In 2001, Elliot and McGregor proposed a 2 × 2 (mastery—performance × approach— avoidance) achievement goal frameworks and developed a questionnaire to measure four goals (mastery—approach, mastery—avoidance, performance—approach, and performance—avoidance goals).This study examines the dual meanings of items in 2 × 2 achievement goal questionnaires by confirmatory factor analysis with an uncorrelated-trait and uncorrelated-method model and multidimensional scaling technique. A total of 2,111 freshmen completed the Achievement Goal Questionnaire for General Academics, and a total of 1,014 university students in Taiwan provided their ratings on the Chinese Achievement Goal Questionnaire for Physical Education. Confirmatory factor analysis results show that the uncorrelated-trait and uncorrelated-method model is better than the 2 × 2 four-factor model, supporting the dual meanings of items. In addition, multidimensional scaling results show that items can be plotted on a two-dimensional (mastery—performance and approach—avoidance) map, in which four quadrants represent one type of goal. The evidence indicates that the items in the Chinese Achievement Goal Questionnaire for Physical Education have adequate construct validity in their dual meanings derived from the combinations of mastery— performance and approach—avoidance dimensions.
Ames, C. ( 1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation . Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
2.
Bagozzi, R.P. ( 1993). Assessing construct validity in personality research: Applications to measures of self-esteem. Journal of Research in Personality, 27, 49-87.
3.
Beauducel, A., & Wittmann W. ( 2005). Simulation study on fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis based on data with slightly distorted simple structure. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 41-75.
4.
Byrne, B., & Goffin, R. ( 1993). Modeling multitrait-multimethod data from additive and multiplicative covariance structures: An audit of construct validity concordance . Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28, 67-96.
5.
Campbell, D.T., & Fiske, D.W. ( 1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait- multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
6.
Chen, L.H. ( 2007, December). Construct validity of Chinese 2 × 2 achievement goal questionnaire in physical education: Evidence from collectivistic culture . Paper presented at the 5th conference of the Asian South Pacific Association of Sport Psychology, Bangkok, Thailand.
7.
Conroy, D.E., Elliot, A.J., & Hofer, S.M. ( 2003). A 2 × 2 Achievement Goal Questionnaire for Sport: Evidence for factorial invariance, temporal stability, and external validity . Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 25, 456-476.
8.
Davison, M.L., & Skay, C.L. ( 1991). Multidimensional scaling and factor models of test and item responses. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 551-556.
9.
Dweck, C. ( 1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.
10.
Dweck, C., & Leggett, E. ( 1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality . Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
11.
Elliot, A.J. ( 1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals . Educational Psychologist, 34, 169-189.
12.
Elliot, A., & Church, M. ( 1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218-232.
13.
Elliot, A., & Harackiewicz, J.M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461-475.
14.
Elliot, A.J., & McGregor, H.A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 80, 501-519.
15.
Fan, X., & Sivo, S.A. ( 2005). Sensitivity of fit indexes to misspecified structural or measurement model components: Rationale of two-index strategy revisited . Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 343-367.
16.
Ferketich, S.L., Figueredo, A.J., & Knapp, T.R. ( 1991). The multitrait-multimethod approach to construct validity . Research in Nursing and Health, 14, 315-320.
17.
Figueredo, A.J., Ferketich, S.L., & Knapp, T.R. ( 1991). Focus on psychometrics more on MTMM: The role of confirmatory factor analysis. Research in Nursing and Health, 14, 387-391.
18.
Finney, S.J., Piper, S.L., & Baron, K.E. ( 2004). Examining the psychometric. properties of the achievement goal questionnaire in a general academic context. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 365-382.
19.
Guan, J., McBride, R., & Xiang, P. ( 2007). Reliability and validity evidence for achievement goal models in high school physical education settings. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Sciences, 11, 109-129.
20.
Heiser, W.J., & Busing, F.M.T.A. (2004). Multidimensional scaling and unfolding of symmetric and asymmetric proximity relations. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), The Sage handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences (pp. 25-48). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
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.
22.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. ( 1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
23.
Kenny, D.A., & Kashy, D.A. ( 1992). Analysis of the multitrait-multimethod matrix by confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 165-172.
24.
Marsh, H.W. ( 1989). Confirmatory factor analysis of multitrait-multimethod data: Many problems and a few solutions. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13, 335-361.
25.
Marsh, H.W., & Bailey, M. ( 1991). Confirmatory factor analysis of multitrait-multimethod data: A comparison of alternative models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 15, 47-70.
26.
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 (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320-341.
27.
Moller, A.C., & Elliot, A.J. ( 2006). The 2 × 2 achievement goal framework: An overview of empirical research. In A. Mittel (Ed.), Focus on educational psychology (pp. 307-326). New York: Nova Science.
28.
Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (2007). Mplus user’s guide (4th ed.). Los Angeles : Authors.
29.
Nicholls, J. ( 1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review , 91, 328-346.
30.
Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
31.
Pastor, D.A., Barron, K.E., Miller, B.J., & Davis, S.L. ( 2007). A latent profile analysis of college students’ achievement goal orientation. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 32, 8-47.
32.
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P.M. ( 1988). Scaling corrections for chi-square statistics in covariance structure analysis. 1988 Proceedings of the Business and Economics Statistics Section of the American Statistical Association, pp. 308-313.
Schiffman. S.S., Reynolds, M.L., & Young. F.W. ( 1981). Introduction to multidimensional scaling. New York: Academic Press.
35.
SPSS Inc. (2006). SPSS for Windows, Rel. 15.0. Chicago: Author .
36.
Van Yperen, N.W. ( 2006). A novel approach to assessing achievement goals in the context of the 2 × 2 framework: Identifying distinct profiles of individuals with different dominant achievement goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1432-1445.
37.
Wang, J.C.K., Biddle, S.J.H., & Elliot, A.J. ( 2007). The 2 × 2 achievement goal framework in a physical education context. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8, 147-168.
38.
Yuan, K.H. ( 2005). Fit indices versus test statistics. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 115-148.
