Testing associations between global and specific levels of student academic motivation and engagement in the classroom

Dierendonck, Christophe; Tóth‐Király, István; Morin, Alexandre J. S.; Kerger, Sylvie; Milmeister, Paul; Poncelet, Débora

doi:10.1080/00220973.2021.1913979

Cited by 8 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 77 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The second domain of motivation and emotion includes the constructs academic motivation (Litalien et al, 2017 ; Guay and Bureau, 2018 ; Gordeeva et al, 2020 ; Howard et al, 2020 ; Kartal, 2020 ; Guay et al, 2021 ; Dierendonck et al, 2022 ), sport motivation (Appleton et al, 2016 ; Milton et al, 2018 ; Stenling et al, 2018 ; Cece et al, 2019 ; Méndez-Giménez et al, 2020 ; Rodrigues et al, 2020 ), work motivation (Burk and Wiese, 2018 ; Calkins, 2018 ; Howard et al, 2018 , 2020 , 2021 ; Gegenfurtner and Quesada-Pallarès, 2022 ), job satisfaction (Sutherland, 2020 ), affective commitment (Perreira et al, 2018 ), work engagement (Gillet et al, 2019 ; Huyghebaert-Zouaghi et al, 2021a , 2022 ), teacher engagement (Perera et al, 2018b ), student engagement (Hoi and Hang, 2021 ; Dierendonck et al, 2022 ; Tomás et al, 2022 ), basic psychological needs (Stenling et al, 2015 ; Sánchez-Oliva et al, 2017 ; Tóth-Király et al, 2018 , 2019 ; Bhavsar et al, 2019 , 2020 ; Garn et al, 2019 ; Burgueño et al, 2020a , b ; Cromhout, 2020 ; Gillet et al, 2020 ; Gucciardi et al, 2020 ; Huyghebaert-Zouaghi et al, 2021b ; Rodrigues et al, 2021 ), subjective task value (Fadda et al, 2020b ; Part et al, 2020 ), flow (Kyriazos et al, 2018b ; Gu et al, 2020 ), interest (Garn, 2017 ), locus of causality (Howard et al, 2020 ), attitudes (Deemer et al, 2014 ), purpose (Summers and Falco, 2020 ), self-efficacy (Barbaranelli et al, 2018 ; Dominguez-Lara et al,…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling: A meta-analytic review of model fit

Gegenfurtner

2022

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multivariate behavioral research often focuses on latent constructs—such as motivation, self-concept, or wellbeing—that cannot be directly observed. Typically, these latent constructs are measured with items in standardized instruments. To test the factorial structure and multidimensionality of latent constructs in educational and psychological research, Morin et al. (2016a) proposed bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling (B-ESEM). This meta-analytic review (158 studies, k = 308, N = 778,624) aimed to estimate the extent to which B-ESEM model fit differs from other model representations, including confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM), hierarchical CFA, hierarchical ESEM, and bifactor-CFA. The study domains included learning and instruction, motivation and emotion, self and identity, depression and wellbeing, and interpersonal relations. The meta-analyzed fit indices were the χ2/df ratio, the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR). The findings of this meta-analytic review indicate that the B-ESEM model fit is superior to the fit of reference models. Furthermore, the results suggest that model fit is sensitive to sample size, item number, and the number of specific and general factors in a model.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling: A meta-analytic review of model fit

Gegenfurtner

2022

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Future studies would also do well in re-assessing the validity evidence based on test-criterion relationship using different work-related measures. It would also be interesting to examine the representation of engagement towards other activities such as studies (Dierendonck et al, 2021) or job (Gillet et al, 2020). Given that the dedication S-factor had relatively low reliability, future studies should investigate whether this is a re-occurring phenomenon or whether it is a sample-specific result.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Having the Cake and Eating It Too: First-Order, Second-Order and Bifactor Representations of Work Engagement

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Even though work engagement is a popular construct in organizational psychology, the question remains whether it is experienced as a global construct, or as its three components (vigor, dedication, absorption). The present study thus contributes to the ongoing scientific debate about the dimensionality of work engagement systematically compared one-factor, first-order, higher-order, and bifactor confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) representations of work engagement measured by the short version of Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9). We also documented the validity evidence of the most optimal representation based on its test-criterion relationship with basic psychological need fulfillment at work, turnover intentions, work addiction, and work satisfaction. Based on responses provided by two distinct samples of employees (N1 = 242, N2 = 505), our results supported the superiority of the bifactor-CFA representation including a global factor of work engagement and three co-existing specific factors of vigor, dedication, and absorption. This representation replicated well across the two samples through tests of measurement invariance. Finally, while global work engagement was substantially related to all correlates, the specific factors also demonstrated meaningful associations over and above the global levels of work engagement.

show abstract

“…In an effort to better clarify engagement and its dimensions, researchers have identified additional subdimensions, including global and context-specific engagement (e.g., Stefansson et al, 2016;Wang et al, 2016;Dierendonck et al, 2020;Olivier et al, 2020;Dierendonck et al, 2021). For instance, Dierendonck et al (2021) demonstrated that high school students' behavioral and cognitive engagement can be represented in a bifactor structure model with global and specific engagement. The specific manifestation is conceptualized as engagement in classroomrelated activities, while global engagement includes engagement in school.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential relations among expectancy, task value, engagement, and academic performance: The role of generation status

Edwards

Dai

2023

Front. Educ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionWe investigated differences in domain-general expectancy, value, and engagement in school by generation status and how the relationship among these constructs and academic performance differ by generation status.MethodsA total of 573 college students enrolled in introductory psychology courses participated in the study. We collected data on generation status, expectancy-value beliefs, school engagement, and official GPA data from participants, tested measurement invariance of expectancy-value beliefs and engagement between first-generation college students (FGCS) and continuing generation college students (CGCS), and conducted multigroup modeling to understand the differential relations of expectancy-value, engagement, and GPA between the two groups.ResultsWe discovered that the latent mean of expectancy beliefs differed significantly by generation status, with FGCS reporting higher expectancy than CGCS. There were no differences in the latent mean of task value. Multigroup structural equation modeling revealed that the effect of expectancy-value motivation on behavioral engagement was similar across groups, but its effect on cognitive engagement was greater for the FGCS than for the CGCS. For both groups, expectancy impacted academic performance via behavioral engagement. Finally, neither expectancy-value motivation nor cognitive engagement directly predicted academic performance for either group.DiscussionThe findings have important theoretical implications for understanding motivation and achievement of FGCS and CGCS and critical practical implications regarding undergraduate education.

show abstract

Testing associations between global and specific levels of student academic motivation and engagement in the classroom

Cited by 8 publications

References 77 publications

Bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling: A meta-analytic review of model fit

Bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling: A meta-analytic review of model fit

Having the Cake and Eating It Too: First-Order, Second-Order and Bifactor Representations of Work Engagement

Differential relations among expectancy, task value, engagement, and academic performance: The role of generation status

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About