A meta-analytic review of achievement goal measures: Different labels for the same constructs or different constructs with similar labels?

Abstract

This meta-analysis addresses whether achievement goal researchers are using different labels for the same constructs or putting the same labels on different constructs. We systematically examined whether conceptual and methodological differences in the measurement of achievement goals moderated achievement goal intercorrelations and relationships with outcomes. We reviewed 243 correlational studies of self-reported achievement goals comprising a total of 91,087 participants. The items used to measure achievement goals were coded as being goal relevant (future-focused, cognitively represented, competence-related end states that the individual approaches or avoids) and were categorized according to the different conceptual definitions found within the literature. The results indicated that achievement goal-outcome and goal-goal correlations differed significantly depending on the goal scale chosen, the individual items used to assess goal strivings, and sociodemographic characteristics of the sample under study. For example, performance-approach goal scales coded as having a majority of normatively referenced items had a positive correlation with performance outcomes (r = .14), whereas scales with a majority of appearance and evaluative items had a negative relationship (r = -.14). Mastery-approach goal scales that contained goal-relevant language were not significantly related to performance outcomes (r = .05), whereas those that did not contain goal-relevant language had a positive relationship with performance outcomes (r = .14). We concluded that achievement goal researchers are using the same label for conceptually different constructs. This discrepancy between conceptual and operational definitions and the absence of goal-relevant language in achievement goal measures may be preventing productive theory testing, research synthesis, and practical application.

The Pivotal Role of Effort Beliefs in Mediating Implicit Theories of Intelligence and Achievement Goals and Academic Motivations

“…Correlations with these concepts are sufficiently different for the six goal constellations as to justify a multiple goal perspective. In specific, the correlational pattern of the Outcome Goal construct differs so much from those of the other three performance goals, that this supports the suggestion by Hulleman et al (2010) to position Outcome Goals in a separate category, somewhat in between learning and performance goals. Both correlational analysis and the analysis of gender differences suggest that the two normative goals, Normative Outcome and Normative Ability Goals, take rather unique positions, thereby rejecting the suggestion in the Grant and Dweck (2003) study to merge both constructs into one factor.…”

“…Recent debates on the nature of achievement goals (see e.g. Brophy (2005), Hulleman, Schrager, Bodmann, and Harackiewicz (2010), Senko, Hulleman, and Harackiewicz (2011)), directly impact this study. One issue in that debate is the issue of mastery goals versus the multiple goal perspective.…”

Psychological correlates of university students' academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

“…Recent research has indicated that associations with goal orientation constructs differ depending on the measures employed and the sociodemographic characteristics of the sample. Measures of performance-approach goal orientation comprising mainly normatively-referenced measures have been found to be positively correlated with GPA whereas measures comprised mainly of appearance and evaluative items are negatively correlated (Hulleman, Schrager, Bodmann and Harackiewicz, 2010). We concur with Hulleman et al's call for greater theory-measurement consistency.…”

Autorregulação da Motivação: Crenças e Estratégias de Alunos Portugueses do 7º ao 9º Ano de Escolaridade

“…A dimensão das crenças motivacionais foi baseada em trabalhos anteriores (Eccles & Wigfi eld, 2002;Hulleman et al, 2010), e é composta por 23 itens (α=0,89) distribuídos pelas seguintes subescalas: (a) Expectativas de autoefi cácia (e.g. "Acho que sou capaz de aprender as matérias da escola"; 4 itens; α=0,77); (b) Metas de realização -metas de aprendizagem (e.g.…”

“…Wolters & Rosenthal, 2000). As expectativas que os alunos têm sobre a sua capacidade para regular o comportamento e realizar as tarefas escolares, em domínios específi cos -expectativas de autoefi cácia -infl uenciam as metas que os estudantes estabelecem para si, o seu nível de motivação e a persistência na realização das tarefas escolares (Eccles & Wigfi eld, 2002;Hulleman, Schrager, Bodman, & Harackiewicz, 2010). As metas de realização defi nem-se como representações cognitivas de um resultado futuro que um aluno pretende alcançar ou evitar.…”