Hall

127 citations0/0 files storedBritish Journal of Educational Psychology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Education, Achievement, and Giftedness Psychometric Methodologies and Testing Psychological Testing and Assessment

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In response to a resurgence of interest in and demonstrated utility of the approach-avoidance goal distinction, a number of researchers (Elliot & Church, 1997; Midgley et al., 1998; Skaalvik, 1997) have developed instruments to assess individual differences in the tendency to adopt approach-avoidance goals. However, to date there has been no attempt to examine the psychometric properties or conceptual and measurement overlap of these instruments. AIMS: (i) To determine whether three questionnaires designed to measure approach-avoidance goal orientations are assessing the same or different constructs, and (ii) to examine the psychometric properties of each of the approach-avoidance measures (i.e., internal consistency, convergent, discriminant, factorial, and construct validity). SAMPLE: Participants in this study were 475 undergraduate students (N = 228 males; N = 244 females; three missing information) enrolled at two large universities in the United Kingdom. METHOD: Participants completed a questionnaire which included measures of approach-avoidance goal orientations, effort regulation, test anxiety, perceived ability, and intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation. RESULTS: Results revealed a degree of convergence between the three instruments. Each of the instruments demonstrated good psychometric properties although construct validity results were inconsistent across the measures. CONCLUSION: There is a need for future research to clarify the operational definition and subsequent measurement of the performance avoidance construct, and in particular, to examine the role that effort, impression management, and anxiety/fear of failure play in its conceptualisation.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 127 citations exist upstream.

References

1951Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests 1992Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit 1988Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior 1995Testing Structural Equation Models.1986Motivational processes affecting learning.1984Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance.1997A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation.1991A Manual for the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ).

Cited by

2005Goal-orientation and teacher motivation among teacher applicants and student teachers 2011Primary and secondary students’ motivation in learning English: Grade and gender differences 2008Personality and achievement motivation: Relationship among Big Five domain and facet scales, achievement goals, and intelligence 2008Cultural Differences in Academic Motivation Goals: A Meta-Analysis Across 13 Societies 2007Antecedents and consequences of approach and avoidance achievement goals: A test of gender invariance

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.