Few studies have used exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and exploratory bifactor factor analysis (EBFA) to define a baseline factor structure model checking the construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality of student engagement. This study was conducted on a sample of 3,374 students in France, Wallonia-Brussels Federation, and Luxembourg by using EFA and EBFA, and by comparing four confirmatory factor models of student engagement in the classroom. Results indicated the relevance of a bifactor model to disentangle general and specific factors of student engagement in the classroom in relation with student misconduct at school. The study suggests that if student engagement is principally a unidimensional construct, specific latent dimensions also exist (e.g., specific boredom behaviors) that have a substantive value and must be specified to increase quality of measurement and predictive validity.
AppletonJ. J.ChristensonS. L.FurlongM. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 369–386.
2.
AppletonJ. J.ChristensonS. L.KimD.ReschlyA. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 427–445.
3.
BettsJ. (2012). Issues and methods in the measurement of student engagement: Advancing the construct through statistical modeling. In ChristensonS. L.ReschlyA. L.WylieC. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 783–805). New York, NY: Springer.
4.
BrownT. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
5.
BrunnerM.KellerU.DierendonckC.ReichertM.UgenS.FischbachA.MartinR. (2010). The structure of academic self-concepts revisited: The nested Marsh/Shavelson model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 964–981.
6.
BrunnerM.NagyG.WilhelmO. (2012). A tutorial on hierarchically-structured constructs. Journal of Personality, 80, 796–846.
7.
ChenF. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indices to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504.
8.
ChristensonS. L.ReschlyA. L.WylieC. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement. New York, NY: Springer.
9.
ConnellJ. P.WellbornJ. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In GunnarM. R.SroufeL. A. (Eds.), Self processes and development (Vol. 23, pp. 43–77). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
EcclesJ. S. (2004). Schools, academic motivation, and stage-environment fit. In LernerR. M.SteinbergL. (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (2nd ed., pp. 125–153). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
11.
FinnJ. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117–142.
12.
FinnJ. D.RockD. A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 221–234.
13.
FinnJ. D.ZimmerK. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In ChristensonS. L.ReschlyA. L.WylieC. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 97–131). New York, NY: Springer.
14.
FredricksJ. A.BlumenfeldP. C.ParisA. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.
15.
FredricksJ. A.McColskeyW. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In ChristensonS. L.ReschlyA. L.WylieC. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 763–782). New York, NY: Springer.
16.
FredricksJ. A.ReschlyA. L.ChristensonS. L. (2019). Interventions for student engagement: Overview and state of the field. In FredricksJ. A.ReschlyA. L.ChristensonS. L. (Eds.), Handbook of student engagement interventions: Working with disengaged students (pp. 1–11). Academic Press, Elsevier.
17.
FurlongM. J.ChristensonS. L. (2008). Engaging students at school and with learning: A relevant construct for all students. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 365–368.
18.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
19.
JimersonS.CamposE.GreifJ. (2003). Towards an understanding of definitions and measures of school engagement and related terms. The California School Psychologist, 8, 7–28.
20.
KlineR. B. (2004). Beyond significance testing: Reforming data analysis methods in behavioral research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
21.
LamS. F.JimersonS.WongB.KikasE.ShinH.VeigaF. H.ZollneritschJ. (2014). Understanding and measuring student engagement in school: The results of an international study from 12 countries. School Psychology Quarterly, 29, 213–132.
22.
LernerR. M.LernerJ. V.BensonJ. B. (2011). Positive youth development: Research and applications for promoting thriving in adolescence. Advances in child development and behavior. London, UK: Elsevier.
23.
LiY. B.LernerR. M. (2013). Interrelations of behavioral, emotional, and cognitive school engagement in high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 20–32.
24.
LittleT. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
25.
MorinA. J. S.ArensA.MarshH. (2016). A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality. Structural Equation Modeling, 23, 116–139.
26.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2012–2014). Mplus user’s guide: Statistical analysis with latent variables (7.3). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
27.
National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine. (2004). Engaging schools: Fostering high school students’ motivation to learn. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
28.
ReiseS. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 667–696.
29.
ReschlyA. L.ChristensonS. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In ChristensonS. L.ReschlyA. L.WylieC. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 3–19). New York, NY: Springer.
30.
SkinnerE. A.KindermannT. A.ConnellJ. P.WellbornJ. G. (2009). Engagement and disaffection as organizational constructs in the dynamics of motivational development. In WentzelK. R.WigfieldA. (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 223–245). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
31.
SkinnerE. A.KindermannT. A.FurrerC. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children’s behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 493–525.
32.
StefanssonK. K.GestsdottirS.GeldhofG. J.SkulasonS.LernerR. M. (2016). A bifactor model of school engagement: Assessing general and specific aspects of behavioral, emotional and cognitive engagement among adolescents. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 40, 465–480.
33.
WangM. T.FredricksJ. A.YeF. F.HofkensT. L.LinnJ. S. (2016). The math and science engagement scales: Scale development, validation, and psychometric properties. Learning and Instruction, 43, 16–26.
34.
WangM. T.WillettJ. B.EcclesJ. S. (2011). The assessment of school engagement: Examining dimensionality and measurement invariance by gender and race/ethnicity. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 465–480.
