The Schoolwork Engagement Inventory: Factorial Structure,Measurement Invariance by Gender and Educational Level,and Convergent Validity in Secondary Education (12-18 Years)

Abstract

This study analyzes the dimensionality, reliability, metric invariance, and convergent validity of the Schoolwork Engagement Inventory (SEI) in secondary education. Participants in the study were 679 students in compulsory and post-compulsory secondary education in a large city in Eastern Spain during the 2014-2015 academic year. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) showed that the one-factor model of the SEI is superior to the other alternative models considered, providing an overall schoolwork engagement score in this educational stage. Reliability was also adequate and the instrument was found to be invariant by gender and educational level. Latent mean comparisons revealed a significant decline in schoolwork engagement throughout secondary compulsory education, and returning to higher levels in post-compulsory secondary education. A CFA also showed SEI’s convergent validity with self-regulated learning, given its direct relationship with metacognitive strategies and self-efficacy for learning, and its inverse relationship with test anxiety.

Keywords

Schoolwork Engagement Inventory secondary education self-regulated learning invariance latent mean differences

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Appleton

J. J.

Christenson

S. L.

Kim

Reschly

A. L.

(2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 427-445. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002

Archambault

Janosz

Morizot

Pagani

(2009). Adolescent behavioral, affective, and cognitive engagement in school: Relationship to dropout. Journal of School Health, 79, 408-415. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2009.00428.x

Bandalos

D. L.

Finney

S. J.

(2001). Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling. In Marcoulides

G. A.

Schumacker

R. E.

(Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling (pp. 269-296). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bentler

P. M.

E. J. C.

(2002). EQS 6 for Windows: User’s guide. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.

Betts

J. E.

Appleton

J. J.

Reschly

A. L.

Christenson

S. L.

Huebner

E. S.

(2010). A study of the factorial invariance of the Student Engagement Instrument (SEI): Results from middle and high school students. School Psychology Quarterly, 25, 84-93. doi:10.1037/a0020259

Bresó

Schaufeli

Salanova

(2011). Can a self-efficacy-based intervention decrease burnout, increase engagement, and enhance performance? A quasi-experimental study. Higher Education, 61, 339-355. doi:10.1007/s10734-010-9334-6

Byrne

B. M.

(2012). Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus. Basic Concepts, Application, Programming. New York, NY: Routledge.

Chen

F. F.

(2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464-504. doi:10.1080/10705510701301834

Cheung

G. W.

Rensvold

R. B.

(2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 235-255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

10.

de Bruin

G. P.

Henn

C. M

. (2013). Dimensionality of the 9-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9). Psychological Reports, 112, 788-799. doi:10.1539/joh.15-0057-OA

11.

Finn

(1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117-142.

12.

Finney

S. J.

DiStefano

(2013). Nonnormal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In Hancock

G. R.

Mueller

R. O.

(Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (2nd ed., pp. 439-492). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

13.

Fong

T. C.

R. T.

(2015). Dimensionality of the 9-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale revisited: A Bayesian structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Occupational Health, 57, 353-358. doi:10.1539/joh.15-0057-OA

14.

Fredricks

J. A.

Blumenfeld

P. C.

Paris

A. H.

(2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59-109. doi:10.3102/00346543074001059

15.

Fredricks

J. A.

McColskey

(2012). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In Christenson

S. L.

Reschly

A. L.

Wylie

(Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 763-782). New York, NY: Springer.

16.

Hau

K. T.

Marsh

(2004). The use of item parcels in structural equation modelling: Non-normal data and small sample sizes. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 57, 327-351. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8317.2004.tb00142.x

17.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

18.

Lam

S. F.

Jimerson

Kikas

Cefai

Veiga

F. H.

Nelson

. . . Zollneritsch

(2012). Do girls and boys perceive themselves as equally engaged in school? The results of an international study from 12 countries. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 77-94. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2011.07.004

19.

Lam

S. F.

Jimerson

Wong

B. P.

Kikas

Shin

Veiga

F. H.

. . .Zollneritsch

(2014). Understanding and measuring student engagement in school: The results of an international study from 12 countries. School Psychology Quarterly, 29, 213-232. doi:10.1037/spq0000057

20.

Little

T. D.

(1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-cultural data: Practical and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 53-76. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3201_3

21.

Little

T. D.

Rhemtulla

Gibson

Schoemann

A. M.

(2013). Why the items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one. Psychological Methods, 18, 285-300. doi:10.1037/a0033266

22.

Lovelace

M. D.

Reschly

A. L.

Appleton

J. J.

Lutz

M. E.

(2014). Concurrent and predictive validity of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 32, 509-520. doi:10.1177/0734282914527548

23.

Mardia

K. V.

(1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57, 519-530.

24.

Pacheco

N. E.

Durán

M. A. D.

Rey

(2007). Inteligencia emocional y su relación con los niveles de burnout, engagement y estrés en estudiantes universitarios [Emotional intelligence and its relation with burnout, engagement and stress levels in university students]. Revista de Educación, 342, 239-256.

25.

Parra

Pérez

(2010). Propiedades psicométricas de la escala de compromiso académico, UWES-S (versión abreviada), en estudiantes de psicología [Psychometric properties of the Academic Engagement Scale, UWES-S (abbreviated version), in psychology students]. Revista de Educación en Ciencias de la Salud, 7, 128-133.

26.

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

27.

Raykov

(2004). Behavioral scale reliability and measurement invariance evaluation using latent variable modeling. Behavioral Therapy, 35, 299-331. doi:10.1016/S0005-7894(04)80041-8

28.

Reeve

Tseng

(2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 257-267. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002

29.

Reschly

A. L.

Christenson

S. L.

(2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In Christenson

S. L.

Reschly

A. L.

Wylie

(Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 3-20). New York, NY: Springer.

30.

Salmela-Aro

Upadyaya

(2012). The Schoolwork Engagement Inventory: Energy, dedication, and absorption (EDA). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28, 60-67. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000091

31.

Salmela-Aro

Upadyaya

(2014a). Developmental trajectories of school burnout: Evidence from two longitudinal studies. Learning and Individual Differences, 36, 60-68. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2014.10.016

32.

Salmela-Aro

Upadyaya

(2014b). School burnout and engagement in the context of demands–resources model. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 137-151. doi:10.1111/bjep.12018

33.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Bakker

A. B.

(2003). UWES–Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Test manual. Unpublished Manuscript, Department of Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

34.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Martinez

I. M.

Pinto

A. M.

Salanova

Bakker

A. B.

(2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 464-481. doi:10.1177/0022022102033005003

35.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Salanova

(2007). Efficacy or inefficacy, that’s the question: Burnout and work engagement, and their relationships with efficacy beliefs. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 20, 177-196. doi:10.1080/10615800701217878

36.

Seppälä

Mauno

Feldt

Hakanen

Kinnunen

Tolvanen

Schaufeli

(2009). The construct validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Multisample and longitudinal evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, 459-481. doi:10.1007/s10902-008-9100-y

37.

Skinner

E. A.

Kindermann

T. A.

Furrer

C. 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. doi:10.1177/0013164408323233

38.

Stoeber

Childs

J. H.

Hayward

J. A.

Feast

A. R.

(2011). Passion and motivation for studying: Predicting academic engagement and burnout in university students. Educational Psychology, 31, 513-528. doi:10.1080/01443410.2011.570251

39.

Tuominen-Soini

Salmela-Aro

(2014). Schoolwork engagement and burnout among Finnish high school students and young adults: Profiles, progressions, and educational outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 50, 649-662. doi:10.1037/a0033898

40.

Tuominen-Soini

Salmela-Aro

Niemivirta

(2008). Achievement goal orientations and subjective well-being: A person-centred analysis. Learning and Instruction, 18, 251-266. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.05.003

41.

Tuominen-Soini

Salmela-Aro

Niemivirta

(2011). Stability and change in achievement goal orientations: A person-centered approach. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 82-100. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.08.002

42.

Tuominen-Soini

Salmela-Aro

Niemivirta

(2012). Achievement goal orientations and academic well-being across the transition to upper secondary education. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 290-305. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.01.002

43.

Upadyaya

Salmela-Aro

(2013). Engagement with studies and work: Trajectories from postcomprehensive school education to higher education and work. Emerging Adulthood, 1, 247-257. doi:10.1177/2167696813484299

44.

Upadyaya

Salmela-Aro

(2015a). Cross-lagged associations between study and work engagement dimensions during young adulthood. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10, 346-358. doi:10.1080/17439760.2014.983958

45.

Upadyaya

Salmela-Aro

(2015b). Development of early vocational behavior: Parallel associations between career engagement and satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 90, 66-74. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2015.07.008

46.

Wang

M. T.

Chow

Hofkens

Salmela-Aro

(2015). The trajectories of student emotional engagement and school burnout with academic and psychological development: Findings from Finnish adolescents. Learning and Instruction, 36, 57-65. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.11.004

47.

Zhang

Gan

Cham

(2007). Perfectionism, academic burnout and engagement among Chinese college students: A structural equation modeling analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1529-1540. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.010