Psychology in the Schools, Vol.

52(9), 2015 
C 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pits DOI: 10.1002/pits.21867

A PSYCHOMETRIC EXAMINATION OF THE LEARNED HELPLESSNESS

QUESTIONNAIRE IN A SAMPLE OF ITALIAN SCHOOL STUDENTS
LUANA SORRENTI, PINA FILIPPELLO, SEBASTIANO COSTA, AND CATERINA BUZZAI
University of Messina

The aim of this study was to verify the factor structure of a self-report filled out by students
to assess learned helplessness (LH) and mastery orientation (MO) in a school environment. Two
separate studies were undertaken to accomplish this purpose. Through exploratory factor analysis,
Study 1 aimed to explore factor structure of the new Learned Helplessness Questionnaire (LHQ)
and examine the distinction between LH and MO in a sample of 488 school students (198 males
and 290 females) between 11 and 18 years old. Furthermore, the reliability and criterion validity
of the instrument were examined. The primary purpose of Study 2 was to confirm in a new sample
the factor structure of the LHQ and to examine the internal consistency, reliability, and concurrent
validity with measures of self-efficacy, student’s quality of life, and school decision making in a
sample of 378 school students (212 males and 166 females) between 11 and 18 years old. Results
revealed that the 12-item LHQ showed a good two-factor structure that represents the two subscales
of the theoretical framework model (MO and LH). The two factors showed very good internal
reliability and good criterion and concurrent validity. Practical implications for school psychology
are discussed.
Learned helplessness (LH) is defined as a passive behavior characterized by an inability to
learn, shown by those frequently subjected to stressful, uncontrollable, and inevitable negative
events (Abramson, Metalsky, & Alloy, 1989; Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978; Seligman
& Maier, 1967). Since these early studies, LH has been analyzed in different fields and contexts,
and research has shown its negative effects on both physical and psychological individual well-
being (Filippello, Sorrenti, Buzzai, & Costa, 2015; Fincham & Cain, 1986; Maier & Watkins, 2005;
McCrone, 1979; Peterson, 2010; Peterson, Maier, & Seligman, 1993; Rius-Ottenheim, van der Mast,
Zitman, & Giltay, 2013).

LH VERSUS M ASTERY O RIENTATION AND ACADEMIC P ERFORMANCE

Focusing in particular on the school environment, it is well known that a state of LH may affect
the academic success of students because it involves a number of psychological variables that play
an important role in learning (e.g., self-efficacy, self-representation, explanatory styles, information
processing, motivation, and performance anxiety; Macher, Paechter, Papousek, & Ruggeri, 2012;
Peixoto & Almeida, 2010). In fact, we can say that students who are at risk for developing LH
are characterized by an internal, stable, and global locus for bad events; an external, unstable, and
specific locus for good events; negative expectations concerning results; lack of confidence in their
own abilities; and falsified interpretations of events because of irrational beliefs. Specifically, they
begin to attribute their failures to personal inadequacy, spontaneously citing deficient intelligence,
memory, or problem-solving ability as the reasons for their failure. This is accompanied by a striking
absence of any positive prognosis and occurs despite the presence of some experiences of success.
They will develop worse strategies after failures; have negative attitudes toward tasks, displaying,
for example, anxiety, boredom, and rejection; and will be overwhelmed by a sense of helplessness
and frustration that can lead to the LH. Individuals, therefore, may accept things and remain passive

Correspondence to: Luana Sorrenti, University of Messina, Department of Human and Social Sciences, Via
Tommaso Cannizzaro, 278, Messina, Italy. E-mail: sorrentil@unime.it

923
924

in negative situations despite their clear ability to change them, showing considerable difficulty in
identifying the relationship between actions and consequences (events), and left overwhelmed by a
sense of frustration (Dickhäuser, Reinhard, & Englert, 2011; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Filippello,
Harrington, Buzzai, Sorrenti, & Costa, 2014; Filippello & Sorrenti, 2008; Ruthig et al., 2008;
Sorrenti, Filippello, Buzzai, & Costa, in press).
A form of behavior in contrast to helplessness can be observed in “mastery-oriented” students
(Dweck & Leggett, 1988). In fact, these students believe that their efforts produce success and will be
more motivated, open toward learning and able to use effective study strategies, preferring challeng-
ing tasks (Yates, 2009). The mastery-oriented pattern involves the seeking of challenging tasks and
the maintenance of effective striving under failure. In the face of failure, mastery-oriented students
tend to make self-monitoring statements that focus on mastering tasks, make more positive-affective
statements, and maintain high expectations for future success. Rather than viewing unsolved prob-
lems as failures that reflected on their ability, they appear to view the unsolved problems as challenges
to be mastered through effort. The mastery-oriented pattern involves the seeking of challenging tasks
and the generation of effective strategies in the face of obstacles. Their overall performance does
not deteriorate; they often persist, increase their efforts, and use more sophisticated problem-solving
strategies. Mastery-oriented children appeared to maintain an unflagging optimism that their efforts
will be fruitful. In keeping with their optimistic stance, mastery-oriented children maintain their pos-
itive attitude toward the task, and some even showed heightened positive attitudes with the advent
of difficult problems. Students who show good motivation, optimism, and perseverance are more
focused on tasks (Dickhäuser et al., 2011; Dweck & Legget, 1988; Ruthig et al., 2008).
In essence, fear of failure, lack of responsibility, and a high level of task avoidance can lead to
failure; however, positive emotions and a sense of control promote academic success and personal
satisfaction (Sorrenti, Larcan, Cuzzocrea, & Oliva, 2004). Previous studies (Dweck & Leggett, 1988)
have shown that helpless and mastery-oriented children processed and responded to the situation
in entirely different ways. The helpless and the mastery-oriented patterns, in fact, are two distinct,
coherent patterns, with striking differences in cognition, emotion, and behavior that characterize
each (Dweck & Leggett, 1988).
Helpless and mastery motivational patterns may occur independent of intellectual abili-
ties (Licht & Dweck, 1984), but there is evidence that the relationship between these pat-
terns and children’s achievement level increases from third to fifth grade (Fincham, Hokoda, &
Sanders, 1989). Furthermore, several studies have shown that in many situations in which older
children exhibit helplessness, younger children do not tend to do so. Furthermore, young children,
when compared with older children, are found to maintain an adaptive motivational stance after
failure (Parsons & Ruble, 1977; Rholes, Blackwell, Jordan, & Walters, 1980; Ruble, Parsons, &
Ross, 1976). Previous research has also reported gender differences in students’ attitudes and their
approach to school work, with girls showing more effort and persistence than do boys (e.g., Byrnes
& Wasik, 2009; Lekholm & Cliffordson, 2009; Onatsu-Arvilommi & Nurmi, 2000). However, girls
have been found to blame their failure on a lack of ability more frequently than boys do and show
more negative consequences relative to boys after receiving failure information (Parsons, 1983;
Parsons, Ruble, Hodges, & Small, 1976).

T HE E VALUATION OF LH AND M ASTERY ORIENTATION

LH is undoubtedly an issue of social importance that can be extended to various types of

social problems because it involves biological, emotional, and behavioral mechanisms, as well
as interpersonal factors. Despite the importance of this issue, it is difficult to find standardized
instruments that measure both LH and mastery orientation (MO), especially in specific areas (e.g.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 925

education). Generally, these measures focused predominantly on trauma-induced LH. For example,
there are numerous published instruments, internationally used, that measure child and adolescent
depression, one of the most serious aspects of the LH construct (e.g., Beck Hopelessness Scale,
Beck & Steer, 1988; Children’s Depression Inventory, Kovacs, 1992; Beck Depression Inventory-
II, Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996). In scientific psychological research, LH is often measured by a
specific, existing scale, the Learned Helplessness Scale, developed by Quinless and Nelson (1988),
which evaluates helpless behavior in general without providing information about the MO of the
subject tested. However, because this construct includes results from negative perceived feedback on
performance, it would be appropriate to investigate LH according to Fincham et al.’s (1989) definition
of LH: “tendency to attribute failure to external factors rather than effort” (p. 139). Furthermore,
because this construct also includes other protective factors, such as MO, that previous studies
have shown to be very relevant in an educational context, it would be appropriate to investigate
these variables at an early stage to prevent the onset of more severe psychopathologies through the
individuation of resources.
Fincham et al. (1989) developed a teacher report, the Student Behaviour Checklist (SBC),
to assess LH and MO. The instrument consists of 24 items rated on a 5-point scale, with two
subscales each containing 12 items measuring LH and MO. Specifically, the items describe student
behavior in the classroom over the previous 2 to 3 months, as rated by the teacher. Development
of the SBC is consistent with Gronlund’s (1971) criteria for improving scale construction, as the
attributes being rated are directly observable as behaviors, categories and points in the scale are
defined clearly, between three and seven rating positions are provided, and the characteristics being
rated are recognized as being of educational significance. However, Fincham et al. (1989) reported
that although the LH and MO subscales are highly correlated, the psychometric robustness of the
checklist has not been established. Further, a shorter version of the scale might “provide a cost-
effective measure of helplessness” (Fincham et al., 1989, p. 143). Yates (2009) has developed a short
form of the checklist, consisting of 10 items to assess helpless behavior observed in mathematics
students. However, this short form is purely a teacher report and does not provide the opportunity
for students to self-evaluate.

R ESEARCH O BJECTIVES
Based on the above considerations, the aim of this study was to structure a self-report filled out by
students to assess LH and MO in a school environment. Obtaining a measure of LH and MO directly
from students helps in avoiding possible distortions from teacher’s perceptions of student behavior.
A further objective was to have an instrument capable of identifying the indices of LH and MO,
starting from middle school (the entrance to which is an important step in the life of a student) and for
the evolutionary phase through pre-adolescence, to account for the changes inherent in the transition
from one school grade to another. Thus, the first purpose of this study was to develop and examine the
psychometric properties of the Learned Helplessness Questionnaire (LHQ), derived from the items
of the SBC (Fincham et al., 1989). The second purpose was to examine the factor structure, internal
consistency reliabilities, and criterion validity of the questionnaire. Because scale development and
psychometric analysis represent an ongoing process of instrument and theory verification that is
demonstrated through a series of investigations (Aiken, 1998; Duda, 1998; Nunnally, 1978), two
separate studies were undertaken to accomplish these purposes.

S TUDY 1
The aim of Study 1 was to develop and explore the factorial structure, reliability, and criterion
validity of an Italian version of the instrument. The SBC (Fincham et al., 1989) was translated and
adapted for the purpose of this research, creating the LHQ. Once items are defined, it is imperative

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

926

to explore the factor structure and determine whether the instrument yields reliable and valid scores.
Through exploratory factor analysis (EFA), Study 1 aimed to explore factor structure of the new
LHQ and examine the distinction between LH and MO. Furthermore, the reliability and criterion
validity the of the instrument were examined.

Method
Participants. The sample consisted of 488 Italian students, 198 males (40.6%) and 290 females
(59.4%). Participants were selected at a middle school and a high school focused on commerce and
science. They were divided into two age groups: middle-school students, aged 11 to 14 years
(n = 155, M = 12.88, SD = 1.17); and high-school students, aged 15 to 18 years (n = 333,
M = 16.25, SD = 1.08). All participants were of Italian nationality and spoke Italian. Furthermore,
17% of the students had high socioeconomic status (both or at least one parent held a university
degree), 61% had middle socioeconomic status (both or at least one parent held a high-school
diploma), and 21% had low socioeconomic status (both or at least one parent held a lower secondary
education diploma). Family socioeconomic status was based on the education of the father and the
mother (see Sirin, 2005). Parent educational status is considered one of the most stable aspects of
socioeconomic status because it is typically established at an early age and tends to remain the same
over time (Sirin, 2005).
Procedure. This study received ethical approval from the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of
Psychology at the University of Messina and was performed in accordance with the ethical standards
described in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki. The participating students were drawn from three
public middle schools and three high schools in Messina that agreed to participate in the research.
The research was approved by a school council composed of parent and teacher representatives at
the junior high-school level. A letter describing the aim of the study and the informed consent form
were provided to the parents of the students. Only participants whose parents provided informed
consent took part in the study. In addition to parents’ consent, children were free to refuse to take
part. The response rate was 93%, with 36 participants (22 boys and 14 girls) failing to complete
the questionnaire after they had started. These subjects were dropped from the data file due to
missing responses at the item level. Each student was individually informed about the procedure of
the experiment. All measures (except for academic achievement) were collected in the classrooms
during school hours in a single session in the months of October, November, and December 2013.
The study procedures were explained, questions were answered, and participants were given a
questionnaire packet. Instructions stated that the questionnaires were voluntary and responses were
confidential. All the students responded to the same questionnaire packet. Participation required
about 15 min.

Measures
The items for the LHQ were adapted from the SBC (Fincham et al., 1989) for this research in
two steps:

1. Translation from the original version and subsequent check for similarity of items through
the back-translation procedure were performed, according to the recommendations of the
International Test Commission (Hambleton, 2001). The questionnaire was adapted from En-
glish to Italian by three independent translators. The translation team consisted of an English
professor at an Italian university, an Italian professor of psychology, and a psychology doc-
toral student with international experience. All the translators translated the measure from
English to Italian. They discussed all the discrepancies identified between the two versions

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 927

until they found a satisfactory solution. Furthermore, all the translators paid considerable
attention to possible cultural differences to achieve equivalence between the two versions.
On this basis, a professional bilingual translator who did not have prior knowledge of the
original versions then back-translated the Italian versions. The back-translation procedure
from Italian to English proved to be identical in content to the original version of the SBC.
2. Items originally directed toward teachers in the self-completed form for students were
adapted.

The LHQ consisted of 24 items with two subscales, each containing 12 items measuring LH
(items: 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 23) and MO (items: 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19,
22, and 24). Participants indicated how much they agreed with the statements on a 5-point Likert
scale (1 = not true to 5 = absolutely true). Children’s achievement was collected at the end of
the first semester through the use of original school records. In the Italian school system, teachers
evaluate their students by using a 10-level gradation for each subject (1 = extremely insufficient
to 10 = excellent), with 6 being the cut-off for sufficiency. We created a composite measure of
academic achievement from the average of grades obtained in all subjects. These data were provided
by teachers from the original school. The grades were compiled from several oral and writing tasks
that were performed at regular intervals during the school year in progress in all subjects. Of the
488 students, teachers only provided the performance results for 134 students, divided into high
achievement (n = 92), consisting of students with an average rating of 6 to 10, and low achievement
(n = 42), consisting of students with an average rating of 5 and below.

Results
Descriptive Analyses. Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations for the LHQ items.
Results of the Shapiro–Wilk (S-W) test for violations of normality were significant for all the items
of the instruments. This test is quite powerful, and with a large sample size, will return a statistically
significant result, even when the departure from normality is not practically important (Meyers,
Gamst, & Guarino, 2013). For this reason, we determined skewness and kurtosis for all the items,
and results (Table 1) suggest that some items were somewhat positively or negatively skewed, which
was somewhat leptokurtic or platykurtic. Furthermore, a variant (see DeCarlo, 1997) of Smalls
omnibus test of multivariate normality was rejected (VQ3(48) = 2,542.62, p < .001), indicating a
multivariate non-normality of the data.
Exploratory Factor Analysis. To verify the factorial structure of the Italian version of the SBC,
principal axis factoring was carried out with rotation (promax with Kaiser normalization). The LHQ
was based on a Likert scale, and views on whether the Likert scale should be considered ordinal
or interval are quite controversial (Jöreskog, 2004; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). However, several
studies have shown that ordinal data can still be accurately modeled as continuous and that Likert
response formats can empirically produce intervals (Carifio, 1976; Carifio, 1978; Carifio & Perla,
2007; Murray, 2013; Norman, 2010; Pell, 2005). The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS) was used to carry out the EFA) to analyze the factor structural validity of the instruments.
According to Schmitt (2011), EFA is often more suitable for further “exploration” of factor structure
that has not been established and/or to explore factor structures without strong hypotheses. EFAs were
conducted on the 24 items, results from which were promax-rotated to account for non-independence
between the subscales (Costello & Osborne, 2005), using principal axis factoring. For data where the
assumption of multivariate normality is violated, principal axis factors are recommended (Costello
& Osborne, 2005; Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999). Several studies clearly show
that different techniques often lead to different numbers of factors being retained (Fabrigar et al.,

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

928

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics of the Items and Subscales Scores of the LHQ

M SD Skew Kurt

Item 1 - Prefer to do easy problems rather than hard ones. 3.29 1.21 –.32 – .79
Item 2 - Express enthusiasm about your work. 2.15 1.17 .71 – .40
Item 3 - When you encounter an obstacle in your work, you work to 3.84 1.13 –1.00 .35
overcome it.
Item 4 - Take little independent initiative: someone must help you to get 2.25 1.27 .68 – .66
started and keep going on an assignment.
Item 5 - In general, you expect to do well on schoolwork (rather than 3.02 1.34 –.05 –1.17
expecting to do poorly and expressing surprise at each success).
Item 6 - When you fail one part of a task, you feel discouraged—you are 2.68 1.34 .21 –1.13
certain to fail at the entire task.
Item 7 - Try to finish homework/assignments, even when they are difficult. 3.81 1.13 –.84 .12
Item 8 - Make negative or degrading comments about your ability when you 2.24 1.26 .68 –.68
perform poorly.
Item 9 - Give up when someone corrects you or finds a mistake in your 3.19 1.07 –.20 –.45
work.
Item 10 - In general, you attempt to do your work thoroughly and well, rather 3.83 1.19 –.94 .06
than just trying to get by.
Item 11 - If asked why you received a poor grade, you are likely to say 2.08 1.24 .84 –.43
something about trying harder (e.g., “I didn’t concentrate enough
that time”).
Item 12 - After failing a few problems on a school/academic task, you 1.51 .99 2.05 3.45
continue to do poorly on remaining problems even though they
are within your ability range.
Item 13 - Prefer new and challenging problems to easy problems. 2.80 1.35 .10 –1.20
Item 14 - Ask for help from aides, other students, or teachers on 1.68 1.11 1.62 1.68
school/academic tasks more than necessary.
Item 15 - When someone points out a mistake you “take it in stride,” try to 4.09 .91 –1.24 1.72
correct the error, and continue to work.
Item 16 - You are proud when you receive a good grade or when your work is 4.43 .86 –1.99 4.46
praised.
Item 17 - When you begin a difficult problem, your attempts are half-hearted. 2.33 1.20 .48 –.82
Item 18 - Do not respond with enthusiasm and pride when asked how you are 1.74 1.11 1.40 .96
doing on a school/academic task.
Item 19 - When you do badly on one part of a task, you still expect to 3.31 1.11 –.30 –.58
perform well on the rest of the task.
Item 20 - Say things like “I can’t do it” when you have trouble with your 2.12 1.25 .88 –.26
work.
Item 21 - When given a good grade, you do not believe you really can do that 2.55 1.42 .35 –1.23
subject; you say, for example, that the problems were just easy,
or you were lucky.
Item 22 - When experiencing difficulty you persist for a while before asking 3.73 1.17 –.83 –.10
for help.
Item 23 - When you encounter an obstacle in schoolwork you get 1.95 1.16 1.08 .24
discouraged and stop trying. You are easily frustrated.
Item 24 - When you receive a poor grade, you say that you will try harder in 4.19 1.02 –1.50 1.96
that subject next time.

Note. Skew = skewness; kurt = kurtosis.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 929

1999; Zwick & Velicer, 1986). According to previous studies (Conway & Huffcutt, 2003; Fabrigar
et al., 1999; Ford, MacCallum, & Tait, 1986), a combination of techniques was used to establish the
number of factors. This is sensible because no single technique has been shown to be highly accurate
over a wide range of conditions in pinpointing the number of factors. Furthermore, the combination
of techniques should probably include examination of multiple solutions with different numbers
of factors, for interpretability, because an uninterpretable solution will not be helpful (Conway &
Huffcutt, 2003). The number of factors was determined through parallel analysis, Velicer’s minimum
average partial (MAP) test (Velicer, 1976; Velicer, Eaton, & Fava, 2000), and interpretability of the
factor structure by examination of the oblique rotated factor pattern matrix. Parallel analysis and
the MAP test are among the better methods for determining the correct number of factors based on
simulation studies (Zwick & Velicer, 1986). Parallel analysis and the MAP test were implemented
using an existing SPSS program (O’Connor, 2000). Parallel analysis was based on 5,000 random
data matrices (based on the number of observations and variables being factor analyzed) using the
eigenvalues that correspond to the 95th percentile of the distribution of random data eigenvalues.
An iterative process was used, in which items with relatively low primary loadings (< .40), or
cross-loadings of .30 or higher, were removed.
The parallel analysis suggested retaining five factors; the original MAP test (Velicer, 1976)
suggested two factors, whereas the revised MAP test (Velicer et al., 2000) suggested three factors.
To obtain the number of factors to retain, the interpretability of the factor structures suggested by
parallel analysis and MAP tests were examined. Principal axis factoring estimation using promax
rotation limited to two-, three-, and five-factor solutions was used to explore factor loadings. After
the oblique rotation, the item loading tables were compared, selecting the one with the “cleanest”
factor structure. To select the most interpretable factor structure, according to Costello and Osborne
(2005), the criteria were item loadings above .40, no or few item cross-loadings (no secondary
loading above .30), and no factors with fewer than three items item loading above .40. Examining
the pattern matrix of these solutions (two, three, and five factors) suggested that the two-factor
solution was more interpretable. The five-factor solution were found to explain 44% of the variance
(eigenvalues for the first six factors were 4.30, 2.28, 1.65, 1.28, and 1.10), with the first factor that
had six items with item loadings above .40. However, the other four factors had only two items with
item loadings above .40. The three factors, instead, were found to explain 34% of the variance, but
the third factor had no more than two items with a loading above .40.
Hence, a two-factor analysis was performed. These factors explained 27% of variance. The goal
of item selection informed by the EFA was to identify items that would consistently load onto their
respective subscales in future research. For this reason, we used the factor loading criteria indicated
earlier to identify suitable items. Twelve items failed this test by loading lower than .40 on one of
the two identified factors. There were no items that loaded highly onto two factors. Thirteen items
(see Table 2) met our criteria, and these comprised two subscales, with seven items on the first scale
(representing MO) and six items on the second (representing LH). To ensure consistency in item
loadings, we once again conducted factor analyses. This time, we included only 13 items, and using
previous criteria, the two-factor model would be most appropriate confirming that the scale retained
its structure. The 13 items loaded onto their respective factors at .40 or above and did not cross-load
(Table 3). Ultimately, LHQ is constituted by 13 items divided into two subscales. The items 3, 7, 10,
13, 15, 22, and 24 constituted the MO subscale, whereas the items 6, 8, 17, 18, 20, and 23 constituted
the LH subscale.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

930

Table 2
Preliminar Principal Axis Factoring

Factor 1 (MO) Factor 2 (LH) h2 u2

Item 7 .59 .00 .35 .65

Item 15 .54 .05 .27 .73
Item 24 .49 .08 .22 .78
Item 10 .49 –.01 .24 .76
Item 13 .45 .01 .20 .80
Item 22 .45 –.06 .23 .77
Item 3 .44 –.01 .20 .80
Item 2 .39 .21 .14 .86
Item 12 –.36 .19 .21 .79
Item 14 –.35 .27 .27 .73
Item 16 .35 .15 .11 .89
Item 5 .31 –.11 .13 .87
Item 9 .26 –.07 .08 .92
Item 19 .22 –.13 .09 .91
Item 1 –.20 .11 .07 .93
Item 11 –.19 .12 .07 .93
Item 20 .00 .65 .42 .58
Item 23 .01 .62 .38 .62
Item 6 .08 .58 .31 .69
Item 8 .22 .57 .29 .71
Item 18 .05 .49 .23 .77
Item 17 –.15 .44 .27 .73
Item 4 –.12 .34 .17 .83
Item 21 –.15 .33 .16 .84
Eigenvalue 4.30 2.28
% Variance 17.91 9.51

Note. MO = mastery orientation; LH = learned helplessness; skew = skewness; kurt = kurtosis; h2 = communality; u2 =
uniqueness. Boldface indicates Factor loadings over .40.

Descriptive Statistics, Internal Reliability, and Correlation

Internal consistency analyses were carried out for the final 13 items of the LHQ. Two sub-
scales were found to have acceptable internal reliabilities, specifically for LH (.72) and MO (.68).
Means, standard deviations, skewness, kurtosis, and Cronbach’s alphas for the two subscales of the
questionnaire (LH and MO) are indicated in Table 4. Furthermore, Pearson correlation showed that
the two subscales were negatively correlated (r = –.22, p ࣘ. 001).
Gender and Age Differences. Table 4 shows the means and standard deviations for age, male,
and female groups in the LHQ. Results of the S-W test for violations of normality were significant,
for both LH, S-W (488) = .96, p < .001, and OM scales, S-W (488) = .98, p < .001. This test is
quite powerful and with a large sample size, will return a statistically significant result, even when
the departure from normality is not practically important (Meyers et al., 2013). For this reason,
we determined skewness and kurtosis for LH and MO, and results (Table 4) suggest that all the
values ranged between –.45 and .62. Furthermore, a variant (see DeCarlo, 1997) of Smalls omnibus
test of multivariate normality was rejected (VQ3(4) = 39.35, p < .001), indicating a multivariate
non-normality of the data. Although descriptive analyses have shown some possible violation of

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 931

Table 3
Definitive Principal Axis Factoring

Factor 1 (LH) Factor 2 (MO) h2 u2

Item 20 .65 –.04 .44 .56

Item 23 .63 –.05 .41 .59
Item 8 .59 .17 .31 .69
Item 6 .56 .04 .30 .70
Item 18 .48 .03 .22 .78
Item 17 .42 –.21 .27 .73
Item 7 .02 .62 .38 .62
Item 10 .01 .50 .25 .75
Item 3 –.01 .49 .24 .76
Item 22 –.06 .47 .24 .76
Item 15 .02 .47 .21 .79
Item 13 .04 .44 .19 .81
Item 24 .05 .43 .18 .82
FA Eigenvalue 3.06 1.99
FA % variance 23.54 15.33

Note. MO = mastery orientation; LH = learned helplessness; skew = skewness; kurt = kurtosis; h2 = communality; u2 =
uniqueness; FA = Factor Analysis. Boldface type indicates Factor loadings over .40.

the assumptions of normality of the data, analysis of variance is a robust statistical procedure for
the violations of the assumption (Howel, 2012); for this reason, a multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) was carried out with the two subscales of the LHQ as the dependent variables and
two participant groups (males and females) and two age groups (11–14 years and 15–18 years)
as the independent variables. There was as significant multivariate main effect of gender, Wilks’
lambda = 0.97, F(2, 483) = 8.35, p < .001, ƞp 2 = .03, with a significant univariate effect for MO,
F(1,484) = 9.17, p < .05, ƞp 2 = .02, with females reporting higher scores. The other subscale did
not significantly differ between gender for LH, F(1,484) = 3.82, p > .05, ƞp 2 = .008. Also, there
was a significant multivariate main effect of age, Wilks’ lambda = 0.98, F(2, 483) = 5.27, p < .05,
ƞp 2 = .02, with a significant univariate effect for MO, F(1,484) = 10.56, p = .001, ƞp 2 = .02, with
the 11- to 14-year-old age group reporting higher scores. The other subscale did not significantly
differ between ages for LH, F(1,484) = .78, p > .05, ƞp 2 = .378.

Criterion Validity. To examine the criterion validity, that is, to verify whether the test LHQ
discriminated between the two groups of subjects (high achievers and low achievers), which, based
on their characteristics, should differentiate, we proceeded with a MANOVA. Furthermore, Pear-
son correlations were conducted to verify the relation between the actual ratings and LH and
MO. MANOVA was carried out with the two subscales of the LHQ as the dependent variables
(LH and MO) and two participant groups (high achievement and low achievement). There was a
significant multivariate main effect of groups, Wilks’ lambda = 0.89, F(2, 131) = 8.25, p < .001,
ƞp 2 = .11, with a significant univariate effect for LH, F(1,132) = 7.55, p < .05, ƞp 2 = .054, with low
achievers reporting higher scores. Also, a significant univariate effect for MO was found, F(1,132)
= 11.51, p = .001, ƞp 2 = .08, with high achievers reporting higher scores (see Table 5). Pearson
correlations have also shown a positive correlation between MO and achievement (r = .26, p < .01)
and a negative correlation between LH and achievement (r = –.26, p < .01).

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 932

Psychology in the Schools

Table 4
Mean and Standard Deviation for gender and age groups

DOI: 10.1002/pits
Male (n = 198) Female (n = 290) Total Sample (n = 488)

11–14 15–18 Tot 11–14 15–18 Tot 11–14 15–18

(n = 63) (n = 135) (n = 198) (n = 92) (n = 198) (n = 290) (n = 155) (n = 333)

M SD Skew Kurt α M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

MO 26.29 4.66 −.45 .06 .68 26.75 5.12 24.71 5.08 21.31 4.71 27.54 4.13 26.65 4.16 22.64 3.74 22.96 4.19 21.70 4.16
LH 13.05 4.76 .62 −.02 .72 12.43 4.59 12.40 4.53 12.41 4.54 12.90 4.35 13.75 5.07 13.49 4.86 12.71 4.44 13.21 4.90

Note. MO = Mastery Orientation; LH = Learned Helplessness; Skew = Skewness; Kurt = Kurtosis.

 933

Table 5
Means and Standard Deviations for High and Low Achievement

Low Achievement (n = 42) High Achievement (n = 92)

M SD M SD

MO 24.38 5.70 27.64 4.90

LH 15.12 5.47 12.49 4.98

Note. MO = mastery orientation; LH = learned helplessness.

S TUDY 2
The primary purpose of Study 2 was to confirm in a new sample the factor structure of the LHQ
and to examine the internal consistency reliability and concurrent validity of the LHQ. Concurrent
validity was assessed by examining the relationship between LH and MO and the measures of
self-efficacy, student’s quality of life, and school decision making. Furthermore, gender and age
difference were examined.

Method
Participants. The sample consisted of 378 Italian students, 212 males (56.1%) and 166
females (43.9%). All participants ranged in age from 11 to 18 years, with an average age of 14.16
(SD = 2.28). They were divided into two age groups: middle-school students, aged between 11 and
14 years (n = 209, M = 12.34, SD = 1.05) and high-school students, aged between 15 and 18 years
(n = 169, M = 16.41, SD = 1.06). Participants were selected at both a middle and high school in
the city of Messina (Sicily, Italy). All participants were of Italian nationality and spoke Italian.
Procedure. The Study 2 procedures were the same as for Study 1. The measure was collected
in classrooms during school hours in a single session in the months of March and April 2014. We used
only completed surveys for all data analyses. The study procedures were explained, questions were
answered, and participants were given the questionnaire. Instructions stated that the questionnaire
was voluntary and responses were confidential. All the students responded to the same questionnaire.
Participation required between 15 and 30 min.
Measures. The instrument How much confidence I have in myself, based on the “Optimist”
(Soresi & Nota, 2001) and “Clipper” (Soresi & Nota, 2003) batteries, evaluates the student’s self-
efficacy beliefs, that is, the belief that everyone has the ability to control his or her behavior and, thus,
to determine success or failure in one’s performance. The questionnaire consists of 28 items, divided
into four factors that are grouped into two superordinate factors. The first is called Confidence in the
ability to handle difficult situations (e.g., I fear I won’t be able to cope well with difficult situations
that I might encounter in the future; 14 items), and the second is called Confidence in one’s own
abilities to succeed (e.g., I think I have the skills to succeed well in my studies; 10 items). The
student is asked to use a 5-point scale (1 = not at all, 5 = very much) to rate the extent to which
each statement describes one’s usual way of thinking and behaving.
The instrument My life as a student, which was also adapted from the “Optimist” (Soresi &
Nota, 2001) and “Clipper” (Soresi & Nota, 2003) batteries, allows investigation of a number of
aspects of quality of life as a student (e.g., satisfaction with the type of school attended; with the
way one spends his or her free time; with one’s own level of self-esteem; with the tested relations
with the school, classmates. family, and teachers) that act as protective factors to avoid the onset
of emotional distress. The questionnaire consists of 36 items, divided into six factors that compose

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

934

the total score for attitude toward school (e.g., I am satisfied with what I’m learning at school; 16
items). The student must indicate, on a Likert scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much) how much
each statement corresponds to his or her situation.
The instrument Ideas and attitude on school-career future, which was also adapted from the
“Optimist” (Soresi & Nota, 2001) and “Clipper” (Soresi & Nota, 2003) batteries, investigates the
level of decisionality and confidence in one’s school–career future. The questionnaire consists of 17
items, divided into three factors that compose the total score for Decision school-professional (e.g.,
“It is very difficult for me decide my future job”; 17 items). The student must indicate, on a Likert
scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much), how much each statement corresponds to his or her usual
way of thinking and behaving. All the items represent statements about school indecision; for this
reason, the instrument scoring is reversed for all items so that a high score represents a higher level
of Decision school-professional.
The LHQ consisted of 13 items with two subscales, each containing six and seven items
measuring LH (Item 18; e.g., Does not respond with enthusiasm and pride when asked how one is
doing on a school/academic task) and MO (Item 7; e.g., Tries to finish homework/assignments, even
when they are difficult). The student must indicate on a 5-point Likert scale, from 1 (not true) to 5
(absolutely true) how much he agrees with the statements.
Data Analyses. To verify the factorial validity, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted
employing the maximum likelihood method using EQS 6 (Bentler, 1995). Preliminary analysis
revealed that the data deviated significantly from the multivariate normality (Mardia’s coefficient
= 36.52). For this reason, the adaptation of the model was performed using the Satorra–Bentler
correction. Furthermore, several indices were used to assess the goodness of fit of the model:
the model chi-square provided a measure of overall fit where a nonsignificant chi-square statistic
indicates a good fit. As the chi-square test is sensitive to sample size (Bentler, 1990), we used the
chi-square normalized by degrees of freedom (χ ²/df), where an acceptable value ratio of less than 3.0
(Hair et al., 2006) indicated a good fit. Values on the comparative fit index (CFI) and the non-normed
fit index (NNFI) equal to or greater than 0.90 indicated a good fit (Bentler, 1990). The root mean
square of approximation (RMSEA; Browne & Cudeck, 1993), with its 90% confidence, had values
less than or equal to 0.05, indicating a good fit, with values ranging from 0.05 to 0.08 indicating
an acceptable fit and values greater than 0.10 leading to rejection of the model (Browne & Cudeck,
1993; Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004). All descriptive analyses, gender differences (analysis of variance
[ANOVA] and MANOVA), and correlation analyses were carried out using IBM SPSS Statistics
(version 19.0).

Results
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the LHQ. A confirmatory factor analysis reporting the factor
structure of Study 1 was conducted and the indices indicated that a two-factor model solution is a
good fit: χ ² (64) = 153.926, p< .001 S–B χ ² (64) = 123.194, p < .001; R-CFI = .93; R-NNFI = .91;
RMSEA = .05 (90% CI = .04-.06) (see table 6). Furthermore, all items loaded onto their designated
factors and the standardized factor loadings were all significant, with values ranging from .43 to .70
(see table 7).

Descriptive Analyses and Correlation

Tables 8 and 9 show Cronbach’s alphas, means, standard deviations, skewness, kurtosis, and
correlation values for all variables under investigation for the total sample, gender, and age. The
descriptive analysis showed that all scales had good scores of symmetry and kurtosis (Table 1). The
internal reliability of the all instruments was reported to range from .74 to .88.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 935

Table 6
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the LHQ: Fit Indices

Robust Robust RMSEA 90%

χ² df SBχ ² df χ ²/df Robust CFI NNFI Robust RMSEA CI
153.926 64 123.194 64 2.41 .93 .91 .05 .04–.06

Note. CFI = comparative fit index; NNFI = non-normed fit index; RMSEA = root mean square of approximation; CI =
confidence interval.

Table 7
Factor Analysis of the LHQ, Means, Standard Deviations, Skewness, and Kurtosis for Items

Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis Factor Loading ε

MO
Item 3 3.69 1.06 –.43 –.65 .66 .75
Item 7 3.65 1.17 –.51 –.68 .62 .79
Item 10 3.43 1.23 –.31 –.96 .52 .86
Item 13 2.73 1.34 .26 –1.11 .43 .90
Item 15 3.76 1.13 –.70 –.23 .55 .84
Item 22 3.59 1.17 –.43 –.81 .55 .83
Item 24 3.93 1.12 –.97 .26 .52 .85
LH
Item 6 2.53 1.31 .40 –1.04 .56 .83
Item 8 2.27 1.26 .72 –.60 .54 .84
Item 17 2.18 1.12 .68 –.33 .50 .87
Item 18 1.85 1.10 1.29 .90 .45 .89
Item 20 2.19 1.21 .83 –.29 .66 .75
Item 23 1.91 1.10 1.23 .83 .70 .71

Note. MO = mastery orientation; LH = learned helplessness; ε = measurement error.Table 8

Table 8
Descriptive Statistics and Correlation among Measures

α M SD Skew Kurt 1 2 3 4 5

1. LH .74 12.94 4.70 .39 –.67

2. MO .75 24.78 5.19 –.19 –.39 –.22**
3. Confidence in the ability to .86 54.38 9.15 –.50 –.35 –.54** .29**
handle difficult situations
4. Confidence in one’s own .86 49.92 8.51 –.21 .20 –.26** .49** .29**
abilities to succeed
5. Decision school-professional .88 64.95 11.40 –.25 –.31 –.36** .16** .49** .25**
6. My life as a student .88 121.10 18.13 –.15 .24 –.29** .48** .36** .63** .22**

Note. MO = mastery orientation; LH = learned helplessness; skew = skewness; kurt = kurtosis.

**p < .01.

Intercorrelations among the LHQ subscale showed that the two subscales were negatively
correlated (r = –.22, p ࣘ .001). Correlations between LHQ subscales and the other measures
considered in this study showed that the LH was negatively correlated with Confidence in the ability
to handle difficult situations (r = –.54, p ࣘ .001), with Confidence in one’s own abilities to succeed
(r = –.26, p ࣘ .001), with Decision-school professional (r = –.36, p ࣘ .001), and with My life as

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

936

Table 9
Means and Standard Deviations for Gender and Age

Male Female Age 11–14 Age 15–18

M SD M SD M SD M SD

LH 12.18 4.56 13.90 4.72 12.67 4.99 13.27 4.30

MO 24.56 5.30 25.07 5.04 25.77 5.22 23.56 4.90

Note. MO = mastery orientation; LH = learned helplessness.

a student (r = –.29, p ࣘ .001). Instead, the MO was significantly related with Confidence in the
ability to handle difficult situations (r = .29, p ࣘ .001), with Confidence in one’s own abilities to
succeed (r = .49, p ࣘ .001), with Decision-school professional (r = .16, p ࣘ.001), and with My life
as a student (r = .48, p ࣘ.001).
Gender and Age Difference. To investigate gender and age differences in the variables consid-
ered, MANOVAs were conducted with the two gender groups (males and females) and the two age
groups (11–13 years old and 14–18 years old) as the independent variables. A MANOVA was carried
out with the two subscales of LHQ as the dependent variables. There was a significant multivariate
main effect of gender, Wilks’ lambda = 0.96, F(2, 377) = 8.28, p < .001, ƞp 2 = .04, with females
reporting higher scores on LH, F(1,378) = 13.48, p < .001, ƞp 2 = .03. There was also a significant
multivariate main effect of age, Wilks’ lambda = 0.99, F(2, 377) = 8.37, p < .001, ƞp 2 = .04,
with the 11- to 14-year-old age group reporting higher scores on MO, F(1,378) = 16.43, p < .001,
ƞp 2 = .04.

D ISCUSSION
The exploratory analysis conducted in Study 1 was aimed at verifying the validity of the LHQ
to develop an instrument useful in identifying helpless and MO behaviors. To verify the factorial
structure, an EFA was conducted. Consistent with the results, the new version of the LHQ is made
up of 13 items divided into two subscales. The items 3, 7, 10, 13, 15, 22, and 24 constituted the
MO subscale, whereas the items 6, 8, 17, 18, 20, and 23 constituted the LH subscale. This factor
structure was also confirmed by the CFA of Study 2. Results reveal that the 13-item LHQ shows a
good two-factor structure that represents the two subscales of the theoretical framework model (MO
and LH).
The two factors show good internal reliability and the correlation demonstrates that the two
factors are negatively related. A Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .70 is normally considered to indicate
a reliable set of items (De Vaus, 2002). The MO did not fully conform to the required guideline, as this
scale’s Cronbach alpha coefficient was just below .70 (α = .68). However, by convention, a lenient
cut-off point of .60 is common in exploratory research (Graham, 2006; Hair, Anderson, Tatham,
& Black, 1998). Furthermore, it has been shown that Cronbach’s alpha estimation of reliability
increases with scale length (i.e., number of items in the scale; Cronbach, 1951; Voss, Stem, &
Fotopoulos, 2000). For this reason, another explanation for the general low internal consistency of
the subscales could be that the two subscales have only seven and six items. Swailes and McIntyre-
Bhatty (2002), in fact, suggest that the effect on alpha is particularly noticeable when the number of
items is below seven.
Another important aspect to be further examined is the low correlation between LH and MO
in the two studies (r = –.22). Although the two factors are negatively correlated, the strength of this

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 937

relation is quite low for two scales supposedly measuring opposite spectrums of nearly the same
construct. A possible explanation could be that LH and MO represent relatively distinct negative
correlated constructs rather than fully opposite dimensions of the same construct. Probably a low
score on measures of MO may simply reflect a neutral orientation toward learning and not adequately
tap the active nature and intensity of LH. Furthermore, this is consistent with previous studies that
suggest that the helpless and the MO patterns are two distinct, coherent patterns with striking
differences in cognition, effect, and behavior that characterize each (Dweck & Leggett, 1988).
Furthermore, previous studies have shown that helpless and MO children processed and responded
to the situation in entirely different ways, suggesting that these are not always opposite sides of
the same coin and may at times even co-occur in the same person, depending on the difference in
capacity perceived in different domains of competence.
Regarding the possible development of LH and related mental health issues, the questionnaire
was presented to people of different age levels. Data analysis revealed in that both Studies 1 and 2,
there was significant difference between two age groups of students, with the 11- to 14-year-old age
group reporting higher scores in MO than the older group. This result seems in line with the previous
studies that have shown a decline in student motivation and engagement after the middle-school
transition (Martin, 2007). For example, a longitudinal study by Jacobs, Lanza, Osgood, Eccles,
and Wigfield (2002) found that student self-perceptions of competence and subjective task values
declined as they grew older. Martin (2001, 2004) has also identified declines in motivation and
engagement in the middle high-school years.
With regard to gender differences, results showed that in Study 1, males and females did not
differ in helpless behavior; however, females pursued MO more than their male peers did. In Study
2, instead, females pursued LH more than their male peers, whereas they didn’t differ in MO. To
date, research on gender differences in LH and MO are inconclusive and equivocal (Meece, Glienke,
& Burg, 2006). Patterns of gender differences depend on the methodology used, academic domain,
academic abilities, type of achievement task, and research setting (laboratory versus classroom;
Meece et al., 2006). Additionally, when gender differences are found, they tend to be small in
magnitude and not a strong predictor of behavioral response (Meece et al., 2006). Results of this
study have shown that the instrument LHQ is able to verify gender differences but, in accordance
with previous studies (Meece et al., 2006), these differences are not very pronounced.
Criterion validity was established in Study 1 by significant differences between students with
high and low achievements; low-achieving students obtained high scores in the LH subscales,
whereas high-achieving students obtained higher scores in the MO subscales, confirming results
from the referenced literature. In fact, repeated experiences of failure in school can affect a sense
of personal competence, leading students to feelings of helplessness; in contrast, experiences of
academic success are correlated with emotional well-being and personal accomplishment of the
results achieved (Eronen, 2000; Filippello, Sorrenti, Cuzzocrea, Nuzzaci, & Larcan, 2014; Maatta,
Stattin, & Nurmi, 2002; Nurmi, Onatsu, & Haavisto, 1995).
Concurrent validity was examined in Study 2, verifying the relationships among LHQ subscales
and school self-efficacy, student’s quality of life, and school decision making. LH was negatively
correlated with all the variables, whereas MO was positively related to self-efficacy, school decision
making, and school satisfaction.

C ONCLUSION
Results of this study confirm that LH is a set of maladaptive attributions by which individuals
demonstrate low confidence and self-esteem, poor performance, diminished expectations, lowered
motivation, lack of engagement, weak persistence, and passivity (Peterson et al., 1993), whereas

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

938

students with high MO have good motivation, optimism, and perseverance and are more focused on
tasks (Dickhäuser et al., 2011; Dweck & Legget, 1988; Ruthig et al., 2008).
Moreover, compared with the teacher report by Fincham et al. (1989), the LHQ enables obtain-
ing a measure of LH and MO directly from students; this helps to avoid possible distortions from
teachers’ perceptions of student behavior. Furthermore, of these subscales, MO and LH are useful in
understanding the greater problems experienced by subjects and particularly the greatest difficulties
in intervening effectively, in a focused manner. The helpless pattern is characterized by an avoidance
of challenge and a deterioration of performance in the face of obstacles. The MO pattern, in contrast,
involves the seeking of challenging tasks and the maintenance of effective striving under failure. The
helpless response as a characteristic style can be considered maladaptive because challenge and ob-
stacles are inherent in most important pursuits. The MO pattern involves the seeking of challenging
tasks and the generation of effective strategies in the face of obstacles.
Similarly, finding low scores in areas that contribute to MO may assist intervention procedures
to reduce risk factors and/or to increase protective factors. As is well known, increase in the ability
of resilience could result in a parallel reduction of dysfunctional behaviors. For example, if a student
learns to “try harder” and to “correct mistakes and continue working” (persistence), he or she could
change perceptions of failure and lack of contingency.

Limitations and Future Directions

Although this study has shown some interesting results, it also has some limitations. First, to
limit the effects of social desirability inherent in students’ self-reports, we propose, in future research,
to correlate this version with a teacher’s report that was developed in previous studies (Fincham et al.,
1989; Yates, 2009) for a comparison of scores. Gathering information from a variety of sources in
the assessment of behavior, in fact, increases the reliability and validity of assessments, especially in
children and adolescent samples (Achenbach, McConaughy, & Howell, 1987; Gugliandolo, Costa,
Cuzzocrea, Larcan, & Petrides, 2015).
Another possible solution to the social-desirability limitation would be to include a social-
desirability scale to see if it provided any insight into the results. Moreover, future studies could
exceed the limits of the current sample in areas such as geographical origin, to further administer
the scale in various other areas of the country, to obtain normative data.
Another limitation of this study is that the items of the LHQ were limited by the translation of
the items of the SBC (Fincham et al., 1989) with Italian students and did not address all the factors
that contribute to the results of students’ perceptions of their LH and MO. Furthermore, not all of the
elements of LH and MO, which might be important in Italian culture, could be completely addressed
in the items created by the translated-adapted Italian self-report version of the SBC.
Future study could include a rigorous cross-cultural adaptation process to verify whether entirely
new items needed to be written. Finally, a longitudinal observation would be useful, not only to
verify instrument reliability over time, but also to monitor the evolution of LH during adolescence.
We think that it would be appropriate to detect student problems as soon as possible, through
early warning signs (e.g., negative attitude toward tasks, pessimism, anxiety behaviors, low motiva-
tion). These signals have to be considered “risk factors” for the development of more serious mental
health issues, such as depression. Teachers and psychologists should act together, with a perspective
toward prevention rather than intervention when subjects already have fully developed problems,
such as depression.
In conclusion, this study shows that the LHQ has good psychometric characteristics, which
makes it a useful measure for school psychologists and teachers’ needs because it provides a valid
and reliable measure of LH and MO of adolescents between 11 and 18 years of age. Because scale

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 939

development is an ongoing process, future studies should also examine the psychometric properties of
the LHQ in diverse populations (e.g., different school types, ages, ethnicities) using various research
designs (e.g., experimental, prospective). Continued cross-country research into LH and MO using
psychometrically valid measures will increase understanding of these psychological issues. This
instrument may be useful for tying together the existing lines of research and generating new lines
of research in the future.

R EFERENCES
Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, G. I., & Alloy, L. B. (1989). Hopelessness depression: A theory-based subtype of depression.
Psychological Review, 96, 358–372.
Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49–74.
Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., & Howell, C. T. (1987). Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems:
Implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 213–232.
Aiken, L. R. (1998). Tests and examinations: Measuring abilities and performance. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1988). Manual for the Beck Hopelessness Scale. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory–II. San Antonio, TX:
Psychological Corporation.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.
Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing
structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Byrnes, J. P., & Wasik, B. A. (2009). Factors predictive of mathematics achievement in kindergarten, first and third grades:
An opportunity–propensity analysis. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 167–183.
Carifio, J. (1976). Assigning students to career education programs by preference: Scaling preference data for program
assignments. Career Education Quarterly, 23, 7–26.
Carifio, J. (1978). Measuring vocational preferences: Ranking versus categorical rating procedures. Career Education Quar-
terly, 3, 34–66.
Carifio, J., & Perla, R. J. (2007). Ten common misunderstandings, misconceptions, persistent myths and urban legends about
Likert scales and Likert response formats and their antidotes. Journal of Social Sciences, 3, 106.
Conway, J. M., & Huffcutt, A. I. (2003). A review and evaluation of exploratory factor analysis practices in organizational
research. Organizational Research Methods, 6, 147–168.
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the
most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10, 1–9.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.
DeCarlo, L. T. (1997). On the meaning and use of kurtosis. Psychological Methods, 2, 292–307.
DeVaus, D. A. (2002). Surveys in social research. Psychology Press.
Dickhäuser, O., Reinhard, M.-A., & Englert, C. (2011). “Of course I will . . . ”: The combined effect of certainty and level
of expectancies on persistence and performance. Social Psychology of Education, 4, 519–528.
Duda, J. L. (1998). Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information
Technology.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review,
95, 256–273.
Eronen, S. (2000). Achievement and social strategies and the cumulation of positive and negative experiences during young
adulthood. Academic dissertation to be publicly discussed, by due permission of the Faculty of Arts at the University of
Helsinki in Auditorium XII, on the 28th of June, at 12 o’clock. Research Reports, 22.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis
in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299.
Filippello, P., Harrington, N., Buzzai, C., Sorrenti, L., & Costa, S. (2014). The relationship between frustration intolerance,
unhealthy emotions, and assertive behaviour in Italian students. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior
Therapy, 32, 257–278.
Filippello, P., & Sorrenti, L. (2008). La Learned Helplessness. In P. Filippello Valutazione e trattamento dei disturbi del
comportamento. Interventi Cognitivo-Comportamentali in ambito scolastico e familiare [Assessment and treatment of
behavioral disorders. Cognitive-Behavioral Interventions in schools and family] (pp. 27–80). Padova , Italy: Piccin.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

940

Filippello, P., Sorrenti, L., Cuzzocrea, F., Nuzzaci, A., & Larcan, R. (2014). The subtle sound of learning: What are the
roles of the self-esteem, decision-making, and social skills in adolescents’ academic performance? US-China Education
Review B, 4, 73–85.
Filippello, P., Sorrenti, L., Buzzai, C., & Costa, S. (2015). Perceived Parental Psychological Control and Learned Helplessness:
The Role of School Self-efficacy. School Mental Health, Doi: 10.1007/s12310-015-9151-2.
Fincham, D. S., Hokoda, A., & Sanders, F. (1989). Learned helplessness, test anxiety, and academic achievement: A
longitudinal analysis. Child Development, 60, 138–145.
Fincham, F. D., & Cain, K. M. (1986). Learned helplessness in humans: A developmental analysis. Developmental Review,
6, 301–333.
Ford, J. K., MacCallum, R. C., & Tait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis in applied psychology: A
critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39, 291–314.
Graham, J. M. (2006). Congeneric and (essentially) equivalent estimates of score reliability: What they are and how to use
them? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 930–944.
Gronlund, N. E. (1971). Measurement and evaluation in teaching (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Gugliandolo, M. C., Costa, S., Cuzzocrea, F., Larcan, R., & Petrides, K. V. (2015). Trait emotional intelligence and behavioral
problems among adolescents: A cross-informant design. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 16–21.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Uppersaddle River,
N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hambleton, R. K. (2001). The next generation of the ITC test translation and adaptation guidelines. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment, 17, 164–172.
Howell, D. C. (2012). Statistical methods for psychology. Boston, United States: Cengage Learning.
Jacobs, J. E., Lanza, S., Osgood, D. W., Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Changes in children’s self-competence and
values: Gender and domain differences across grades one through twelve. Child development, 73, 509–527.
Jöreskog, K. G. (2004). Lisrel. Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences. Lincolnwood, USA: Publisher.
Kovacs, M. (1992). Children Depression Inventory (CDI) manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Lekholm, A. K., & Cliffordson, C. (2009). Effects of student characteristics on grades in compulsory school. Educational
Research and Evaluation, 15, 1–23.
Licht, B. G., & Dweck, C. S. (1984). Determinants of academic achievement: The interaction of children’s achievement
orientations with skill area. Developmental Psychology, 20, 628–636.
Maatta, S., Stattin, H., & Nurmi, J. E. (2002). Achievement strategies at school: Types and correlates. Journal of Adolescence,
25, 31–46.
Macher, D., Paechter, M., Papousek, I., & Ruggeri, K. (2012). Statistics anxiety, trait anxiety, learning behavior, and academic
performance. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 27, 483–498.
Maier, S. F., & Watkins, L. R. (2005). Stressor controllability and learned helplessness: The roles of the dorsal raphe nucleus,
serotonin, and corticotropin-releasing factor. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 29, 829–841.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis testing approaches to setting
cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s findings. Structural Equation Modeling,
11, 320–341.
Martin, A. J. (2001). Towards the next generation of experiential education programmes: A case study of Outward Bound
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
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. (2007). Examining a multidimensional model of student motivation and engagement using a construct validation
approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 413–440.
McCrone, W. P. (1979). Learned helplessness and level of underachievement among deaf adolescents. Psychology in the
Schools, 16, 430–434.
Meece, J. L., Glienke, B. B., & Burg, S. (2006). Gender and motivation. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 351–373.
Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G. C., & Guarino, A. J. (2013). Performing data analysis using IBM SPSS. New York, NY: John Wiley
& Sons.
Murray, J. (2013). Likert data: What to use, parametric or non-parametric? International Journal of Business and Social
Science, 4, 258–264.
Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education,
15, 625–632.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychological theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 941

Nurmi, J.-E., Onatsu, T., & Haavisto, T. (1995). Underachievers’ cognitive and behavioral strategies—self-handicapping at
school. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 188–200.
O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and
Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32, 396–402.
Onatsu-Arvilommi, T., & Nurmi, J. E. (2000). The role of task-avoidant and task-focused behaviors in the development of
reading and mathematical skills during the first school year: A cross-lagged longitudinal study. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 92, 478–491.
Parsons, J. E. (1983). Attributions, learned helplessness and sex differences in achievement. Journal of Educational Equity
Learner, 3, 19–27.
Parsons, J. E., & Ruble, D. N. (1977). The development of achievement-related expectancies. Child Development, 7, 1075–
1079.
Parsons, J. E., Ruble, D. N., Hodges, K. L., & Small, A. W. (1976). Cognitive-developmental factors in emerging sex
differences in achievement-related expectancies. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 47–62.
Peixoto, F., & Almeida, L. S. (2010). Self-concept, self-esteem and academic achievement: Strategies for maintaining
self-esteem in students experiencing academic failure. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 25, 157–175.
Pell, G. (2005). Use and misuse of Likert scales. Medical Education, 39, 970–970.
Peterson, C. (2010). Learned helplessness. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley Online Library.
Peterson, C., Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1993). Learned helplessness: A theory for the age of personal control.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Quinless, F. W., & Nelson, M. A. (1988). Development of a measure of learned helplessness. Nursing Research, 37, 11–15.
Rholes, W. S., Blackwell, J., Jordan, C., & Walters, C. (1980). A developmental study of learned helplessness. Developmental
Psychology, 16, 616–624.
Rius-Ottenheim, N., vander Mast, R. C., Zitman, F. G., & Giltay, E. J. (2013). The role of dispositional optimism in physical
and mental well-being. A positive psychology perspective on quality of life. Social Indicators Research Series, 51,
149–173.
Ruble, D. N., Parsons, J. E., & Ross, J. (1976). Self-evaluative responses of children in an achievement setting. Child
Development, 47, 990–997.
Ruthig, J. C., Perry, R. P., Hladkyj, S., Hall, N. C., Pekrun, R., & Chipperfield, J. G. (2008). Perceived control and emotions:
Interactive effects on performance in achievement settings. Social Psychology of Education, 2, 161–180.
Schmitt, T. A. (2011). Current methodological considerations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 304–321.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Maier, S. F. (1967). Failure to escape traumatic shock. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74, 1–9.
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of
Educational Research, 75, 417–453.
Soresi, S., & Nota, L. (2001). OPTIMIST. Portfolio per l’orientamento dagli 11 ai 14 anni [Porfolio for school career guidance
from 11 to 14 years]. Firenze, Italy,: Organizzazioni Speciali.
Soresi, S., & Nota, L. (2003). CLIPPER. Portfolio per l’orientamento dai 15 ai 19 anni [Porfolio for school career guidance
from 15 to 19 years]. Firenze, Italy: Organizzazioni Speciali.
Sorrenti, L., Filippello, P., Buzzai, C., & Costa, S. (in press). Tolleranza alla frustrazione e benessere psicologico: quale
relazione? [Frustration tolerance and psychological well-being: what relationship?] Psicologia della salute.
Sorrenti, L., Larcan, R., Cuzzocrea, F., & Oliva, P. (2004). Influence of emotional aspects on academic performances.
International Journal of Psychology, 39, 136.
Swailes, S., & McIntyre-Bhatty, T. (2002). The “Belbin” team role inventory: Reinterpreting reliability estimates. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 17, 529–536.
Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41,
321–327.
Velicer, W. F., Eaton, C. A., & Fava, J. L. (2000). Construct explication through factor or component analysis: A review and
evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components. In R. D. Goffin & E. Helmes
(Eds.), Problems and solutions in human assessment - Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at seventy (pp. 41–71). Norwell,
Massachusetts: Kluver Academic Publishers.
Voss, K. E., Stem Jr, D. E., & Fotopoulos, S. (2000). A comment on the relationship between coefficient alpha and scale
characteristics. Marketing Letters, 11, 177–191.
Yates, S. (2009). Teacher identification of student learned helplessness in mathematics. Mathematics Education Research
Journal, 3, 86–106.
Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain.
Psychological Bulletin, 99, 432–442.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits