The purpose of this study was to examine whether the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory-High School Version (LASSI-HS) would yield reliable and valid scores when using a Norwegian translation with a sample of Norwegian high school students. In addition, the author examined possible response biases associated with item-keying directions within the LASSI-HS. Three alternative factor models proposed in prior research were evaluated, with results yielding support for the model suggested by Olaussen and Bråten. However, method effects associated with item wording were found, and positively worded items were characterized by more response biases than negatively worded items for the Norwegian students.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245-281.
2.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
3.
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User's reference guide. Chicago: SSI.
4.
Kenny, D. A. (1995). The mutitrait-multimethod matrix: Design, analysis, and conceptual issues. In P. E. Shrout & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Personality research, methods, and theory: A Festschrift honoring Donald W. Fiske (pp. 111-124). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
5.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130-149.
6.
Magazine, S. L., Williams, L. J., & Williams, M. L. (1996). A confirmatory factor analysis examination of reverse coding effects in Meyer and Allen's Affective and Continuance Commitment scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 241-250.
7.
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
8.
Millsap, R. E. (1995). The statistical analysis of method effects in multitrait-multimethod data: A review. In P. E. Shrout & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Personality research, methods, and theory: A Festschrift honoring Donald W. Fiske (pp. 93-110). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
9.
Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (1998). Using the learning and study strategies inventory—High school version with Singaporean females: Examining psychometric properties. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 493-510.
10.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
11.
Olaussen, B. S., & Bråten, I. (1998). Identifying latent variables measured by the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI) in Norwegian college students. Journal of Experimental Education, 67, 82-96.
12.
Olejnik, S., & Nist, S. L. (1992). Identifying latent variables measured by the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI). Journal of Experimental Education, 60, 151-159.
13.
Olivarez, A., & Tallent-Runnels, M. K. (1994). Psychometric properties of the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory—High School Version. Journal of Experimental Education, 62, 243-257.
14.
Pilotte, W. J., & Gable, R. K. (1990). The impact of positive and negative item stems on the validity of a computer anxiety scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50, 603-610.
15.
Rohwer, W. D., & Thomas, J. W. (1987). The role of mnemonic strategies in study effectiveness. In M. A. McDaniel & M. Pressley (Eds.), Imagery and related mnemonic processes: Theories, individual differences, and applications (pp. 428-450). New York: Springer-Verlag.
16.
Schmitt, N., & Stults, D. M. (1986). Methodology review: Analysis of multitrait-multimethod matrices. Applied Psychological Measurement, 10, 1-22.
17.
Schriesheim, C. A., Eisenbach, R. J., & Hill, K. D. (1991). The effect of negation and polar opposite item reversals on questionnaire reliability and validity: An experimental investigation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 67-78.
18.
Søvik, N., Samuelstuen, M., & Flem, A. (2000). Cognitive and linguistic predictors of text comprehension. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15, 135-156.
19.
Weinstein, C. E., & Palmer, D. R. (1990). LASSI-HS user's manual. Clearwater, FL: H&H Publishing.
20.
Weinstein, C. E., Palmer, D. R., & Schulte, A. C. (1987). Learning and study strategies inventory. Clearwater, FL: H&H Publishing.
21.
Widaman, K. F. (1985). Hierarchically nested covariance structure models for multitrait-multimethod data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 1-26.
22.
Winne, P. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information processing. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 153-190). Mawah, NJ: LEA.
23.
Wothke, W. (1995). Covariance components analysis of the multitrait-multimethod matrix. In P. E. Shrout & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Personality research, methods, and theory: A Festschrift honoring Donald W. Fiske (pp. 125-144). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
24.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman (Ed.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
