Understanding human motivation requires gauging individuals’ strivings to be effective in controlling goal pursuits and establishing the truth about themselves and their experiences. Two constructs, assessment and locomotion, capture well truth and control strivings, respectively. The validation process of the instruments measuring assessment and locomotion involved university students and army personnel. As a result, it is currently unknown whether these instruments offer reliable and valid measurements of the constructs for younger respondents. To bridge this important gap, this study used data from two independent large samples of secondary school students. Findings show that slight modifications of the original locomotion scale made it appropriate for use with this population. Although the assessment instrument required more alterations, the changes needed are simple, straightforward to implement, and unlikely to affect significantly the conceptual breadth of the measured construct.
ArbuckleJ. L. (1996). Full information in the presence of incomplete data. In MarcoulidesG. A.SchumackerR. E. (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp. 243-277). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2.
BentlerP. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.107.2.238
3.
BollenK. A. (2000). Modeling strategies: In search of the Holy Grail. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 7, 74-81. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0701_03
CurranP. J.WestS. G.FinchJ. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16-29. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16
6.
EitamB.KennedyP. M.HigginsE. T. (2013). Motivation from control. Experimental Brain Research, 229, 475-484. doi:10.1007/s00221-012-3370-7
7.
FanX.WangL. (1998). Effects of potential confounding factors on fit indices and parameter estimates on true and misspecified SEM models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 701-735. doi:10.1177/0013164498058005001
8.
HancockG. R.MuellerR. O. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In CudeckR.du ToitS.SörbomD. (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present and future—A Festschrift of Karl Jöreskog (pp. 195-216). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
9.
HigginsE. T. (2012a). Accessibility theory. In Van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 75-96). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
HigginsE. T. (2012b). Beyond pleasure and pain: How motivation works. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
11.
HigginsE. T.KruglanskiA. W.PierroA. (2003). Regulatory mode: Locomotion and assessment as distinct orientations. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 293-344). New York, NY: Academic Press.
12.
HodisF. A.MeyerL. H.McClureJ.WeirK. F.WalkeyF. H. (2011). A longitudinal investigation of motivation and secondary school achievement using growth mixture modeling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 312-323. doi:10.1037/a0022547
13.
HuL.-t.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
14.
KruglanskiA. W.OrehekE.HigginsE. T.PierroA.ShalevI. (2010). Modes of self-regulation: Assessment and locomotion as independent determinants in goal-pursuit. In HoyleR. (Ed.), Handbook of personality and self-regulation (pp. 375-402). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781444318111.ch17
15.
KruglanskiA. W.ThompsonE. P.HigginsE. T.AtashM. N.PierroA.ShahJ. Y.SpiegelS. (2000). To “do the right thing” or to “just do it”: Locomotion and assessment as distinct self-regulatory imperatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 793-815. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.79.5.793
16.
McDonaldR. P. (1999). Test theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
MoldenD. C. (2012). Motivated strategies for judgment: How preferences for particular judgment process can affect judgment outcomes. Social & Personality Compass, 6, 156-169. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00424.x
18.
MoldenD. C.HigginsE. T. (2012). Motivated thinking. In HolyoakK. J.MorrisonR. G. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 390-409). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
19.
MuthenL. K.MuthenB. O. (2010). Mplus, user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
20.
PierroA.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (2006). Regulatory mode and the joys of doing: Effects of “locomotion” and “assessment” on intrinsic and extrinsic task motivation. European Journal of Personality, 20, 355-375. doi:10.1002/per.600
21.
SteigerJ. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173-180. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4
22.
TuckerL. R.LewisC. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1-10. doi:10.1007/BF02291170
23.
WidamanK. F.LittleT. D.PreacherK. J.SawalaniG. M. (2011). On creating and using short forms of scales in secondary research. In TrzesniewskiK. H.DonnellanM. B.LucasR. E. (Eds.), Secondary data analysis: An introduction for psychologists (pp. 39-61). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
