Examining Approach and Avoidance Valences of the 3 X 2 Achievement Goal Types on an Engineering Student Sample: A Validity Approach

Abstract

Development of the 3 × 2 achievement goal questionnaire (AGQ) advanced approach and avoidance goals in three goal types within the achievement goal framework: task-, self-, and other-based. The purpose of the present study was to examine empirical support for the construct validity, reliability, and measurement invariance of factors on the questionnaire and compare model fit of the 3 × 2 configuration to other alternatives. In addition to validating some of the findings reported in earlier studies, especially the inclusion of task-based goal orientations, the study highlights a limitation and potential boundary of the 3 × 2 AGQ. While the 3 × 2 model was found to be structurally valid, we found multiple validity supports for a definition-based model of the AGQ scale, which does not differentiate between goal approach or avoidance. The study provides some indications that approach and avoidance goals can be indistinguishable to some respondents. Nonetheless, the scale was invariant across multiple groups making group comparison possible.

Investigating students' motivational goals and self‐efficacy and task beliefs in relationship to course attendance and prior knowledge in an undergraduate statics course

“…Subsequently, correlation and regression analyses were conducted using participants' final achievement scores as an outcome variable and self‐efficacy, task value, and achievement goals as predictors. The mastery‐avoidance construct has been criticized by multiple authors because it is often very highly correlated with—and thus empirically indistinguishable from—mastery‐approach goal (Hunsu et al, 2021; Johnson & Kestler, 2013; Lower & Turner, 2016). Similarly, other studies have found no statistically significant relationship between mastery‐avoidance goal and student achievement.…”

Effects of achievement goals on learning interests and mathematics performances for kindergarteners

“…The self-approach goal and the self-avoidance goal motivate students to pursue performing better than and to avoid not performing worse than what they have done in the past, respectively. The other-approach goal and the other-avoidance goal urge students to outperform and avoid not performing worse than others, respectively ( Hunsu et al, 2021 ).…”

“…Many studies have favored the 3 × 2 achievement goal model across countries and subject domains ( Wu, 2014 ; Gillet et al, 2015 ; Hoi, 2016 ; Mascret et al, 2017 ; Méndez-Giménez et al, 2017 , 2018 ; Wang et al, 2017 ; Hidayat et al, 2018 ; Danthony et al, 2020 ; Hunsu et al, 2021 ). However, this model has mainly been applied to school-aged samples, the exception being Wu (2022b) , who developed an instrument to measure kindergarteners’ achievement goals based on the 3 × 2 achievement goal framework, and this model as preliminarily demonstrated to be the best theoretical model for understanding kindergarteners’ achievement goals.…”

Depression and approach‐avoidance achievement goals of Chinese undergraduate students: A four‐wave longitudinal study

“…They include mastery‐approach goals, focused on attaining task‐based or self‐based competence; mastery‐avoidance goals, focused on avoiding task‐based or self‐based incompetence; performance‐approach goals focused on attaining other‐based competence; and performance‐avoidance goals, focused on avoiding other‐based incompetence (Elliot et al, 2011). Nathaniel Hunsu tested the 3 × 2 achievement goal model based on an engineering student sample, examining the approach and avoidance valences of the 3 × 2 achievement goal types and discussing the limitations and potential boundaries of the 3 × 2 achievement goal questionnaire (Hunsu et al, 2021). Many scholars have conducted empirical studies using the 3 × 2 achievement goal framework.…”