Martin2009 PDF

Validity Studies Educational and
Psychological Measurement
Volume 69 Number 5
October 2009 794-824
Motivation and Engagement Ó 2009 SAGE Publications
10.1177/0013164409332214
Across the Academic Life Span http://epm.sagepub.com

hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
A Developmental Construct Validity Study
of Elementary School, High School,
and University/College Students
Andrew J. Martin
University of Sydney
From a developmental construct validity perspective, this study examines motivation

and engagement across elementary school, high school, and university/college, with
particular focus on the Motivation and Engagement Scale (comprising adaptive,
impeding/maladaptive, and maladaptive factors). Findings demonstrated developmen-
tal construct validity across the three distinct educational stages in terms of good-
fitting first- and higher order factors, invariance of factor structure across gender and
age, and a pattern of correlations with cognate constructs (e.g., homework completion,
academic buoyancy, class participation) consistent with predictions. Notwithstanding
the predominantly parallel findings, there was also notable distinctiveness, primarily
in terms of mean-level effects, such that elementary school students were generally
more motivated and engaged than university/college students who in turn were more
motivated and engaged than high school students. Implications for motivation and
engagement measurement and theory, research in the psychoeducational domain, and
the subsequent potential for performance profiling across the academic life span are
discussed.
Keywords: construct validity; developmental; measurement; motivation; engagement;

students
S tudents in elementary school, high school, and university/college share a great

deal in common. In each context, students are required to apply themselves
over a sustained period of time to develop their academic skills, engage with key
performance demands, negotiate the rigors of competition, deal with setback and
adversity, cope with possible self-doubt and uncertainty, and develop psychological
and behavioral skills to effectively manage the ups and downs of the ordinary
Author’s Note: This article was in part prepared while the author was a visiting senior research fellow
in the Department of Education at the University of Oxford. Requests for further information about this
investigation can be made to Andrew J. Martin, Faculty of Education and Social Work, A35—
Education Building, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia; email: a.martin@edfac.usyd.edu.au.
794
Downloaded from epm.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on January 16, 2015
Martin / Motivation and Engagement 795
course of academic life. Given these congruencies across distinct educational

stages, it is feasible to propose that there will be core and common constructs rele-
vant and meaningful across the academic life span. This study seeks to assess this
issue in the context of academic motivation and engagement; more specifically, it
seeks to assess the validity of recently developed academic motivation and engage-
ment instrumentation in the context of students from elementary school, high
school, and university/college. Analyses conducted in this investigation across
these three distinct educational stages are proposed as a developmental construct
validity study of academic motivation and engagement.
Substantive Background: An Integrative

Framework for Motivation and Engagement
and Implications for Measurement
The substantive background to the study centers on academic motivation and

engagement and the need for more pragmatic and integrative approaches to their
measurement and theorizing. In critical reviews of motivation and engagement
research, it has been suggested that such research oftentimes yields limited practi-
cal implications and applications and that there is a need to devise research that
advances scientific understanding but that also has applied utility. Hence, there
have been calls to give greater attention to use-inspired basic research in education
and psychology contexts (Stokes, 1997; see also Greeno, 1998; Pintrich, 2000,
2003). Critical reviews of motivation and engagement research also point to the
fact that such research is diverse and fragmented. As a result, there have also been
calls for more integrative approaches to its research and theorizing (Bong, 1996;
Murphy & Alexander, 2000; Pintrich, 2003). It is in this context that the Motivation
and Engagement Wheel (Martin, 2001, 2002, 2007a) was developed. The wheel is
presented in Figure 1.
As Figure 1 shows, there are two levels at which the wheel has been con-
ceptualized: the integrative higher order level, comprising 4 factors, and the
lower (or first-order) level, comprising 11 factors. As discussed fully by Martin
(2007a, 2008a, 2008b), higher order factors (and corresponding first-order fac-
tors) are adaptive cognitions (self-efficacy, valuing, mastery orientation), adap-
tive behaviors (planning, task management, persistence), impeding/maladaptive
cognitions (anxiety, failure avoidance, uncertain control), and maladaptive
behaviors (self-handicapping, disengagement). Initially this wheel was devel-
oped to better understand motivation and engagement among high school stu-
dents; however, in the present study its application to elementary school and
university students is assessed from a developmental construct validity per-
spective (described below).
796 Educational and Psychological Measurement
Figure 1
Motivation and Engagement Wheel
ADAPTIVE ADAPTIVE
COGNITION BEHAVIOR
Persistence
Valuing
Mastery
orientation Planning
Self- Task
efficacy management
Anxiety
Disengagement
Failure
avoidance
Self-
Uncertain
handicapping
control
MALADAPTIVE IMPEDING/MALADAPTIVE
BEHAVIOR COGNITION
Source: Adapted from Martin (2003a).
Higher Order Dimensions of Motivation and Engagement

Martin (2007a, 2008a, 2008b) proposed that over the past four decades a number
of psychological theories and models have been developed that explain the nature
of human cognition and behavior. He demonstrated that there are significant com-
monalities across these theories and models, which provide direction as to
fundamental (higher order) dimensions of motivation and engagement. These com-
monalities operate at three levels.
The first level delineates cognitive and behavioral elements, including work
encompassing cognitive and behavioral orientations in learning strategies (Pintrich
& DeGroot, 1990; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991), cognitive antecedents of behavioral
strategies used to negotiate environmental demands (Buss & Cantor, 1989), cogni-
tive-behavioral approaches to engagement and behavior change (Beck, 1995), and
cognitive-affective and behavioral dimensions to academic engagement (Miller,
Greene, Montalvo, Ravindran, & Nichols, 1996; Miserandino, 1996). The second
level demonstrates the differential empirical strength of distinct aspects of motiva-
tion and engagement—for example, self-efficacy reflects highly adaptive motivation
(Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 1996), anxiety impedes individuals’ engagement (Sarason
& Sarason, 1990; Spielberger, 1985), and behaviors such as self-handicapping
reflect quite maladaptive engagement (Martin, Marsh, & Debus, 2001a, 2001b,
2003; Martin, Marsh, Williamson, & Debus, 2003). The third level informs the struc-
ture of motivation and engagement frameworks, such as those hypothesizing and
empirically demonstrating hierarchical models of human cognition and behavior that
encompass specific factors under more global characterizations (e.g., Elliot &
Church, 1997; Marsh & Shavelson, 1985; Shavelson, Hubner, & Stanton, 1976).
Taken together and in consideration of the joint issues of motivational and beha-
vioral orientations; cognitive-behavioral frameworks; differing empirical levels of
adaptive, impeding, and maladaptive dimensions in applied settings; and hierarchi-
cal models of cognition and behavior, Martin (2007a, 2008a, 2008b) proposed that
motivation can be characterized in terms of four higher order dimensions: (a) adap-
tive cognition, (b) adaptive behavior, (c) impeding/maladaptive cognition, and
(d) maladaptive behavior. These dimensions and their component first-order factors
have been synthesized under the Motivation and Engagement Wheel (Martin,
2001, 2003a, 2003c, 2007a, 2008b) presented in Figure 1.
First-Order Dimensions of Motivation and Engagement

Pintrich (2003) identified core substantive questions for the development of a
motivational science. Taken together, these questions underscore the importance of
considering, conceptualizing, and articulating a model of motivation from salient
and seminal theorizing related to self-efficacy, control, valuing, goal orientation,
need achievement, self-worth, and self-regulation. These, it is suggested, provide a
useful heuristic for the identification of first-order constructs for operationalizing
the Motivation and Engagement Wheel.
As discussed fully by Martin (2001, 2002, 2003c, 2007a), (a) self-efficacy the-
ory (e.g., Bandura, 1997) is reflected in the self-efficacy dimension of the wheel,
(b) attributions and control are reflected in the uncertain control dimension (tap-
ping the controllability element of attributions; see Connell, 1985; Weiner, 1994),
(c) valuing (e.g., Eccles, 1983; Wigfield & Tonks, 2002) is reflected in the valuing
dimension, (d) self-determination (in terms of intrinsic motivation; see Ryan &
Deci, 2000) and motivation orientation (see Dweck, 1986; Martin & Debus, 1998;
Nicholls, 1989) are reflected in the mastery orientation dimension, (e) self-
regulation (e.g., Martin, 2001, 2002, 2003c, 2007a; Martin, Marsh, & Debus,
2001a, 2001b, 2003; Zimmerman, 2002) is reflected in the planning, task manage-
ment, and persistence dimensions, and (f) need achievement and self-worth (e.g.,
Atkinson 1957; Covington, 1992; Martin & Marsh, 2003; McClelland, 1965) are
reflected in the failure avoidance, anxiety, self-handicapping, and disengagement
dimensions. Hence, the wheel comprises 11 lower, or first-order, dimensions (see
Figure 1).
Measurement and the Motivation and Engagement Scale
Alongside the Motivation and Engagement Wheel is its accompanying instru-

mentation, the Motivation and Engagement Scale (MES). Typically administered
to high school students, the Motivation and Engagement Scale–High School
(MES-HS; Martin, 2001, 2003c, 2007a, 2007b, 2008a) demonstrates a strong factor
structure that is invariant across gender and age (but there are mean-level differ-
ences such that females generally report higher levels of motivation than do males,
and middle high school students report lower motivation than do junior and senior
high school students) and is reliable and normally distributed. It has also been
found to predict a variety of educational outcomes such as enjoyment of school,
classroom participation, educational aspirations, and achievement-related outcomes
such as school grades. To extend this line of research, the present investigation
assesses parallel forms of the MES: for elementary school students, the Motivation
and Engagement Scale–Junior School (MES-JS), and for college or university stu-
dents, the Motivation and Engagement Scale–University/College (MES-UC).
Over the past few years, there has been growing research around the Motivation
and Engagement Wheel and its accompanying instrumentation, the MES. The
MES is robust in the high school (Martin, 2007a), workplace (Martin, in press b;
see also Martin 2005b, 2005c), music (Martin, 2008b), sport (Martin, 2008b), and
physical activity domains (Martin, Tipler, Marsh, Richards, & Williams, 2006).
The wheel and MES are useful as bases for educational intervention (Martin,
2005a, 2008b). The wheel and MES are helpful foundations for assessing group-
level (climate) effects (Martin & Marsh, 2005). Finally, the wheel and MES are
useful in addressing more specific educational issues such as domain specificity
(Green, Martin, & Marsh, 2007), teacher effects (Martin & Marsh, 2005), and the
role of parents and teachers in the motivation and engagement process (Martin,
2003b, 2006). However, to date, there has been no thoroughgoing and detailed
scoping of the wheel and MES across the span of education—that is, across ele-
mentary school, high school, and university samples (but see Martin, in press-b, for
brief research in the context of sport, music, work, and daily life motivation and
engagement). The present study does so from a proposed developmental construct

validity perspective.
Methodological Background: A Developmental

Construct Validity Perspective
Researchers in psychology and education have increasingly emphasized the

need to develop and evaluate instruments within a construct validation framework
(e.g., see Marsh, 2002; Marsh & Hau, 2007). Investigations that adopt a construct
validation approach can be classified as within-network or between-network stu-
dies. Moreover, it is proposed here that when construct validity is assessed across
distinct educational stages it constitutes something of a developmental construct
validity perspective. Specifically, it is proposed that a dual within- and between-
network approach across elementary school, high school, and university represents
a developmental construct validity approach to assessing the generality of motiva-
tion and engagement across the academic life span.
Within-Network Validity
Beginning with a logical analysis of internal consistency of the construct defini-
tion, measurement instruments, and generation of predictions, within-network stu-
dies typically employ empirical techniques such as exploratory factor analysis,
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and reliability analysis. The present study con-
ducts within-network analyses across the three samples using CFA to test the multi-
dimensional motivation and engagement framework and reliability analysis to test
the internal consistency of scores. Consistent with previous studies of high school
students (e.g., Green et al., 2007; Martin, 2001, 2003c, 2007a) and across diverse
performance settings such as music and sport (Martin, 2008b), it is hypothesized
that at each educational stage (elementary school, high school, and university), the
motivation and framework instrumentation (MES) will evince a sound first- and
higher order factor structure and comprise reliable scores.
Between-Network Validity
Between-network research explores relationships between a target central fra-
mework and a set of factors external to the framework. It typically does so through
statistical procedures such as correlation, regression, or structural equation model-
ing (SEM) analyses to examine relationships between measures and instruments.
The present study conducts between-network analyses across the three samples by
assessing (a) the invariance of factor structure across gender, age groups, and
educational stages (elementary school, high school, university/college); (b) mean-

level differences across educational stages; and (c) the empirical links between the
hypothesized first- and higher order factors and a set of cognate between-network
measures (enjoyment of school or university, class participation, positive inten-
tions, academic buoyancy, homework/assignment completion). Each of these
between-network techniques is described in turn.
Factorial invariance in the structure of motivation and engagement. As

described by Martin (2007a, 2008b), insufficient attention is given to analyses of
the factor structure of motivation and engagement and the extent to which a given
motivation and engagement instrument and its components are invariant across dif-
ferent groups. Such concerns about factor structure invariance are most appropri-
ately evaluated using CFA to determine whether—and how—the structure of
motivation and engagement varies according to key subpopulations (see Hattie,
1992; Marsh, 1993). Martin (2004, 2007a) has previously shown the MES factor
structure (factor loadings, uniquenesses, correlations/variances) to be invariant
across early-, mid-, and late-adolescent samples and also across gender. The pre-
sent study is an opportunity to assess invariance across gender and age within ele-
mentary school and university. It is also an opportunity to assess invariance across
elementary school, high school, and university samples. Consistent with previous
studies of high school students (e.g., Green et al., 2007; Martin, 2001, 2003c,
2007a) and across diverse performance settings such as music and sport (Martin,
2008b), it is hypothesized that factor structure (including loadings, correlations/
variances, and uniquenesses) across gender, age, and educational stage will evince
relative invariance.
Mean-level educational stage effects. Very little research has assessed mean
levels of motivation and engagement across the academic life span: elementary
school, high school, and university. The transition from elementary to middle
school has been found to pose difficulties and challenges unique to that time
(Anderman & Midgley, 1997; Roeser, Eccles, & Sameroff, 2000), and a decline in
student motivation and engagement is typically found to emerge after this transition
(see Martin, 2001, 2003c, 2004, 2007a; Wigfield & Tonks, 2002), including
changes in subjective task value (Wigfield, Eccles, Mac Iver, Reuman, & Midgley,
1991). As students move on to university/college, some research has found them to
be more confident in the quantity and quality of their abilities, whereas other
research finds it a difficult transition with less support and structure and a major
challenge in asserting one’s identity among highly capable peers (Martin, Marsh,
Williamson, et al., 2003). Increasingly, universities and colleges are recognizing
the stresses and strains of undergraduate life and the difficulties in making a suc-
cessful transition from high school (see Martin, Milne-Home, Barrett, & Spalding,
1997; Martin, Milne-Home, Barrett, Spalding, & Jones, 2000). Indeed, Martin and
colleagues (Martin, Marsh, Williamson, et al., 2003) found university to present

distinct challenges that instill doubts and uncertainties that in some cases lead to
self-handicapping, poorer academic performance, and eventual dropout. Taken
together, then, it is hypothesized that elementary school students will evince rela-
tively higher mean levels of motivation and engagement than high school and uni-
versity students do; however, no predictions are made regarding the relative mean
levels of the latter two groups.
Motivation, engagement, and cognate correlates. Consistent with the construct

validity approach, it is proposed that five between-network constructs provide a
theoretically relevant basis for examining the external validity of the MES across
the academic life span: positive intentions, class participation, enjoyment of
school, academic buoyancy, and homework/assignment completion. In terms of
positive intentions, several researchers have shown that students higher in moti-
vation and engagement are more likely to take advanced or optional courses and
also more likely to report future course enrolment intentions (Meece, Wigfield, &
Eccles, 1990). In addition to positive intentions, class participation is deemed a
feasible between-network construct. Learning environments that foster student
participation are found to enhance students’ commitment to learning (Richter &
Tjosvold, 1980), whereas a lack of participation is found to lead to unsuccessful
educational outcomes such as emotional withdrawal and poor identification with
the school (Finn, 1989). Enjoyment of school is another feasible between-network
construct. Elliot and Sheldon (1997), for example, included enjoyment as one of
the five key variables in their study of goal pursuit. Even research in higher edu-
cation finds that enjoyment is a key factor in students’ engagement at university
(Lee, Sheldon & Turban, 2003). Martin and Marsh (2006, 2008a, 2008b) have
shown academic buoyancy to be a factor relevant to students’ ability to deal with
academic setback in the ordinary course of academic life and also have shown a
variety of motivation and engagement factors to be significantly associated with
such buoyancy. It is also proposed that in addition to these four intrapsychic mea-
sures, there is a need for more behavioral measures (Green et al., 2007) that in the
present study take the form of homework/assignment completion. Consistent with
previous studies of high school students (e.g., Green et al., 2007; Martin, 2001,
2003c, 2007a) and across diverse performance settings such as music and sport
(Martin, 2008b, in press-a, in press-b), it is hypothesized that the adaptive dimen-
sions will be positively (to a modest or strong degree) associated with these corre-
lates, the impeding/maladaptive dimensions will be associated at near-zero or
negatively (to a weak or modest degree), whereas maladaptive dimensions will
be more markedly negatively (to a modest or strong degree) associated with these
correlates.
Aims of the Study

The overarching aim of this study is to examine the developmental construct
validity of motivation and engagement across elementary school, high school, and
university samples. More specifically, this study assesses a recently developed inte-
grative motivation and engagement instrumentation across the academic life span
with a view to assessing (a) within-network validity in terms of first- and higher
order factor structure and reliability and (b) between-network validity in terms of
invariance of factor structure across groups (gender, age, educational stage), mean-
level differences across educational stage, and associations with cognate correlates.
Method
Elementary School Sample and Procedure

The elementary school sample comprised 624 upper-age elementary students in
five schools. All schools were located in urban areas drawing from two capital
cities in Australia. Students were age 9 to 11.5 years (n = 114, 56% female and
44% male) and 11.5 years to 13 years (n = 510, 38% female and 62% male). The
mean age of students was 11.13 (SD = 0.69) years. Teachers read the MES-JS
(Martin, 2007b) items aloud to students during class or pastoral care/tutorial
groups. The rating scale was first explained, and sample items were presented. Stu-
dents were then asked to complete the instrument as the teacher read out each item
in turn and to return the completed form to the teacher at the end of class or pas-
toral care/tutorial group. Previous work has been conducted in a smaller urban and
rural elementary school sample (Martin, Craven, & Munns, 2006); however, this
work only comprised a factor analysis of the MES-JS with no invariance testing,
mean-level analyses, analyses in the context of the academic life span, and external
validity checks. The present study, then, is a significant progression on previous
work.
High School Archive Sample and Procedure

The high school sample comprised data collected from 21,579 high school stu-
dents from 58 Australian schools. Thirty-six schools were government, and 22
schools were independent, and they were from urban and regional areas across
most states in Australia. Students were age 12 to 13 years (n = 6,640, 49% female
and 51% male), 14 to 15 years (n = 7,894, 43% female and 57% male), and 16 to
18 years (n = 7,045, 44% female and 56% male). The mean age of students was
14.52 (SD = 1.57) years.
The high school sample is something of an archive sample that has been com-
piled over recent years across numerous research projects. Portions of the data have
been reported elsewhere with a more substantial construct validity study by Martin
(2007a) assessing the MES-HS among 12,237 high school students, all of whom
are included as part of the present archive sample of 21,579 students. The reader is
urged to consult Martin (2007a; see also Martin, 2008b, in press-a, in press-b) for
these academic motivation and engagement data in the context of other perfor-
mance domains such as sport, music, and work as the first substantial large-sample
investigation into the MES-HS. The archive dataset represents the integration of
data collected over the previous 5 years and so can be considered to be relatively
current. Teachers administered the MES-HS (Martin, 2001, 2003c, 2007a, 2007b)
to students during class or pastoral care/tutorial groups. The rating scale was first
explained, and sample items were presented. Students were then asked to complete
the instrument on their own and to return the completed form to the teacher at the
end of class or pastoral care.
University Sample and Procedure

University (college) respondents were 420 undergraduate students from two
Australian universities. One university is well established and one of the oldest in
the country (68% of sample). The other is a more recently established institution
(32%). Most respondents were women (80%), and 20% were men. Most students
were enrolled in education (66%), with other students enrolled in arts (18%), psy-
chology/social science (8%), social work (3%), science (3%), and communications
(2%). Most were full-time students (96%), with 4% part-time. Most were in their
first year of study (65%), with 25% in second year, 7% in third year, and 3% in
fourth or fifth year. The mean age of students was 21.47 (SD = 6.62) years, with
60% under 20 years of age and 40% 20 years and over. Students completed the
instrument in lecture or tutorial time. Students were asked to complete the MES-
UC (Martin, 2007b) on their own and return the completed instrument at the end of
the lecture or tutorial they were attending at the time.
Materials
Motivation and Engagement Scale

General overview. The MES-JS (Martin, 2007b), MES-HS (Martin, 2001,
2003c, 2007a, 2007b), and MES-UC (Martin, 2007b) are instruments that measure
elementary, high school, and university students’ motivation and engagement,
respectively. Adapted from the MES-HS, the MES-JS and MES-UC assess motiva-
tion and engagement through three adaptive cognitive dimensions (self-efficacy,
valuing, mastery orientation), three adaptive behavioral dimensions (persistence,

planning, task management), three impeding/maladaptive cognitive dimensions
(anxiety, failure avoidance, uncertain control), and two maladaptive behavioral
dimensions (self-handicapping, disengagement).
Each of the 11 factors comprises four items—hence, the MES is a 44-item
instrument. The MES-JS and MES-UC comprise the same number of items (44)
and the same number of first-order (11) and higher order (4) factors as the original
high school instrument (MES-HS). As much as possible, item adaptation aimed to
make simple and transparent word and terminology changes in order to remain very
parallel to the high school form. In the appendix, a sample item from the MES-HS
is presented along with its MES-JS and MES-UC adaptations (see Martin, 2007a,
for a full account of the origins of and rationale for the scale and item develop-
ment). To simplify the survey for younger students, the MES-JS asks students to
rate themselves on a shorter scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree),
whereas for the MES-HS and MES-UC, students rate themselves on a scale of 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). In most studies using the MES (e.g.,
Martin, 2007a, 2008a, 2008b, in press-a), the 7-point rating scale is typically used.
However, the elementary school sample posed a distinct challenge in that a simpler
survey form was desirable: Pilot work indicated that students had difficulty teasing
apart the finer-grained rating points on the 7-point scale.
Adaptive cognitive and behavioral dimensions. Each adaptive dimension falls

into one of two groups: cognitions and behaviors. Adaptive cognitions include self-
efficacy, mastery orientation, and valuing. Adaptive behaviors include persistence,
planning, and task management. Self-efficacy is students’ belief and confidence in
their ability to understand or to do well in their school or university work, to meet
challenges they face, and to perform to the best of their ability. Valuing of school
or university is how much students believe what they do and learn at school or uni-
versity is useful, important, and relevant to them. Mastery orientation entails being
focused on understanding, learning, solving problems, and developing skills. Plan-
ning is how much students plan their work and how much they keep track of their
progress as they are doing it. Task management refers to the way students use their
time, organize their timetables, and choose and arrange where they prepare for
school or university and school or university tasks. Persistence reflects students’
capacity to persist in situations that are challenging and at times when they find it
difficult to do what is required.
Impeding and maladaptive cognitive and behavioral dimensions. Impeding/

maladaptive cognitive dimensions are anxiety, failure avoidance, and uncertain
control. Anxiety has two parts: feeling nervous and worrying. Feeling nervous is
the uneasy or sick feeling students get when they think about their school or univer-
sity work or tasks. Worrying is their fear of not doing very well in their school or
university work. Failure avoidance occurs when the main reason students try at
school or university is to avoid doing poorly or to avoid being seen to do poorly.
Uncertain control assesses students’ uncertainty about how to do well or how to
avoid doing poorly. Maladaptive behavioral dimensions are self-handicapping and
disengagement. Self-handicapping occurs when students reduce their chances of
success at school or university. Examples are engaging in other activities when
they are meant to be doing their school or university work or preparing for upcom-
ing school or university tasks. Disengagement occurs when students give up or are
at risk of giving up at school or university or in particular school or university
activities.
Between-Network Correlates
Students were also administered items that explored their enjoyment of school
or university (4 items; e.g., elementary school item: ‘‘I like school,’’ Cronbach’s
a = .94; high school item: ‘‘I like school,’’ a = .91; university item: ‘‘I like univer-
sity,’’ a = .91), class participation (4 items; e.g., elementary school item: ‘‘I get
involved in things we do in class,’’ a = .90; high school item: ‘‘I get involved in
things we do in class,’’ a = .90; university item: ‘‘I get involved in things we do in
class,’’ a = .93), positive intentions (4 items; e.g., high school item: ‘‘I intend to
complete school,’’ a = .82; university item: ‘‘I intend to complete university,’’
a = .72), and academic buoyancy (4 items; e.g., elementary school item: ‘‘I think
I’m good at dealing with schoolwork pressures,’’ a = .78; high school item:
‘‘I think I’m good at dealing with schoolwork pressures,’’ a = .80; university item:
‘‘I think I’m good at dealing with university pressures,’’ a = .84). These measures
were rated on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) and were
adapted directly from Martin (2007a, 2008b; see also Martin & Marsh, 2006,
2008a, 2008b), who has shown them to be reliable, a good fit to the data in CFA,
and significantly associated with motivation and engagement in other performance
domains such as sport and music. Homework/assignment completion (‘‘How often
do you do and complete your assignments?’’) was a single item assessed on a rating
scale of 1 (never) to 5 (always).
Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling

CFA and SEM, performed with LISREL 8.80 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2006), were
used to test the hypothesized models. In CFA and SEM, the researcher posits an a
priori structure and tests the ability of a solution based on this structure to fit the
data by demonstrating that (a) the solution is well defined, (b) parameter estimates
are consistent with theory and a priori predictions, and (c) the subjective indices of
fit are reasonable (McDonald & Marsh, 1990). Maximum likelihood was the
method of estimation used for the models. In evaluating goodness of fit of alterna-
tive models, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is emphasized,
as are the comparative fit index (CFI), the non-normed fit index (NNFI), and an
evaluation of parameter estimates. For RMSEAs, values at or less than .05 and .08
are taken to reflect a close and reasonable fit, respectively (see Jöreskog & Sörbom,
1993). The CFI and NNFI vary along a 0 to 1 continuum in which values at or
greater than .90 and .95 are typically taken to reflect acceptable and excellent fits
to the data, respectively (McDonald & Marsh, 1990). The CFI contains no penalty
for a lack of parsimony, whereas the RMSEA contains penalties for a lack of
parsimony.
Missing Data
For large-scale studies, the inevitable missing data are a potentially important
problem, particularly when the amount of missing data exceeds 5% (e.g., Graham
& Hoffer, 2000). A growing body of research has emphasized potential problems
with traditional pairwise, listwise, and mean substitution approaches to missing
data (e.g., Graham & Hoffer, 2000), leading to the implementation of the expecta-
tion maximization (EM) algorithm, the most widely recommended approach to
imputation for data that are missing at random, as operationalized using missing
value analysis in LISREL. In fact, less than 5% of the MES data were missing in
each of the elementary school, high school, and university samples, and so the EM
algorithm was implemented for all samples. Also explored were alternative
approaches to this problem, which showed that results based on the EM algorithm
used here were very similar to those based on the traditional pairwise deletion
methods for missing data—as would be expected to be the case when there were so
few missing data.
Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Tests of Invariance

Two broad sets of invariance tests were conducted. The first assessed invariance
within samples. The second assessed invariance between samples. For the within-
sample invariance tests, for each of elementary school, high school, and university,
multigroup CFAs were conducted to assess invariance across gender and age. For
the between-sample invariance tests, three invariance analyses were conducted—
between high school and university on the original 7-point rating scale; between
elementary school, high school, and university using a common 5-point rating scale
(reliabilities for the transformed 5-point variables: high school a range = .75 to .81;
university a range = .66 to .86); and between elementary school and university
on a common 5-point rating scale (the common 5-point rating scale was derived
by aggregating the first and last 2 points of the 7-point rating scale). Although the
chi-square difference test is the most straightforward means of assessing differ-

ences between nested models, problems associated with such tests exist (e.g., see
McDonald & Marsh, 1990; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Hence, in formally asses-
sing differences in models, emphasis is given to differences in fit indices (Cheung
& Rensvold, 2002).
Multiple-Indicator, Multiple-Cause Models

Notwithstanding the importance of testing for invariance in factor structure,
there is also reason to investigate the mean-level developmental effects on the 11
facets of the MES-JS, MES-HS, and MES-UC. Kaplan (2000) suggested the multi-
ple-indicator, multiple-cause (MIMIC) approach, which is similar to a regression
model in which latent variables (e.g., multiple dimensions of motivation and
engagement) are ‘‘caused’’ by discrete grouping variables (e.g., educational stage)
that are represented by single indicators. This MIMIC model assessed the role of
educational stage (elementary school, high school, university) as a predictor of
motivation and engagement. Being a multinomial predictor and using high school
as the reference point, educational stage was represented by two dummy variables:
high school (0) versus elementary school (1) and high school (0) versus university
(1); hence, positive beta weights for both dummy variables indicate higher scores
for elementary school and university students compared with high school students,
and negative beta weights for both dummy variables indicate lower scores for ele-
mentary school and university students compared with high school students.
Results
First- and Higher Order Confirmatory Factor Analysis

In the first instance, an 11-factor model was examined using CFA. The CFA
yielded a very good fit to the data for elementary school (w2 = 1,881.10, df = 847,
p < .001, CFI = .98, NNFI = .97, RMSEA = .04), high school (w2 = 28,217.75,
df = 847, p < .001, CFI = .98, NNFI = .98, RMSEA = .04), and university (w2 =
1,697.75, df = 847, p < .001, CFI = .96, NNFI = .95, RMSEA = .05). Factor load-
ing ranges and means are presented in Table 1. Taken together, for all three sam-
ples the loadings are acceptable. This is supported by the acceptable reliability
coefficients (e.g., see Henson, 2001) also presented in Table 1. Correlations for the
sample are presented in Table 2. Predictably, for the three samples all adaptive
dimensions were strongly (significantly) positively correlated and correlated
strongly (significantly) negatively with maladaptive dimensions and slightly (but
significantly) negatively or at near-zero with impeding/maladaptive dimensions.
Maladaptive dimensions were markedly (significantly) positively correlated, as
Table 1
Cronbach’s Alphas, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Loadings, and
808
Multiple-Indicator, Multiple-Cause Modeling Standardized Betas
Cronbach’s a ES / HS / UNI CFA Loadings Range (Mean) ES / HS / UNI HS (0) vs. ES (1) HS (0) vs. UNI (1)
Adaptive cognition
Self-efficacy .76 / .77 / .71 .60–.72 (.67) / .63–.75 (.69) / .54–.71 (.62) .24*** (ES > HS) .15*** (U > HS)
Mastery orientation .82 / .81 / .82 .69–.79 (.73) / .65–.78 (.72) / .63–.82 (.73) .30*** (ES > HS) .31*** (U > HS)
Valuing .74 / .77 / .70 .49–.77 (.65) / .55–.76 (.68) / .49–.70 (.61) .50*** (ES > HS) .38*** (U > HS)
Higher order ES: Range = .84–.90, Mean = .87
HS: Range = .84–.92, Mean = .87 .45*** (ES > HS) .36*** (U > HS)
UNI: Range = .75–.89, Mean = .80
Adaptive behavior
Planning .87 / .77 / .73 .73–.89 (.80) / .57–.79 (.70) / .33–.91 (.66) .33*** (ES > HS) .26*** (U > HS)
Task management .86 / .82 / .82 .61–.88 (.78) / .71–.85 (.76) / .62–.87 (.74) .26*** (ES > HS) .24*** (U > HS)
Persistence .79 / .81 / .75 .63–.79 (.70) / .60–.79 (.71) / .59–.75 (.66) .25*** (ES > HS) .24*** (U > HS)
HS: Range = .84–.88, Mean = .86 .35*** (ES > HS) .30*** (U > HS)
UNI: Range = .59–.90, Mean = .74
Impeding/maladaptive cognition
Anxiety .75 / .77 / .78 .52–.74 (.65) / .61–.74 (.68) / .55–.82 (.69) .04*** (ES > HS) .22*** (U > HS)
Failure avoidance .84 / .79 / .85 .61–.85 (.76) / .65–.84 (.70) / .71–.83 (.77) –.18*** (HS > ES) –.14*** (HS > U)
Uncertain control .78 / .79 / .80 .65–.73 (.69) / .62–.75 (.69) / .62–.82 (.72) –.50*** (HS > ES) –.28*** (HS > U)
HS: Range = .56–.83, Mean = .69 –.47*** (HS >ES) –.24*** (HS > U)
UNI: Range = .51–.74, Mean = .65
Maladaptive behavior
Self-handicapping .82 / .81 / .87 .68–.77 (.73) / .61–.78 (.72) / .72–.84 (.79) –.47*** (HS > ES) –.26*** (HS > U)
Disengagement .70 / .81 / .72 .33–.85 (.63) / .65–.84 (.74) / .50–.79 (.65) –.31*** (HS > ES) –.13*** (HS > U)
HS: Range = .70–.87, Mean = .79 –.49*** (HS > ES) –.24*** (HS > U)
UNI: Range = .64–.80, Mean = .72
Note: ES = elementary school; HS = high school; UNI = university. Means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis are available from the author on request. High school
results are bolded to assist readability.
***p < 0.001
Table 2
Interscale Correlations in Confirmatory Factor Analysis: First- and Higher Order Solutions
Elementary School / High School / University
Mastery Task Failure Uncertain Self-

Self-Efficacy Orientation Valuing Planning Management Persistence Anxiety Avoid Control Handicapping
First-order
correlations
Self-efficacy –
Mastery .78 / .73 / .60 –
orientation
Valuing .75 / .76 / .61 .72 / .78 / .71 –
Planning .60 / .55 / .41 .56 / .54 / .42 .51 / .57 / .43 –
Task management .57 / .58 / .25 .50 / .56 / .42 .52 / .58 / .39 .63 / .79 / .57 –
Persistence .71 / .68 / .64 .58 / .59 / .48 .52 / .65 / .64 .59 / .74 / .65 .63 / .66 / .46 –
Anxiety –.08 / .03 / –.08 .03 / .21 / .17 .04 / .14 / .08 –.19 / .11 / .13 –.11 / .15 / .09 –.19 / .07 / .08 –
Failure avoid –.24 / –.16 / –.24 –.15 / –.05 / –.11 –.22 / –.11 / –.28 –.23 / –.02 / –.15 –.20 / –.02 / –.10 –.29 / -.09 / –.31 .50 / .43 / .39 –
Uncertain control –.54 / –.34 / –.50 –.38 / –.10 / –.12 –.42 / –.17 / –.13 –.39 / –.17 / –.21 –.35 / –.15 / –.10 –.52 / –.27 / –.38 .40 / .49 / .47 .57 / .53 / .45 –
Self-handicapping –.47 / –.37 / –.30 –.37 / –.26 / –.26 –.49 / –.32 / –.32 –.36 / –.33 / –.30 –.36 / –.32 / –.24 –.45 / –.40 / –.45 .26 / .19 / .17 .50 / .45 / .53 .62 / .53 / .36 –
Disengagement –.59 / –.62 / –.47 –.59 / –.56 / –.36 –.75 / –.71 / –.63 –.45 / –.51 / –.26 –.48 / –.51 / –.26 –.59 / –.60 / –.54 .11 / .06 / .10 .36 / .32 / .40 .51 / .43 / .39 .65 / .59 / .51
Impeding/
Adaptive Adaptive Maladaptive Maladaptive
Cognitions Behaviors Cognitions Behaviors
Higher order
correlations
Adaptive –
cognitions
Adaptive .86 / .78 / .77 –
behaviors
Impeding/ –.46 / –.16 / –.29 –.56 / –.14 / –.33 –
maladaptive
cognitions
Maladaptive –.79 / –.75 / –.69 –.74 / –.68 / –.66 .70 / .61 / .73 –
behaviors
809
were impeding/maladaptive dimensions. For the three samples, all correlations

indicate lower levels of shared variance between factor groupings than within fac-
tor groupings.
In addition to the first-order dimensions constituting the 11 facets of the Motiva-
tion and Engagement Wheel, there is also hypothesized a higher order structure
delineated by adaptive cognitive dimensions, adaptive behavioral dimensions,
impeding/maladaptive cognitive dimensions, and maladaptive behavioral dimen-
sions. In higher order models, correlations between first-order dimensions are con-
strained to be zero, and relations among these first-order dimensions are explained
in terms of higher order dimensions. For each of elementary school, high school,
and university samples, the higher order CFAs comprised the 44 items, the 11 first-
order dimensions, and the 4 higher order dimensions. The higher order elementary
school structure fit the data very well (w2 = 2,155.87, df = 886, p < .001,
CFI = .97, NNFI = .97, RMSEA = .05), as did the higher order model for high
school students (w2 = 36,732.07, df = 886, p < .001, CFI = .98, NNFI = .98,
RMSEA = .04) and university students (w2 = 1,968.82, df = 886, p < .001,
CFI = .95, NNFI = .94, RMSEA = .05). Table 2 presents higher order correlations,
which broadly confirm cluster correlations in the first-order model.
Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Invariance Tests

Eight models were tested in each of the multigroup CFAs assessing invariance
of factor structure across gender, age, and educational stage. The initial five models
related to the first-order factor structure. The first model allowed all factor loadings,
uniquenesses, and correlations to be freely estimated; the second held first-order
factor loadings invariant across groups; the third held first-order factor loadings
and correlations/variances invariant; the fourth held first-order factor loadings and
uniquenesses invariant; and the fifth held first-order factor loadings, uniquenesses,
and correlations/variances invariant. The final three models focused on invariance
of higher order loadings and correlations/variances: The sixth freely estimated the
higher order loadings and correlations/variances, the seventh held higher order
loadings invariant, and the eighth held higher order loadings and correlations/
variances invariant.
Within-sample invariance tests. For elementary school, results in Table 3 indi-

cate that when successive elements of the first- and higher order factor structure are
held invariant across groups, the fit indices are predominantly comparable across
(Table 3 also indicates w2, df, and p values) (a) males and females (ranges:
CFIs = .97 for first-order and .96 for higher order solutions; NNFIs = .98 for first-
order and .97 for higher order solutions; RMSEAs = .05 for first-order and higher
order solutions) and (b) younger (9–11.5 years) and older (11.5–13 years) students
(ranges: CFIs = .97 for first-order and .96 for higher order solutions; NNFIs = .96
Table 3
Invariance Tests Across Gender and Age Group
Comparative Nonnormed Root Mean Square

w2 df Fit Index Fit Index Error of Approximation
Invariance across males and females

First-order parameters are free 2,947 / 28,707 / 2,720 1,694 / 1,694 / 1,694 .97 / .98 / .94 .97 / .98 / .93 .05 / .04 / .05
(Model 1: no invariance)
First-order factor loadings invariant (Model 2) 3,084 / 28,859 / 2,761 1,727 / 1,727 / 1,727 .97 / .98 / .94 .97 / .98 / .93 .05 / .04 / .05
Model 2 + correlations/variances invariant 3,165 / 29,343 / 2,923 1,793 / 1,793 / 1,793 .97 / .98 / .94 .97 / .98 / .93 .05 / .04 / .06
Model 2 + uniquenesses invariant 3,108 / 31,109 / 2,983 1,771 / 1,771 / 1,771 .97 / .98 / .94 .97 / .98 / .93 .05 / .04 / .06
Model 2 + correlations/variances, 3,269 / 31,759 / 3,162 1,837 / 1,837 / 1,837 .97 / .98 / .93 .96 / .98 / .93 .05 / .04 / .06
uniquenesses invariant
Higher order parameters free 3,409 / 39,563 / 3,285 1,849 / 1,849 / 1,849 .96 / .97 / .93 .96 / .97 / .92 .05 / .04 / .06
Higher order factor loadings invariant (Model 3) 3,413 / 39,595 / 3,320 1,855 / 1,855 / 1,855 .96 / .97 / .93 .96 / .97 / .92 .05 / .04 / .06
Invariance across age groups
First-order parameters are free 3,011 / 30,639 / 2,728 1,694 / 2,541 / 1,694 .97 / .98 / .94 .96 / .98 / .93 .05 / .04 / .05
(Model 1: no invariance)
First-order factor loadings invariant (Model 2) 3,036 / 31,021 / 2,792 1,727 / 2,607 / 1,727 .97 / .98 / .94 .96 / .98 / .93 .05 / .04 / .05
Model 2 + uniquenesses invariant 2,993 / 32,800 / 2,875 1,771 / 2,695 / 1,771 .97 / .98 / .94 .96 / .98 / .93 .05 / .04 / .06
Model 2 + correlations/variances, 3,091 / 33,857 / 3,004 1,837 / 2,827 / 1,837 .96 / .98 / .94 .96 / .98 / .93 .05 / .04 / .06
uniquenesses invariant
Higher order parameters free 3,320 / 41,931 / 3,208 1,849 / 2,812 / 1,849 .96 / .97 / .93 .96 / .97 / .92 .05 / .04 / .06
Higher order factor loadings invariant (Model 3) 3,325 / 42,050 / 3,217 1,855 / 2,824 / 1,855 .96 / .97 / .93 .96 / .97 / .93 .05 / .04 / .06
Note: High school results are bolded to assist readability. All chi-square values significant at p < .001. Maximum 90% confidence interval range for all first-order root mean
square errors of approximation (RMSEAs) = .04 to .06. Maximum 90% confidence interval range for all higher order RMSEAs = .04 to .07.
811
for first-order and higher order solutions; RMSEAs = .05 for first-order and higher
order solutions).
For high school, the fit indices are predominantly comparable across (a) males
and females (ranges: CFIs = .98 for first-order and .97 for higher order solutions;
NNFIs = .98 for first-order and .97 for higher order solutions; RMSEAs = .04 for
first-order and higher order solutions) and (b) early (12–13 years), middle (14–15
years), and late (16–18 years) adolescence (ranges: CFIs = .98 for first-order and
.97 for higher order solutions; NNFIs = .98 for first-order and .97 for higher order
solutions; RMSEAs = .04 for first-order and higher order solutions).
For university, the fit indices are predominantly comparable across (a) males
and females (ranges: CFI = .93 to .94 for first-order and .92 to .93 for higher order
solutions; NNFIs = .93 for first-order and .92 for higher order solutions;
RMSEAs = .06 for first-order and higher order solutions) and (b) younger (17–19
years) and older (20 or more years) students (ranges: CFIs = .94 for first-order and
.92 for higher order solutions; NNFIs = .93 for first-order and .92 for higher order
solutions; RMSEAs = .05 to .06 for first-order and .06 for higher order solutions).
For all three samples, the application of recommended criteria for evidence of lack
of invariance (i.e., a change of .01 in fit indices; see Cheung & Rensvold, 2002)
indicates that there is invariance across groups.
Between-sample invariance tests. The final set of invariance tests assessed first-
and higher order factor structure across elementary school, high school, and univer-
sity samples. This is a direct assessment of the generalizability of the framework
and measurement across diverse settings. Fit indices in Table 4 (Table 4 also indi-
cates w2, df, and p values) show that when successive elements of the factor struc-
ture are held invariant across high school and university samples on the original
7-point rating scale (ranges: CFIs and NNFIs = .98 for first-order and higher order
solutions; RMSEAs = .04 for first-order and higher order solutions), there is invar-
iance across all first-order and higher order parameters. In terms of elementary
school, high school, and university samples on a common 5-point scale (the com-
mon 5-point rating scale was derived by aggregating the first and last 2 points of
the 7-point rating scale), there is also invariance across the three samples (ranges:
CFIs and NNFIs = .98 for first-order and higher order solutions; RMSEAs = .04 for
first-order and higher order solutions). Finally, when assessing invariance between
elementary school and university samples (thereby omitting the extremely large
high school sample that could bias invariance findings), there is also evidence of
invariance when aspects of factor structure (loadings, correlations/variances,
uniquenesses) are systematically constrained to be equal (ranges: CFI = .96 to .97
for first-order and .96 for higher order solutions; NNFI = .96 to .97 for first-order
and .96 for higher order solutions; RMSEAs = .05 for first-order and higher order
solutions). For each of these three sets of between-sample invariance tests, the
application of recommended criteria for evidence of lack of invariance (i.e., a
Table 4
Invariance Tests Across Samples
Comparative Nonnormed Root Mean Square Error
w2 df Fit Index Fit Index of Approximation
Invariance high school and university (7-point scale)

First-order parameters are free (Model 1: no invariance) 28,875 1,694 .98 .98 .04
First-order factor loadings invariant (Model 2) 29,002 1,727 .98 .98 .04
Model 2 + correlations/variances invariant 29,249 1,793 .98 .98 .04
Model 2 + uniquenesses invariant 29,110 1,771 .98 .98 .04
Model 2 + correlations/variances, unique invariant 29,291 1,837 .98 .98 .04
Higher order parameters free 37,548 1,849 .98 .98 .04
Higher order factor loadings invariant (Model 3) 37,563 1,855 .98 .98 .04
Invariance elementary, high school, university (5-point scale)
Invariance elementary and university (5-point scale)
813
Note: All chi-square values significant at p < .001. Maximum 90% confidence interval range for all first-order root mean square errors of approximation (RMSEAs) = .03 to .05.
Maximum 90% confidence interval range for all higher order RMSEAs = .04 to .05.
change of .01 in fit indices) indicates that there is invariance across elementary
school, high school, and university domains.
Multiple-Indicator, Multiple-Cause Modeling

The previous analyses explored possible differences in factor structure as a func-
tion of educational stage. It was also of interest to explore possible mean-level dif-
ferences in motivation and engagement as a function of educational stage
(elementary school, high school, university). MIMIC modeling was the analytical
method used to examine this and involved structural equation models in which edu-
cational stage was used as a predictor of the first- and higher order factors of the
wheel. The first-order model yielded a good fit to the data (w2 = 39,347.85, df = 914,
p < .001, CFI = .95, NNFI = .94, RMSEA = .04), as did the higher order model
(w2 = 45,508.66, df = 966, p < .001, p < .001, CFI = .95, NNFI = .94, RMSEA =
.05). Beta coefficients are presented in Table 1 along with the main effects for educa-
tional stage. Results show that there are significant stage differences on all motiva-
tion and engagement factors. Compared with high school students, elementary
school and university students are significantly higher on all adaptive dimensions.
Also, compared with high school students, elementary school and university students
are significantly lower in uncertain control, self-handicapping, and disengagement.
However, compared to high school students, elementary school and university stu-
dents are significantly higher on anxiety and failure avoidance. As a general finding,
there is a greater difference between elementary and high school students than
between high school and university students. Again, however, note that the high
school and university 1-to-7 rating continuum was transformed to a 1-to-5 rating con-
tinuum to place high school and university on the same scale of measurement as ele-
mentary school; hence, caution is advised when interpreting these findings. Due to
the large high school sample, caution is also advised when interpreting the signifi-
cance of the MIMIC results, and this being the case, greater emphasis is given to
findings in relation to self-efficacy, mastery orientation, valuing of school, planning,
task management, persistence, uncertain control, and self-handicapping that yielded
standardized beta values greater than .30.
Motivation, Engagement, and Between-Network Cognate Correlates

As indicated earlier, consistent with the between-network construct validity
approach, it was of interest to explore the nature of relationships between each
facet of motivation and a set of key between-network correlates across the three
educational stages. To this end, the three samples were also administered items that
explored enjoyment of school or university (elementary school, high school, uni-
versity), class participation (elementary school, high school, university), positive
academic intentions (high school, university), academic buoyancy (elementary

school, high school, university), and homework completion (high school, univer-
sity). For each of the three samples, first- and higher order CFAs were conducted.
The first-order elementary school CFA yielded a very good fit to the data
(w2 = 2,915.33, df = 1,393, p < .001, CFI = .98, NNFI = .98, RMSEA = .04) and
showed that (a) adaptive dimensions are significantly positively associated with
these between-network constructs and (b) impeding/maladaptive and maladaptive
dimensions (particularly uncertain control, self-handicapping, and disengagement)
are negatively correlated with these constructs. Table 5 presents findings. These
first-order findings were broadly supported in the high school sample (w2 = 52,112,
df = 1,650, p < .001, CFI = .98, NNFI = .98, RMSEA = .04) and the university
sample (w2 = 3,251.39, df = 1,650, p < .001, CFI = .96, NNFI = .96, RMSEA =
.05). Interestingly—and consistent with Martin (2007a; see also Martin & Marsh,
2006, 2008a, 2008b)—academic buoyancy is a notable exception in being more
markedly correlated with impeding/maladaptive cognitions than with maladaptive
behaviors, largely a function of its very high correlation with anxiety (discussed
fully in Martin & Marsh, 2006, 2008a, 2008b). Again, however, due to the large
high school sample, caution is advised when interpreting the correlations—empha-
sis is given to the size and direction of the correlation coefficients themselves rather
than to their significance levels.
The higher order factor analysis for elementary school (w2 = 3,361.64,
df = 1,453, p < .001, CFI = .97, NNFI = .97, RMSEA = .05) provides general sup-
port for the first-order findings. Higher order correlations are also presented in
Table 5 (again, due to the large samples involved, emphasis is given to the size and
direction of the correlation coefficients themselves rather than to their significance
levels). Consistent with the elementary school findings, the higher order factor ana-
lysis for high school (w2 = 67,868.55, df = 1,724, p < .001, CFI = .98, NNFI = .98,
RMSEA = .04) provides support for the first-order findings, as did the higher order
model for the university sample (w2 = 3,683.58, df = 1,724, p < .001, CFI = .95,
NNFI = .95, RMSEA = .05).
Discussion
Through the integration of multivariate measurement and the hypothesized

motivation and engagement framework, this study supports the developmental con-
struct validity of motivation and engagement at the elementary school, high school,
and university/college levels. From this developmental construct validity perspec-
tive, perhaps the most significant yield of this study is the predominantly compar-
able findings across three very distinct educational stages. The data confirm the
hypothesized generality of the wheel and its accompanying instrumentation among
very young students in elementary school through to mature-age students in
816
Table 5
First- and Higher Order Correlations With Between-Network Constructs
Homework
Enjoyment Participation Buoyancy Positive Intent Completion
First-order correlations
Adaptive cognitions
Self-efficacy .43 / .57 / .45 .44 / .51 / .45 .42 / .38 / .41 – / .67 / .68 – / .35 / .05
Mastery orientation .57 / .55 / .37 .48 / .45 / .36 .35 / .20 / .16 – / .56 / .56 – / .34 / .01
Valuing .55 / .63 / .51 .42 / .46 / .44 .31 / .25 / .26 – / .68 / .72 – / .39 / .15
Adaptive behaviors
Planning .40 / .49 / .21 .40 / .46 / .34 .47 / .35 / .19 – / .49 / .30 – / .42 / .12
Task management .40 / .48 / .11 .33 / .41 / .26 .39 / .27 / .13 – / .50 / .23 – / .40 / .11
Persistence .46 / .54 / .35 .51 / .48 / .41 .53 / .37 / .27 – / .60 / .53 – / .48 / .13
Impeding/maladaptive cognitions
Anxiety –.11 / –.04 / –.23 –.16 / –.08 / –.15 –.62 / –.69 / –.74 – / .02 / –.10 – / .04 / –.06
Failure avoidance –.16 / –.17 / –.33 –.24 / –.15 / –.19 –.34 / –.31 / –.39 – / –.18 / –.35 – / –.14 / –.11
Uncertain control –.28 / –.26 / –.29 –.40 / –.25 / –.24 –.52 / –.47 / –.54 – / –.32 / –.31 – / –.24 / .05
Maladaptive behaviors
Self-handicapping –.32 / –.34 / –.28 –.40 / –.30 / –.30 –.29 / –.25 / –.25 – / –.40 / –.34 – / –.37 / –.19
Disengagement –.67 / –.68 / –.57 –.49 / –.46 / –.33 –.29 / –.29 / –.23 – / –.68 / –.67 – / –.47 / –.19
Higher order correlations
Adaptive cognitions .59 / .67 / .55 .52 / .54 / .52 .41 / .31 / .34 – / .73 / .81 – / .42 / .10
Adaptive behaviors .55 / .59 / .32 .55 / .53 / .46 .61 / .39 / .28 – / .62 / .50 – / .50 / .16
Impeding/maladaptive cognitions –.28 / –.20 / –.38 –.41 / –.21 / –.26 –.66 / –.74 / –.87 – / –.19 / –.29 – / –.12 / –.06
Maladaptive behaviors –.66 / –.71 / –.62 –.54 / –.50 / –.41 –.33 / –.33 / –.30 – / –.72 / –.73 – / –.53 / –.11
Notes: Elementary school r > + /–.07, significant at p < .05; high school r > + /–.02 significant at p < .05 (but note large sample); university r > + /–.12 significant at p <
.05. High school results are bolded to assist readability.
university. In some ways, the most revealing tests are the multigroup invariance
analyses across the elementary school, high school, and university samples. These
analyses directly address the question posed at the outset of the study regarding the
generality of the proposed motivation and engagement framework in diverse edu-
cational settings. The invariance data suggest that there is generality—and develop-
mental validity—of the framework across the academic life span.
Notwithstanding the important consistencies across the three educational stages,
findings also suggest issues distinct to each academic setting. For example, the data
show that elementary school students reflect higher levels of motivation and
engagement, and this is consistent with prior work showing declines between ele-
mentary and middle or high school (e.g., Anderman & Midgley, 1997; Roeser et al,
2000; Wigfield et al., 1991; Wigfield & Tonks, 2002). In terms of university stu-
dents, there is some question as to their level of motivation relative to school stu-
dents, with some research recognizing the challenges they face in higher education
and other research reporting on their confidence in their abilities (e.g., see Martin,
Marsh, Williamson, et al., 2003; Pitts, 2005). The present data shed light on these
competing views by showing that, notwithstanding equivalence in factor structure,
university students reflect higher mean levels of motivation and engagement than
do their high school counterparts. In the case of all MIMIC analyses, however, due
to the large samples involved, emphasis is given to the size and direction of the
standardized beta coefficients rather than to the attained significance levels.
Because the constructs within the wheel have a theoretical basis, researchers are
able to draw on theory to provide direction for intervention aimed at addressing
facets within the wheel. Research shows that targeted intervention is more effective
than intervention that does not focus on specific target behaviors (O’Mara, Marsh,
Craven, & Debus, 2006), and so it is proposed that intervention programs seeking to
build specific academic skills and competencies need to provide targeted support that
can do this. The wheel provides a basis for doing so. Martin (2007a; see also Martin,
2008b, in press-a, for strategy in sport and music settings) has proposed specific
classroom strategy that targets each of these dimensions, and this strategy incorpo-
rated into intervention work has demonstrated significant yields for students (Martin,
2005a, 2008a). In addition to what Martin (2007a) suggests in terms of specific class-
room strategy, there are other approaches to intervention that have more of a mea-
surement basis to them. One such approach that Martin (2008b) has previously
proposed in relation to motivation and engagement involves performance profiling.
Performance profiling (Butler & Hardy, 1992) has very direct synergies with the
wheel both in form and substance—indeed, Martin (2008b) has demonstrated how
performance profiling can be conducted with the wheel in the domains of sport and
music. Performance profiling provides a means by which to effectively and parsimo-
niously contextualize individuals’ profiles in reference to a set of psychological and
behavioral criteria. Although there are various ways and levels to profile under a per-
formance profiling schedule, the example in the present study is the mean-level
Figure 2
Performance Profile for Motivation and Engagement, Reflecting Mean Level/7
(rounded to nearest 0.5) Profile for High School Sample (n = 21,579)
ADAPTIVE Mastery ADAPTIVE

orientation Planning BEHAVIOR
COGNITION 7
6 Task
Valuing
management
5
4
Self- 3 Persistence
efficacy
2
1
Anxiety
Disengagement
Failure
avoidance
MALADAPTIVE Self Uncertain IMPEDING/

BEHAVIOR handicapping control MALADAPTIVE
COGNITION
Source: Adapted from Butler and Hardy (1992), Martin (in press-b), and Weinberg and Gould (1999).
profile (rounded) for the high school sample as a whole (n = 21,579). In Figure 2, the
traditional performance profiling format (see Butler & Hardy, 1992; see also Martin,
2008b; Weinberg & Gould, 1999) has been adapted to interface with the Motivation
and Engagement Wheel. Obviously, at the individual level it would reflect the stu-
dent’s mean scores on each dimension. Or, it could be readily employed at a class or
school level (and bringing into focus the issue of multilevel models of motivation
and engagement; for multilevel research along these lines, see Marsh, Martin, &
Cheng, 2008; Martin & Marsh, 2005).
Limitations, Future Directions, and Conclusion
This study provides an enhanced understanding of the validity of motivation and

engagement in the context of three educational stages: elementary school, high
school, and university. There are, however, a number of potential limitations
important to consider when interpreting findings. First, although the large sample
involved in the study is a distinct strength of the research, it posed some challenges
when interpreting data, with the need to emphasize the practical significance of
findings as much as or more than the statistical significance of findings. It is also
important to recognize that the data presented in this study are all self-reported.
Although this is a logical and defensible methodology in its own right given the
substantive focus, it is important to conduct research that examines the same con-
structs using data derived from additional sources such as, for example, achieve-
ment and that from teachers and parents. Just as important as the self-report nature
of findings is the fact that the data presented in the study are cross-sectional. Track-
ing the same students over time and assessing factor structure and interrelationships
from a longitudinal perspective would shed further light on the developmental pro-
cesses relevant to motivation and engagement. In addition, examining reliability
and stability of the scores over time and the causal ordering of motivation and
engagement in relation to the cognate constructs assessed here are other issues of
interest in longitudinal work.
The nature of quantitative survey–based methods also warrants some further
comment. Although Martin, Marsh, Williamson, and Debus (2003) conducted qua-
litative work among university samples, future research might encompass qualita-
tive work that can more fully scope the detailed nature and extent of motivation
and engagement across the academic life span. Alongside this qualitative work,
there may also be yields in multilevel approaches to developmental construct valid-
ity in motivation and engagement. Advances in statistical software enable research-
ers to more accurately assess the relative influence of individual-, class-, and
school-level factors using multilevel modeling (see Goldstein, 2003), and so future
research can readily explore the influence of class- and school-level motivation cli-
mates relative to individual-level variation in motivation and engagement as rele-
vant to developmental construct validity.
To conclude, the research presented here supports the developmental construct
validity of the Motivation and Engagement Wheel and its accompanying instru-
mentation, the MES, across the academic life span. The findings of this investiga-
tion hold implications for researchers studying issues relevant to motivation and
engagement across the academic life span. The findings also present new insights
and opportunities for educators seeking to enhance the educational outcomes of
their students—outcomes that are affected by motivation and engagement and the
extent to which educators can effectively measure and enhance them.
820
APPENDIX
Sample Motivation and Engagement Scale Items
Motivation and Engagement Motivation and Engagement Motivation and Engagement
Scale–Junior School Scale–High School Scale–University/College
Self-efficacy ‘‘If I try hard, I believe I can do my ‘‘If I try hard, I believe I can do my ‘‘If I try hard, I believe I can do my university
schoolwork well’’ schoolwork well’’ work well’’
Valuing ‘‘Learning at school is important’’ ‘‘Learning at school is important’’ ‘‘Learning at university is important’’
Mastery orientation ‘‘I feel very pleased with myself when I really ‘‘I feel very pleased with myself when I really ‘‘I feel very pleased with myself when I really
understand what I’m taught at school’’ understand what I’m taught at school’’ understand what I’m taught at university’’
Planning ‘‘Before I start a project, I plan out how ‘‘Before I start an assignment, I plan out how ‘‘Before I start an assignment, I plan out how
I am going to do it’’ I am going to do it’’ I am going to do it’’
Task management ‘‘I usually do my homework in places where ‘‘When I study, I usually study in places ‘‘When I study, I usually study in places
I can concentrate’’ where I can concentrate’’ where I can concentrate’’
Persistence ‘‘If I can’t understand my schoolwork, ‘‘If I can’t understand my schoolwork at first, ‘‘If I can’t understand my university work
I keep going over it until I do’’ I keep going over it until I do’’ at first, I keep going over it until I do’’
Anxiety ‘‘When I have a project to do, I worry about ‘‘When exams and assignments are ‘‘When exams and assignments are coming
it a lot’’ coming up, I worry a lot’’ up, I worry a lot’’
Failure avoidance ‘‘The main reason I try at school is because ‘‘Often the main reason I work at school ‘‘Often the main reason I work at university is
I don’t want to disappoint my parents’’ is because I don’t want to disappoint because I don’t want to disappoint others’’
my parents’’
Uncertain control ‘‘When I get a bad mark I don’t know how ‘‘When I get a bad mark I’m often unsure how ‘‘When I get a bad mark I’m often unsure how
to stop that happening again’’ I’m going to avoid getting that mark again’’ I’m going to avoid getting that mark again’’
Self-handicapping ‘‘I sometimes don’t work very hard at school ‘‘I sometimes don’t study very hard before ‘‘I sometimes don’t study very hard before
so I can have a reason if I don’t do well’’ exams so I have an excuse if I don’t do exams so I have an excuse if I don’t do
as well as I hoped’’ as well as I hoped’’
Disengagement ‘‘I’ve given up being interested in school’’ ‘‘I’ve pretty much given up being involved ‘‘I’ve pretty much given up being involved
in things at school’’ in things at university’’
References
Anderman, E. A., & Midgley, C. (1997). Changes in personal achievement goals and the perceived
classroom goal structures across the transition to middle level schools. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 22, 269-298.
Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking. Psychological Review, 64, 359-372.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Beck, A. T. (1995). Cognitive therapy: Basics and beyond. New York: Guilford.
Bong, M. (1996). Problems in academic motivation research and advantages and disadvantages of their
solutions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 149-165.
Buss, D. W., & Cantor, N. (1989). Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions. New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Butler, R. J., & Hardy, L. (1992). The performance profile: Theory and application. Sport Psychologist,
6, 253-264.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement
invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.
Connell, J. P. (1985). A new multidimensional measure of children’s perceptions of control. Child
Development, 56, 1018-1041.
Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.
Eccles, J. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and
achievement motivation (pp. 75-146). San Francisco: Freeman.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement
motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218-232.
Elliot, A. J., & Sheldon, K. M. (1997). Avoidance achievement motivation: A personal goals analysis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 171-185.
Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117-142.
Goldstein, H. (2003). Multilevel statistical models. London: Edward Arnold.
Graham, J. W., & Hoffer, S. M. (2000). Multiple imputation in multivariate research. In T. D. Little,
K. U. Schnable, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Modeling longitudinal and multilevel data: Practical issues,
applied approaches, and specific examples (pp. 201-218). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Green, J., Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2007). Motivation and engagement in English, mathematics
and science high school subjects: Towards an understanding of multidimensional domain specificity.
Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 269-279.
Greeno, J. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53, 5-26.
Hattie, J. (1992). Self-concept. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Henson, R. K. (2001). Understanding internal consistency reliability estimates: A conceptual primer on
coefficient alpha. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 177-189.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS com-
mand language. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8.80. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Kaplan, D. (2000). Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Lee, F. K., Sheldon, K. M., & Turban, D. B. (2003). Personality and goal-striving process: The influence
of achievement goal patterns, goal level, and mental focus on performance and enjoyment. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 88, 256-265.
Marsh, H. W. (1993). The multidimensional structure of academic self-concept: Invariance over gender
and age. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 841-860.
Marsh, H. W. (2002). A multidimensional physical self-concept: A construct validity approach to theory,

measurement, and research. Psychology: The Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society, 9,
459-493.
Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K.-T. (2007). Applications of latent-variable models in educational psychology:
The need for methodological-substantive synergies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32,
151-171.
Marsh, H. W., Martin, A. J., & Cheng, J. (2008). A multilevel perspective on gender in classroom moti-
vation and climate: Potential benefits of male teachers for boys? Journal of Educational Psychology,
100, 78-95.
Marsh, H. W., & Shavelson, R. J. (1985). Self-concept: Its multifaceted, hierarchical structure. Educa-
tional Psychologist, 20, 107-125.
Martin, A. J. (2001). The Student Motivation Scale: A tool for measuring and enhancing motivation.
Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 11, 1-20.
Martin, A. J. (2002). Motivation and academic resilience: Developing a model of student enhancement.
Australian Journal of Education, 14, 34-49.
Martin, A. J. (2003a). How to motivate your child for school and beyond. Sydney, Australia: Bantam.
Martin, A. J. (2003b). The relationship between parents’ enjoyment of parenting and children’s school
motivation. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 13, 115-132.
Martin, A. J. (2003c). The Student Motivation Scale: Further testing of an instrument that measures
school students’ motivation. Australian Journal of Education, 47, 88-106.
Martin, A. J. (2004). School motivation of boys and girls: Differences of degree, differences of kind, or
both? Australian Journal of Psychology, 56, 133-146.
Martin, A. J. (2005a). Exploring the effects of a youth enrichment program on academic motivation and
engagement. Social Psychology of Education, 8, 179-206.
Martin, A. J. (2005b). Perplexity and passion: Further consideration of the role of positive psychology in
the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 24, 203-205.
Martin, A. J. (2005c). The role of positive psychology in enhancing satisfaction, motivation, and produc-
tivity in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 24, 113-133.
Martin, A. J. (2006). The relationship between teachers’ perceptions of student motivation and engage-
ment and teachers’ enjoyment of and confidence in teaching. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Educa-
tion, 34, 73-93.
Martin, A. J. (2007a). Examining a multidimensional model of student motivation and engagement using
a construct validation approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 413-440.
Martin, A. J. (2007b). The Motivation and Engagement Scale. Sydney, Australia: Lifelong Achievement
Group. www.lifelongachievement.com.
Martin, A. J. (2008a). Enhancing student motivation and engagement: The effects of a multidimensional
intervention. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 239-269.
Martin, A. J. (2008b). Motivation and engagement in music and sport: Testing a multidimensional fra-
mework in diverse performance settings. Journal of Personality, 76, 135-170.
Martin, A. J. (in press-a). How domain specific are motivation and engagement across school, sport, and
music? A substantive-methodological synergy assessing young sportspeople and musicians. Contem-
porary Educational Psychology.
Martin, A. J. (in press-b). Motivation and engagement in diverse performance domains: Testing their
generality across school, university/college, work, sport, music, and daily life. Journal of Research
in Personality.
Martin, A. J., Craven, R. G., & Munns, G. (2006). Motivation and engagement in young children: How
well does a high school conceptualization generalize to junior school? In R. G. Craven., J. S. Eccles,
& T. M. Ha (Eds.), Self-concept, motivation, social and personal identity for the 21st century. Pro-
ceedings of the Fourth International Biennial SELF Research Conference, Ann Arbor, University of
Michigan.
Martin, A. J., & Debus, R. L. (1998). Self-reports of mathematics self-concept and educational out-
comes: The roles of ego-dimensions and self-consciousness. British Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 68, 517-535.
Martin, A. J. & Marsh, H. W. (2003). Fear of failure: Friend or foe? Australian Psychologist, 38, 31-38.
Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2005). Motivating boys and motivating girls: Does teacher gender really
make a difference? Australian Journal of Education, 49, 320-334.
Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2006). Academic resilience and its psychological and educational corre-
lates: A construct validity approach. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 267-282.
Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2008a). Academic buoyancy: Towards an understanding of students’
everyday academic resilience. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 53-83.
Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2008b). Workplace and academic buoyancy: Psychometric assessment
and construct validity amongst school personnel and students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assess-
ment, 26, 168-184.
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2001a). A quadripolar need achievement representation of
self-handicapping and defensive pessimism. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 583-610.
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2001b). Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism:
Exploring a model of predictors and outcomes from a self-protection perspective. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 93, 87-102.
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2003). Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism: A
model of self-protection from a longitudinal perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
28, 1-36.
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., Williamson, A., & Debus, R. L. (2003). Self-handicapping, defensive pessi-
mism, and goal orientation: A qualitative study of university students. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 95, 617-628.
Martin, A. J., Milne-Home, J., Barrett, J., & Spalding, E. (1997). Stakeholder perceptions of the institu-
tion: To agree or not to agree. Journal of Institutional Research in Australasia, 6, 53-67.
Martin, A. J., Milne-Home, J., Barrett, J., Spalding, E., & Jones, G. (2000). Graduate satisfaction with
university and perceived employment preparation. Journal of Education and Work, 13, 199-214.
Martin, A. J., Tipler, D. V., Marsh, H. W., Richards, G. E., & Williams, M. R. (2006). Assessing multidi-
mensional physical activity motivation: A construct validity study of high-school students. Journal
of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 28, 171-192.
McClelland, D. C. (1965). Toward a theory of motive acquisition. American Psychologist, 20, 321-333.
McDonald, R. P., & Marsh, H. W. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness-
of-fit. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 247-255.
Meece, J. L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictors of mathematics anxiety and its influence on
young adolescents’ course enrolment intentions and performance in mathematics. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 82, 60-70.
Miller, R. B., Greene, B. A., Montalvo, G. P., Ravindran, B., & Nichols, J. D. (1996). Engagement in
academic work: The role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others, and perceived abil-
ity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 388-422.
Miserandino, M. (1996). Children who do well in school: Individual differences in perceived compe-
tence and autonomy in above-average children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 203-214.
Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (2000). A motivated exploration of motivation terminology. Contem-
porary Educational Psychology, 25, 3-53.
Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
O’Mara, A. J., Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., & Debus, R. (2006). Do self-concept interventions make a
difference? A synergistic blend of construct validation and meta-analysis. Educational Psychologist,
41, 181-206.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in achievement settings. Review of Educational Research, 66,
543-578.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Educational psychology at the millennium: A look back and a look forward. Edu-
cational Psychologist, 35, 221-226.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning
and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667-686.
Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom
academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.
Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college class-
room. In M. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.). Advances in motivation and achievement: Goals and
self-regulatory processes (Vol. 7, pp. 371-402). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Pitts, S. (2005). Valuing musical participation. Hants, UK: Ashgate.
Richter, F. D., & Tjosvold, D. (1980). Effects of student participation in classroom decision making on
attitudes, peer interaction, motivation and learning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 74-80.
Roeser, R., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. J. (2000). School as a context of early adolescents’ academic
and social-emotional development: A summary of research findings. Elementary School Journal,
100, 443-471.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,
social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (1990). Test anxiety. In H. Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbook of social and
evaluation anxiety (pp. 475-495). New York: Plenum.
Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct interpreta-
tions. Review of Educational Research, 46, 407-441.
Spielberger, C. D. (1985). Assessment of state and trait anxiety: Conceptual and methodological issues.
Southern Psychologist, 2, 6-16.
Stokes, D. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. A. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn
& Bacon
Weinberg, R. S., & Gould, D. (1999). Foundations of sport and exercise psychology (2nd ed.). Cham-
paign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Weiner, B. (1994). Integrating social and personal theories of achievement striving. Review of Educa-
tional Research, 64, 557-573.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J., Mac Iver, D., Reuman, D., & Midgley, C. (1991). Transitions at early adoles-
cence: Changes in children’s domain-specific self-perceptions and general self-esteem across the
transition to junior high school. Developmental Psychology, 27, 552-565.
Wigfield, A., & Tonks, S. (2002). Adolescents’ expectancies for success and achievement task values
during middle and high school years. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Academic motivation of ado-
lescents (pp. 53-82). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Achieving self-regulation: The trial and triumph of adolescence. In F. Pajares
& T. Urdan (Eds.), Academic motivation of adolescents (pp. 1-28). Greenwich, CT: Information
Age.

Martin2009 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Martin2009 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Validity Studies Educational and

Across the Academic Life Span http://epm.sagepub.com

From a developmental construct validity perspective, this study examines motivation

Keywords: construct validity; developmental; measurement; motivation; engagement;

S tudents in elementary school, high school, and university/college share a great

course of academic life. Given these congruencies across distinct educational

Substantive Background: An Integrative

The substantive background to the study centers on academic motivation and

Source: Adapted from Martin (2003a).

Higher Order Dimensions of Motivation and Engagement

First-Order Dimensions of Motivation and Engagement

Measurement and the Motivation and Engagement Scale

Alongside the Motivation and Engagement Wheel is its accompanying instru-

engagement). The present study does so from a proposed developmental construct

Methodological Background: A Developmental

Researchers in psychology and education have increasingly emphasized the

educational stages (elementary school, high school, university/college); (b) mean-

Factorial invariance in the structure of motivation and engagement. As

colleagues (Martin, Marsh, Williamson, et al., 2003) found university to present

Motivation, engagement, and cognate correlates. Consistent with the construct

Aims of the Study

Elementary School Sample and Procedure

High School Archive Sample and Procedure

University Sample and Procedure

Motivation and Engagement Scale

valuing, mastery orientation), three adaptive behavioral dimensions (persistence,

Adaptive cognitive and behavioral dimensions. Each adaptive dimension falls

Impeding and maladaptive cognitive and behavioral dimensions. Impeding/

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling

Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Tests of Invariance

chi-square difference test is the most straightforward means of assessing differ-

Multiple-Indicator, Multiple-Cause Models

First- and Higher Order Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Mastery Task Failure Uncertain Self-

were impeding/maladaptive dimensions. For the three samples, all correlations

Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Invariance Tests

Within-sample invariance tests. For elementary school, results in Table 3 indi-

Comparative Nonnormed Root Mean Square

Invariance across males and females

Invariance high school and university (7-point scale)

Multiple-Indicator, Multiple-Cause Modeling

Motivation, Engagement, and Between-Network Cognate Correlates

academic intentions (high school, university), academic buoyancy (elementary

Through the integration of multivariate measurement and the hypothesized

ADAPTIVE Mastery ADAPTIVE

MALADAPTIVE Self Uncertain IMPEDING/

Limitations, Future Directions, and Conclusion

This study provides an enhanced understanding of the validity of motivation and

Marsh, H. W. (2002). A multidimensional physical self-concept: A construct validity approach to theory,

You might also like