The aim of this study was to test the gender invariance of the Chinese version of the Achievement Goal Questionnaire (AGQ-C) utilizing a sample of 1,115 Chinese university students. Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis supported the configural, metric, and scalar invariance of the AGQ-C across genders. Analyses also revealed that the latent factor means were different in male and female students.
AlkharusiH.AldhafriS. (2010). Gender differences in the factor structure of the 2x2 achievement goal framework. College Student Journal, 44, 795-804.
2.
AndermanL. H.AndermanE. M. (1999). Social predictors of changes in students’ achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 21-37.
CampbellH. L.BarryC. L.JoeJ. N.FinneyS. J. (2008). Configural, metric, and scalar invariance of the modified achievement goal questionnaire across African American and White university students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 988-1007.
5.
ChenF. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464-504.
6.
ChiangY. T.YehY. C.LinS. S.HwangF. M. (2011). Factor structure and predictive utility of the 2×2 achievement goal model in a sample of Taiwan students. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 432-437.
7.
DweckC. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.
8.
ElliotA. J.McGregorH. A. (2001). A 2×2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501-519.
9.
ElliotA. J.MurayamaK. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique, illustration, and application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 613-628.
10.
HancockG. R. (2001). Effect size, power, and sample size determinants for structured means modeling and MIMIC approaches to between-groups hypothesis testing of means on a single latent construct. Psychometrika, 66, 378-388.
11.
HanrahanS. J.CerinE. (2009). Gender, level of participation, and type of sport: Differences in achievement goal orientation and attributional style. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 12, 508-512.
12.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
13.
LauK. L.LeeJ. C. K. (2008). Validation of a Chinese achievement goal orientation questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 331-353.
14.
MiddletonM. J.MidgleyC. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An underexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710-718.
15.
NienC. L.DudaJ. L. (2008). Antecedents and consequences of approach and avoidance achievement goals: A test of gender invariance. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9, 352-372.
16.
OyerM. H. (2014). Investigating gender differences in achievement goal orientation in example-based algebra learning. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University.
17.
PatrickH.RyanA. M.PintrichP. R. (1999). The differential impact of extrinsic and mastery goal orientations on males’ and females’ self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 11, 153-171.
18.
SouthS. C.KruegerR. F.IaconoW. G. (2009). Factorial invariance of the dyadic adjustment scale across gender. Psychological Assessment, 21, 622-628.
19.
SPSS Inc. (2008). SPSS for Windows (Version 16.0.2). Chicago, IL: Author.
20.
WestS. G.FinchJ. F.CurranP. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In HoyleR. H. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 57-75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
