Modeling the Test-Taking Motivation Construct Through Investigation of Psychometric Properties of an Expectancy-Value-Based Questionnaire

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of an expectancy-value-based questionnaire measuring five aspects of test-taking motivation (effort, expectancies, importance, interest, and test anxiety). The questionnaire was distributed to a sample of Swedish Grade 9 students taking a low-stakes (n = 1,047) or a high-stakes (n = 536) test. Structural equation modeling largely supported theoretical assumptions and psychometric properties were acceptable. Expectancies and importance were significant predictors of effort, and effort significantly predicted performance in both test situations. Furthermore, measurement invariance across test situations was investigated. Partial scalar invariance was obtained and latent mean comparisons showed significantly higher levels of reported test-taking motivation in the high-stakes context. The study findings suggest that the present instrument can be used in low- as well as high-stakes assessment contexts not only to get an extended knowledge of test-takers’ perceptions of tests but also to control for lack of motivation when stakes are low for test-takers.

Keywords

test-taking motivation expectancy-value theory test stakes structural equation modeling measurement invariance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], & National Council for Measurement in Education [NCME]. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Bashkov

B. M.

Finney

S. J.

(2013). Applying longitudinal mean and covariance structures (LMACS) analysis to assess construct stability over two time points: An example using psychological entitlement. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 46, 289-314. doi:10.1177/0748175613497038

Boekaerts

(2002). The on-line motivation questionnaire: A self-report instrument to assess students’ context sensitivity. In Pintrich

P. R.

Maehr

M. L.

(Eds.), New directions in measure and methods (Vol. 12, pp. 77-120). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.

Cheung

G. W.

Rensvold

R. B.

(2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

Cole

Bergin

Whittaker

(2008). Predicting student achievement for low stakes tests with effort and task value. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 609-624. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.10.002

DeMars

C. E.

(2000). Test stakes and item format interactions. Applied Measurement in Education, 13, 55-77. doi:10.1207/s15324818ame1301_3

Eccles

Adler

T. F.

Futterman

Goff

S. B.

Machala

C. M.

Meece

J. L.

Midgley

(1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In Spence

J. T.

(Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives (pp. 75-146). San Francisco, CA: Freeman.

Eklöf

Japelj

Grønmo

L. S.

(2014). A cross-national comparison of reported effort and mathematics performance in TIMSS advanced. Applied Measurement in Education, 27, 31-45. doi:10.1080/08957347.2013.853070

Eklöf

Knekta

(2014, April). Different stakes, different motivation? Swedish studies of test-taking motivation in different assessment contexts. In D. L.

Sundre

(Chair), The impact of test-taking motivation and test consequences on the validity of test score inferences. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA.

10.

Eklöf

Nyroos

(2013). Pupil perceptions of national tests in science: Perceived importance, invested effort, and test anxiety. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28, 497-510. doi:10.1007/s10212-012-0125-6

11.

Gignac

G. E.

(2009). Psychometrics and the measurement of emotional intelligence. In Stough

Saklofske

D. H.

Parker

J. D. A.

(Eds.), Assessing emotional intelligence: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 9-40). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-88370-0_2

12.

Liu

O. L.

Bridgeman

Adler

R. M.

(2012). Measuring learning outcomes in higher education: Motivation matters. Educational Researcher, 41, 352-362. doi:10.3102/0013189x12459679

13.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998-2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.

14.

O’Neil

H. F.

Abedi

Miyoshi

Mastergeorge

(2005). Monetary incentives for low-stakes tests. Educational Assessment, 10, 185-208. doi:10.1207/s15326977ea1003_3

15.

Pintrich

P. R.

de Groot

E. V.

(1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33

16.

Ryan

M. R.

Deci

E. L.

(2009). Promoting self-determined school engagement, motivation, learning, and well-being. In Wentzel

K. R.

Wigfield

(Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 171-195). New York, NY: Routledge.

17.

Schermelleh-Engel

Moosbrugger

Müller

(2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8, 23-74. Retrieved from http://www.cob.unt.edu/slides/Paswan./BUSI6280/Y-Muller_Erfurt_2003.pdf

18.

Sundre

D. L.

(2007). The students opinion survey: A measure of examinee motivation. Test Manual. Harrisonburg, VA. Retrieved from http://www.jmu.edu/assessment/resources/resource_files/sos_manual.pdf

19.

Sundre

D. L.

Kitsantas

(2004). An exploration of the psychology of the examinee: Can examinee self-regulation and test-taking motivation predict consequential and non-consequential test performance? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 6-26. doi:10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00063-2

20.

Swedish National Agency for Education. (2014). Redovisning av uppdrag om avvikelser mellan provresultat och betyg i grundskolans årskurs 6 och årskurs 9 [Report of assignment regarding discrepancy between test scores and grades in primary school grade 6 and grade 9] (Dnr U2014/335/S). Retrieved from http://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=3209

21.

Thelk

A. D.

Sundre

D. L.

Horst

S. J.

Finney

S. J.

(2009). Motivation matters using the student opinion scale to make valid inferences about student performance. The Journal of General Education, 58, 129-151. doi:10.1353/jge.0.0047

22.

Vandenberg

R. J.

Lance

C. E.

(2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4-70. doi:10.1177/109442810031002

23.

Wigfield

Eccles

J. S.

(1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265-310. doi:10.1016/0273-2297(92)90011-p

24.

Wigfield

Eccles

J. S.

(2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1015

25.

Wigfield

Eccles

J. S.

(2002). The development of competence beliefs, expectancies for success, and achievement values from childhood through adolescence. In Wigfield

Eccles

J. S.

(Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 91-120). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

26.

Wise

S. L.

DeMars

C. E.

(2005). Low examinee effort in low-stakes assessment: Problems and potential solutions. Educational Assessment, 10, 1-17. doi:10.1207/s15326977ea1001_1

27.

Wolf

L. F.

Smith

J. K.

(1995). The consequence of consequence: Motivation, anxiety, and test performance. Applied Measurement in Education, 8, 227-242.