The General Regulatory Focus Measure has been used extensively in psychological research to gauge promotion and prevention orientations. Findings of this research show that for New Zealand secondary school students, the General Regulatory Focus Measure does not measure promotion and prevention as theoretically independent constructs.
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.
AsparouhovT.MuthénB. O. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16, 397–438. doi:10.1080/10705510903008204
3.
BentlerP. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.107.2.238
4.
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
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
7.
GignacG. E.WatkinsM. W. (2013). Bifactor modeling and the estimation of model-based reliability in the WAIS-IV. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 48, 639–662. doi:10.1080/00273171.2013.804398
8.
GormanC. A.MeriacJ. P.OverstreetB. L.ApodacaS.McIntyreA. L.ParkP.GodbeyJ. N. (2012). A meta-analysis of the regulatory focus nomological network: Work-related antecedents and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 160–172. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.07.005
9.
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 in honor of Karl Jöreskog (pp. 195–216). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
10.
HawsK. L.DholakiaU. M.BeardenW. O. (2010). An assessment of chronic regulatory focus measures. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 967–982. doi:10.1509/jmkr.47.5.967
11.
HigginsE. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319–340. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.319
12.
HigginsE. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280
13.
HigginsE. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55, 1217–1230. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.11.1217
14.
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.
15.
HigginsE. T. (2012b). Beyond pleasure and pain: How motivation works. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
16.
HigginsE. T. (2012c). Regulatory focus theory. In Van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 483–504). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
HigginsE. T.FriedmanR. S.HarlowR. E.IdsonL. C.AydukO. N.TaylorA. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(1), 3–23. doi:10.1002/ejsp.27
18.
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
19.
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
20.
LockwoodP.JordanC. H.KundaZ. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 854–864. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.854
21.
MarshH. W.LiemG. A. D.MartinA. J.MorinA. J. S.NagengastB. (2011). Methodological measurement fruitfulness of exploratory structural equation model: New approaches to issues in motivation and engagement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 322–346. doi:10.1177/0734282911406657
22.
MarshH. W.MorinA. J. S.ParkerP. D.KaurG. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modelling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 85–110. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700
23.
MarshH. W.MuthenB.AsparouhovT.LudtkeO.RobitzschA.MorinA. J. S.TrautweinU. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: Applications to students’ evaluations of university teaching. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16, 439–476. doi:10.1080/10705510903008220
24.
McClureJ.MeyerL. H.GarischJ.FischerR.WeirK. F.WalkeyF. H. (2011). Students’ attributions for their best and worst marks: Do they relate to achievement?Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(2), 71–81. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.11.001
25.
MeyerL. H.McClureJ.WalkeyF.WeirK.McKenzieL. (2009). Secondary student motivation orientations and standards-based achievement outcomes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 273–293. doi:10.1348/000709908X354591
26.
MorinA. J. S.MarshH. W.NagengastB. (2013). Exploratory structural equation modeling. In HancockG. R.MuellerR. O. (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (2nd ed., pp. 395–436). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
27.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
28.
ReiseS. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 667–696. doi:10.1080/00273171.2012.715555
29.
RighettiF.FinkenauerC.RusbultC. (2011). The benefits of interpersonal regulatory fit for individual goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 720–736. doi:10.1037/a0023592
30.
SteigerJ. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4
31.
SummervilleA.RoeseN. J. (2008). Self-report measures of individual differences in regulatory focus: A cautionary note. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 247–254. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2007.05.005
32.
TuckerL. R.LewisC. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1–10. doi:10.1007/BF02291170
33.
WalkeyF. H.McClureJ.MeyerL. H.WeirK. F. (2013). Low expectations equal no expectations: Aspirations, motivation, and achievement in secondary school. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 306–315. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.06.004
34.
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.
