Revalidating the Taiwanese Self-Regulation Questionnaire (New TSSRQ) and Exploring Its Relationship With College Students’ Psychological Well-Being

Abstract

Self-regulation (SR) is a vital trait whereby people adapt to the environments and achieve goals, yet measurements of general SR remain scant in Asian countries. Due to insufficient items in several dimensions, in this study we revised and revalidated our previous work of the Short Self-Regulation Questionnaire for Taiwanese college students (TSSRQ) by incorporating student perspectives and aspects of affective/motivation regulation. Through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, we validated the "New TSSRQ" which contained 39 items in seven factors, including Proactiveness (PA), Self-Management (SM), Goal Setting (GS), Mindfulness (MF), Goal Attainment (GA), Adjustment (AD), and Motivation (MO). Subsequently, we explored the correlation between New TSSRQ dimensions and those of the Scale of Psychological Well-Being (SPWB) as a source of validity evidence. Findings indicated that SR and PWB are highly correlated, especially for Mindfulness and Proactiveness dimensions. Implications of this study were discussed along with practical suggestions to leverage college students' mindfulness, proactiveness, and self-regulation in general.

Student Conceptions of Assessment: Regulatory Responses to Our Practices

“…Reading of the papers excluded seven papers that were reviews (Brown, 2011;Double et al, 2020;McMillan, 2016McMillan, , 2019Van der Kleij & Lipnevich, 2020;Vogl & Pekrun, 2016, Wise & Smith, 2016, five that had no measure of student perceptions of assessment (Babaii & Adeh, 2019;Chen & Lin, 2020;Gordienko, 2015;Natsis et al, 2018;Taghizadeh & Kazemzadeh, 2019), one…”

“…Reading of the papers excluded seven papers that were reviews (Brown, 2011;Double et al, 2020;McMillan, 2016McMillan, , 2019Van der Kleij & Lipnevich, 2021;Vogl & Pekrun, 2016, Wise & Smith, 2016, five that had no measure of student perceptions of assessment (Babaii & Adeh, 2019;Chen & Lin, 2020;Gordienko, 2015;Natsis et al, 2018;Taghizadeh & Kazemzadeh, 2019), one was a content analysis of syllabi (Panadero et al, 2019), two were qualitative analysis of student drawings (Brown & Wang, 2013;Wang & Brown, 2014), and two were qualitative analysis of student comments (Cleland, & Walton, 2012;Murillo & Hidalgo, 2017). Unfortunately, two studies cited the SCoA but instead used the Teacher Conceptions of Assessment inventory (Brown, 2003) to do comparative studies between faculty and students (Fletcher et al, 2012;Hodgson & Garvey, 2020).…”