Measuring Growth Mindset: A Validation of a Three-item Scale and a Single-item Scale in Youth and Adults

Rammstedt, Beatrice; Grüning, David Joachim; Lechner, Clemens M.

doi:10.31234/osf.io/rs43g

Cited by 9 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, PISA 2018 measured fixed mindset with a single item in the PISA2018 survey -the first time that PISA included an implicit theory measure. Rammstedt et al (2021) provided preliminary evidence that both the most widely used three-item (Dweck et al, 1995) and single-item fixed mindset measures (i.e., the same one as the PISA used) had acceptable psychometric properties in terms of reliability, comparability, and validity for German adolescents. Nevertheless, the psychometric validity of the single-item fixed mindset scale for other countries is still unknown.…”

Section: Map Goals and Their Antecedentsmentioning

confidence: 93%

Mastery-Approach Goals: A Large-Scale Cross-Cultural Analysis of Antecedents and Consequences

Guo¹,

HU²,

Elliot³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mastery-approach (MAP) goals, focusing on developing competence and acquiring task mastery, is posited to be the most optimal, beneficial type of achievement goal for academic and life outcomes. Although there is meta-analytic evidence supporting this finding, such evidence does not allow us to conclude that the extant MAP goal findings generalize across cultures. Meta-analyses have often suffered from over-representation of Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) samples, reliance on bivariate correlations, and lack the ability to directly control individual-level background variables. To address these limitations, this study used nationally representative data from 80 societies (N= 612,004 adolescents) to examine the relations of MAP goals to four personality antecedents (workmastery, competitiveness, fear of failure, and mindset) and 16 consequences (i.e., task-specific motivational, achievement-related, and well-being outcomes), and tested the cross-cultural generalizability of these relations. Results showed that MAP goals were: (a) grounded primarily in positive (workmastery, competitiveness) but not negative achievement motives (fear of failure, fixed mindset); (b) most strongly predictive of well-being outcomes (e.g., life satisfaction, resilience), followed by adaptative motivational (e.g., enjoyment, perceived competent) and achievement-related (e.g., test performance, educational aspirations) outcomes; (c) weakly negatively associated with maladaptive outcomes (perceived task difficulty); and (d) uniquely predictive of various consequences, controlling for the personality antecedents and covariates. Further, the results of four different approaches provide consistent, strong support for cross-cultural generalizability of these relations, which has practical implications regarding the benefits of MAP goal pursuit in daily life and directions for educational intervention in a global context.

show abstract

Section: Map Goals and Their Antecedentsmentioning

confidence: 93%

Mastery-Approach Goals: A Large-Scale Cross-Cultural Analysis of Antecedents and Consequences

Guo¹,

HU²,

Elliot³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We reversed the score such that a higher score indicates stronger growth (vs. fixed) mindsets. Studies have demonstrated the reliability and validity of a single‐item measure of mindsets (Rammstedt et al, 2021).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, the conceptualization of measurement of growth (vs. fixed) mindset is limited in the current data set due to a single-item use of the mindsets, which may not fully represent the spectrum and dimensions of mindset beliefs (cf. Rammstedt et al, 2021). It is also possible that more complex belief systems that contribute to mindsets are embedded in different cultures (Bernardo et al, 2021;King et al, 2012;Lou et al, 2017).…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The mindsets × societal norm effect across 78 cultures: Growth mindsets are linked to performance weakly and well‐being negatively in societies with fixed‐mindset norms

Lou

2022

Brit J of Edu Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Aims Recent research on mindsets has shifted from understanding its homogenous role on performance to understanding how classroom environments explain its heterogeneous effects (i.e., Mindsets × Context hypothesis). Does the macro context (e.g., societal level of student mindsets) also help explain its heterogeneous effects? And does this interaction effect also apply to understanding students' well‐being? To address these questions, we examined whether and how the role of students' mindsets in performance (math, science, reading) and well‐being (meaning in life, positive affect, life satisfaction) depends on the societal‐mindset norms (i.e., Mindsets × Societal Norm effect). Sample/Methods We analysed a global data set (n = 612,004 adolescents in 78 societies) using multilevel analysis. The societal norm of student mindsets was the average score derived from students within each society. Results Growth mindsets positively and weakly predicted all performance outcomes (rs = .192, .210, .224), but the associations were significantly stronger in societies with growth‐mindset norms. In contrast, the associations between growth mindsets and psychological well‐being were very weak and inconsistent (rs = −.066, .003, .008). Importantly, the association was negative in societies with fixed‐mindset norms but positive in societies with growth‐mindset norms. Conclusions These findings challenge the idea that growth mindsets have ubiquitous positive effects in all societies. Growth mindsets might be ineffective or even detrimental in societies with fixed‐mindset norms because such societal norms could suppress the potential of students with growth mindsets and undermines their well‐being. Researchers should take societal norms into consideration in their efforts to understand and foster students' growth.

show abstract

“…We caution against the use of single-item measures, given their limited reliability and the possible response bias (Rammstedt et al, 2021). If researchers wish to capture implicit theories more broadly, they should assess both mindsets and draw inferences on these two constructs rather than a unified construct.…”

Section: Implications For Using the Implicit Theories Of Intelligence Scalementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Clearly, such single-item measures are likely be prone to acquiescence bias and measurement error (OECD, 2021). In their study of three-and single-item measures of fixed mindsets, Rammstedt et al (2021) showed that the relations to other constructs can differ substantially between the two types of measures and that single-item measures suffer from low test-retest reliabilities. This practice also assumes the orthogonality of the two mindsets.…”

Section: Measurement Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Those Who Have Their Minds Set: An Item-Level Meta-Analysis of the Implicit Theories of Intelligence Scale in Education

Scherer¹,

Campos²

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fixed and growth mindsets represent implicit theories about the nature of one’s abilities or traits. The existing body of research on academic achievement and the effectiveness of mindset interventions for student learning largely relies on the premise that fixed and growth mindsets are mutually exclusive. This premise has led to the common practice in which measures of one mindset are reversed and then assumed to represent the other mindset. Focusing on K-12 and university students (N = 27328), we tested the validity of this practice via a comprehensive item-level meta-analysis of the Implicit Theories of Intelligence Scale (ITIS). By means of meta-analytic structural equation modeling and network analysis, we examined (a) the ITIS item-item correlations and their heterogeneity across 32 primary studies; (b) the factor structure of the ITIS, including the distinction between fixed and growth mindset; and (c) moderator effects of sample, study, and measurement characteristics. We found positive item-item correlations within the sets of fixed and mindset items, with substantial between-study heterogeneity. The ITIS factor structure comprised two moderately correlated mindset factors (ρ = .63–.65), even after reversing one mindset scale. This structure was moderated by the educational level and origin of the student sample, the assessment mode, and scale modifications. Overall, we argue that fixed and growth mindsets are not mutually exclusive but correlated constructs. We discuss the implications for the assessment of implicit theories of intelligence in education.

show abstract

Measuring Growth Mindset: A Validation of a Three-item Scale and a Single-item Scale in Youth and Adults

Cited by 9 publications

References 23 publications

Mastery-Approach Goals: A Large-Scale Cross-Cultural Analysis of Antecedents and Consequences

Mastery-Approach Goals: A Large-Scale Cross-Cultural Analysis of Antecedents and Consequences

The mindsets × societal norm effect across 78 cultures: Growth mindsets are linked to performance weakly and well‐being negatively in societies with fixed‐mindset norms

Measuring Those Who Have Their Minds Set: An Item-Level Meta-Analysis of the Implicit Theories of Intelligence Scale in Education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About