A Validation of the Chinese Motivation for Reading Questionnaire

Abstract

This study addressed the cross-cultural validation of the Chinese Motivation for Reading Questionnaire (CMRQ) in a sample of 522 seventh to ninth graders from two public schools in eastern China. Confirmatory factor analyses, item-total correlation analyses, and reliability analyses were conducted to assess the psychometric quality of the CMRQ. The results indicated that the three-factor model for the competence beliefs scale, the six-factor model for the goals for reading scale, and the two-factor model for the social motivation scale fit the data properly. All subscales showed good levels of internal consistency reliabilities, ranging from .71 to .86. The concurrent validity of the CMRQ was supported by significant correlations among subscales with reading attitudes. Students scored the highest on intrinsic motivation, followed by social motivation, competence beliefs, and then extrinsic motivation. The findings further confirmed the existence of several distinguishable dimensions of reading motivation. Finally, implications for literacy research and instruction were discussed.

Keywords

assessment motivation attitudes psychometric analysis

Literacy research has traditionally focused on the cognitive aspects of reading, such as word identification, comprehension, and strategy use (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000; Watkins & Coffey, 2004). Much has been studied with regard to the positive effect of strategy instruction on students’ reading comprehension (Artelt et al., 2001; Baker & Brown, 1984). Although its positive effect on students’ reading development is encouraging, problems related to strategy generalization and maintenance have led researchers to the realization that strategy acquisition alone is not enough to help students become good readers who possess not only reading skills but also the will to read (Lau, 2004). Since reading is an activity that requires effort and relies on student choice (Baker & Wigfield, 1999), it is affected by aspects pertaining to reading motivation. Even the most capable and skillful students might choose not to read if they are lacking motivation.

Previous research findings have consistently shown that motivation to read is strongly related to reading comprehension (Guthrie et al., 2007; Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000; McGeown et al., 2015) as well as to reading behaviors such as reading amount, strategy use, and preference for different genres (Schiefele et al., 2012; Wigfield, 1997a). Given the important role that motivation plays in students’ reading development, Guthrie and Wigfield (2000) proposed an engagement model of reading comprehension development that focuses on both the cognitive and the motivational aspects of reading. The engagement model considers good readers to be those who can coordinate their knowledge and strategy within a literacy community to fulfill their personal goals, desires, and intentions. Thus, in addition to improving students’ reading proficiency, “fostering the love of reading” is also an important goal for reading instruction (Cramer & Castle, 1994). It necessarily follows that effective literacy educators ought to be able to assess students’ love of reading and then to reinforce it.

Despite the proliferation of research on reading motivation in the English-language context, few studies have focused on the Chinese context. Although Chinese 15-year-olds ranked first in reading achievement on the Programme for International Student Assessment (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2019), they have also exhibited problems with regard to reading motivation. For example, Li (2014) reported that nearly 50% of Chinese adolescents read less than 3 hr per week and 25% were unaccustomed to reading in their leisure time. Although most Chinese adolescents consider reading either very important or important, only 31.7% said that they actually like reading (Liu, 2015). It seems that students may harbor negative attitudes toward reading despite their recognition of its importance and value; furthermore, they might show different patterns in terms of reading motivation dimensions. Despite these figures, little is known about reading motivation among Chinese students, especially in relation to whether there is any significant deviation from the patterns that have been observed in other cultures. We believe that this research gap is largely due to the lack of any valid, reliable instrument for use in conducting research on the matter (Jang et al., 2014).

In this article, we will examine the cross-cultural validity of the Motivation for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ; Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997), which we believe will be a useful tool for literacy educators, especially those working with Chinese students, to develop a nuanced understanding of the multiple dimensions of reading motivation to inform teaching efforts. In addition, the MRQ might be used by researchers to further investigate the relationship between motivation and other reading-related variables such as comprehension, and to make cross-cultural comparisons between motivation levels.

The Conceptualization and Measurement of Reading Motivation

The etymology of the word “motivation” lies in the Latin word movere, meaning “to move.” Thus, reading motivation can generally be conceptualized as what moves students to pick up a book (or other reading materials) and what moves them to persist in reading even when faced with boredom or difficulty (Jang et al., 2015). Consistent with this perspective, motivation has been described as a willingness or intention to engage and persist in an activity even when it becomes challenging (Urdan & Schoenfelder, 2006). More specifically, in adapting constructs from the achievement motivation area (Ames, 1992; Bandura, 1997; Deci & Ryan, 1992; Eccles et al., 1983), Guthrie and Wigfield (2000) suggested that reading motivation refers to the “individual’s personal goals, values, and beliefs with regard to the topics, processes, and outcomes of reading” (p. 405), indicating that students can be motivated to read for a variety of reasons.

Most previous research has adopted instruments that focus on only one dimension of reading motivation, such as attitude (Conradi et al., 2013; McKenna et al., 2012), interest (Hildebrandt, 2001), self-efficacy (Henk et al., 2012; Henk & Melnick, 1995), self-concept (Chapman & Tunmer, 1995), attribution (Borkowski et al., 1988), or, in one instance, the combination of self-concept and value of reading (Gambrell et al., 1996; Malloy et al., 2013). However, it is now well established that motivation is a multidimensional concept that encompasses several interrelated constructs (Guthrie et al., 2007; Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000; Schiefele & Schaffner, 2016), such as values, goals for achievement, and beliefs, all of which play an important role in people’s decisions about which activities to choose, how long to engage in them, and how much effort should be invested (Ames, 1992; Bandura, 1997; Eccles et al., 1998).

As a key component of reading motivation, reading attitudes has been defined as a set of reading-related feelings that regularly prompt a student to either read or avoid reading (Alexander & Filler, 1976). If a teacher only uses an attitudes survey for assessing students’ motivation to read, then a student may be classified as an unmotivated reader because he or she did not show positive attitudes toward reading; however, if the teacher also assesses self-concept and value, the same student may be revealed to be a well-motivated reader. As such, dichotomizing motivation as an either/or construct is a hindrance to gaining a broader, more nuanced view of students’ reading motivation. Therefore, a more comprehensive, multidimensional instrument is needed to capture and evaluate the different aspects of student motivation.

A Multidimensional Instrument: The MRQ

In line with this approach, Wigfield and colleagues developed the MRQ to measure the multiple dimensions of reading motivation (Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Wigfield, 1997a, 1997b; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). Grounded in the aforementioned engagement perspective and achievement motivation theories, 11 dimensions of reading motivation measured by the MRQ are conceptualized and grouped into three categories: competence beliefs, goals for reading, and social motivation.

The competence beliefs category refers to people’s efficacy expectancies for different achievement tasks (Bandura, 1997; Eccles et al., 1983). It consists of three dimensions: Self-Efficacy (the belief that one can perform a reading task successfully), Challenge (the preference for difficult or complex reading materials), and Work Avoidance (the desire to avoid reading activities).

The goals for reading category covers the reasons students choose to read. It comprises several constructs from the motivation field, including intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985), achievement goal orientations (Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988), and achievement values (Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). A total of six dimensions under this category are grouped into two subcategories of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The following three dimensions represent intrinsic motivation: Curiosity (the desire to read about a particular topic that piques personal interest), Involvement (getting lost in a story or experiencing imaginative actions), and Importance (the subjective values that are assigned to reading tasks). Meanwhile, the following three additional dimensions represent extrinsic motivation: Recognition (the pleasure deriving from receiving recognition for success in reading), Grades (the desire to improve one’s grades in school, particularly in reading), and Competition (the desire to outperform peers, particularly in reading).

Based on the engagement perspective, the social motivation category approaches reading as an inherently social activity, framing classrooms as social contexts that have a crucial impact on student performance (Wentzel, 1996). It measures two dimensions: Social (the process of sharing reading experiences or meanings gained from reading with friends and family) and Compliance (reading to meet the expectations of others, especially a teacher or the school as a whole).

To date, the MRQ is considered the most well-established, comprehensive instrument available for measuring reading motivation (Lau, 2004; Schiefele & Schaffner, 2016). It has been translated into and adapted for numerous languages and countries around the world, including the United Kingdom (Logan & Medford, 2011), Belgium (De Naeghel et al., 2012), Norway (Anmarkrud & Bråten, 2009), Australia (Schutte & Malouff, 2007), South Korea (Lim, 2016), Hong Kong (Lau, 2004, 2009), and Taiwan (Huang, 2007; J. H.-Y. Wang & Guthrie, 2004). In the study most relevant to our work, Lim (2016) revealed that the factor structure results indicated by Baker and Wigfield (1999) also apply to Korean students.

However, regarding the MRQ’s application to studying reading motivation, researchers have reached only a partial agreement regarding the nature and number of primary factors for consideration. For example, Schiefele and colleagues (Schiefele et al., 2012; Schiefele & Schaffner, 2016) suggested that not all of the MRQ’s dimensions (e.g., Self-Efficacy, Importance, and Challenge) denote forms of reading motivation in a narrow sense. In addition, Watkins and Coffey (2004) could not identify Importance and Challenge as individual factors by means of confirmatory factor analyses. Up until now, most replication studies have proposed various approaches that involve using fewer MRQ dimensions—such as five (Guthrie et al., 1999; Schiefele & Schaffner, 2016), six (Guthrie et al., 1999), seven (Schiefele et al., 2012), and eight (J. H.-Y. Wang & Guthrie, 2004; Watkins & Coffey, 2004)—to study reading motivation. As such, it warrants examining the applicability of these alternative, potentially suitable models of the MRQ to the Chinese cultural context.

Reading Motivation of Chinese Students

The MRQ has been deemed a reliable, valid inventory for assessing the reading motivation of U.S. students. However, since an individual’s motivational and learning behavioral patterns are generally shaped and affected by sociocultural contexts (Lau & Chan, 2003), Western motivation theories and instruments may have limited applicability to Chinese research (Yang, 1997). Previous studies have identified several differences between Western and Chinese culture; for example, generally, Western culture emphasizes independence through principles of individualism and views of the self as unique (Hui & Triandis, 1986; Spence, 1985). Accordingly, Western culture respects personal interest, which most often dominates the pursuit of achievement in a specific area (J. H.-Y. Wang, 2001). As a result, Western parents encourage their children to do things that interest them and support their interests. It follows that Western students’ motivation for achievement is likely to be individually oriented and internally driven (Spence, 1985).

In contrast, Chinese culture is characterized as a collective with an emphasis on human interdependence; hence, individuals are taught to be primarily concerned with others’ perspectives and feelings (Hong, 2001). Elders, such as parents and teachers, are considered experienced and are expected to guide the youth. Thus, significant value is placed on student conformity to elders’ expectations (Ho, 1986). Consequently, Chinese students’ motivation is likely to be both individually and socially oriented. Indeed, it has been suggested that social motivation is particularly important for Chinese students who are socialized under a collectivistic culture (Yang, 1997), with teachers exerting a strong influence on Chinese students’ motivation levels (Huang et al., 2014; Lau, 2009; Lau & Chan, 2003).

With respect to educational issues, in comparison with Western culture, Chinese culture seems to place a higher value on academic success, which is viewed as fundamental to securing a respectable social status and achieving a satisfactory life (Chen & Stevenson, 1995). Education is especially emphasized to students as high value through the 1000-year-old motto “万般皆下品, 惟有读书高” [Education is the highest of all works]. Given Chinese culture’s emphasis on education as the highest value, several studies have found that Chinese students generally have more positive achievement motivation (Salili, 1996) and significantly higher education-related aspirations (Stevenson, 1992) than Western students. In addition, the Chinese school system, with its Confucian roots, emphasizes discipline, school regulation, and obedience (Y. Hu, 2004; Huang et al., 2014).

Most of the previous studies focused on Chinese students’ reading motivation actually targeted students in Hong Kong (Lau, 2004, 2009; Lau & Chan, 2003; Law, 2009) and Taiwan (Huang, 2007, 2013; J. H.-Y. Wang & Guthrie, 2004). Although Hong Kong and Taiwan have cultural heritages that are similar to Mainland China’s, their educational systems vary significantly for historical and political reasons (Jang et al., 2014). This is an especially important consideration given Gan’s (2009) finding that institutional contexts and social environments, rather than cultural traditions, tend to determine students’ attitudes toward learning. Moreover, similarly to Western culture, both Hong Kong and Taiwan are economically developed, democratic, and capitalism oriented. J. H.-Y. Wang and Guthrie (2004) indicate that similar to U.S. students, students in Taiwan have adequate opportunities to explore things and develop their own interests over time, potentially fueling the emergence and sustaining the development of intrinsic motivation. Thus, the results of studies targeting students in Hong Kong and Taiwan cannot be generalized to students in Mainland China.

Research Questions

As a multidimensional instrument, the MRQ seems particularly useful for evaluating various aspects of reading motivation. An appropriate validation study is crucial for determining the MRQ’s applicability to Chinese culture and investigating whether cultural differences have resulted in deviations from the patterns demonstrated in Western studies. In service of that goal, the present study explores the following questions:

What is the factor structure of Chinese students’ reading motivation?

Does the translated Chinese MRQ (CMRQ) have adequate internal consistency reliability and concurrent validity?

What is the mean level of reading motivation dimensions among Chinese students? Do the patterns differ from those that have been demonstrated in other cultures?

Method

The Translation and Cross-Cultural Adaptation of the MRQ

The MRQ was translated into Mandarin Chinese and then back into English to confirm the precision of the translation. To make the item more culturally suitable, the term “project,” referenced in Item 8, was changed to “assignment” (“If the assignment is interesting, I can read difficult material”) as most Chinese schools rely on traditional teacher-centered instruction methods as well as their focus on direct knowledge transmission given that Chinese culture is influenced by its Confucian heritage (Y. Hu, 2004; Huang, 2007). Thus, “project” is not a frequently used term in Chinese school learning contexts. In addition, Item 4, “In comparison to my other school subjects I am best at reading,” was rephrased as “In comparison to other school learning content I am best at reading” to reflect the fact that Chinese schools do not teach reading as an independent subject but, rather, reading education is delivered as important language arts content.

To ensure that each item would be interpreted in the manner intended, we conducted one-on-one cognitive interviews with five nonstudy participant students (two boys and three girls), including two high-achieving performers, two moderate performers, and one poorly achieving performer. The students came from two public schools in eastern China and were selected based on teachers’ referrals. To complement the individual interviews, the research team also interviewed students via a focus group to discuss how to improve the Chinese wording.

This resulted in the further revision of vague terms and inappropriate expressions in line with students’ individual feedback coupled with the content of in-depth discussions among the researchers and students interviewed. For example, “as the teacher wants it” in Item 48 was changed to “as the teacher requires it” and “make friends with people in good books” in Item 22 was changed to “communicate with people in good books.” In both cases, the revised phrases were considered to correspond better with Chinese culture. Overall, this cross-cultural adaptation procedure enhanced the comprehensibility and appropriateness of the language that is intended for use in the Chinese cultural context.

Participants

A sample of 542 seventh to ninth graders from two public schools were invited to participate in the study and complete the questionnaires. School 1 was located in a relatively high-achieving metropolitan district that primarily served students from high-income families, whereas School 2 was located in a traditionally low-achieving district that primarily served students from low-income families. The literacy curriculum in both schools was the same due to the consistent implementation of a national curriculum across the country. After excluding incomplete questionnaires that were missing more than 10% of the requested data as well as questionnaires on which nearly identical responses were given for different items, the final sample comprised 522 students (258 boys and 264 girls), among which 187 (35.8%) were seventh graders, 171 (32.8%) were eighth graders, and 164 (31.4%) were ninth graders. The students were mainly between the ages of 12 and 17 years old (M = 13.30 years, SD = 0.97). Their most recent language arts scores were graded on a scale of 0 to 100, and the mean score was 77.0.

Measures

Reading motivation

The CMRQ (see Supplemental Appendix A) was used to measure Chinese students’ reading motivation. As mentioned earlier, its items can be divided into 11 dimensions within three categories. All items were rated on a Likert-type scale with values of 1 (very different from me) to 4 (a lot like me). The scale developers conducted various statistical analyses, including exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs), item-total correlation tests, and reliability analyses, to validate and improve the psychometric qualities of the MRQ (Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). According to reports, the three-factor model for the competence beliefs scale, the six-factor model for the goals for reading scale, and the two-factor model for the social motivation scale are well suited for assessing U.S. students. Item-total correlations of an item to a total subscale score ranged from .47 to .89. Furthermore, with the exception of Work Avoidance, which had relatively low internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .55), the Cronbach’s alphas for other subscales were acceptable (.66–.76).

Reading attitudes

Considering that adolescents’ attitudes toward reading vary by context, especially reading purpose and medium (Conradi et al., 2013; McKenna et al., 2012), we selected the Survey of Adolescent Reading Attitudes (SARA; McKenna et al., 2012) to gather evidence for the CMRQ’s concurrent validity since it assesses adolescents’ attitudes toward reading for both academic and recreational purposes in both print and digital settings. The SARA contains 18 items that were divided into four subscales: attitudes toward academic print reading, academic digital reading, recreational print reading, and recreational digital reading. Each item begins with “How do you feel about” and is rated on a Likert-type scale from 1 (very bad) to 6 (very good). The CFA results pointed to the 15-item Chinese SARA (CSARA) as the final solution for use among Chinese adolescents (see X. Wang & Jin, 2020, for more details). Cronbach’s alpha for the total scale was .85 with a range of .72 to .78 for the four subscales.

Procedure

We used simple random sampling methods to first select two administrative regions in a large city in eastern China and then to select one school in each area. After obtaining consent from schools, the researchers, with assistance from classroom teachers, administered the questionnaires during regularly scheduled class periods. The front page of the questionnaire bore several statements about the research content, participants’ rights, and confidentiality. The researchers reassured the participants that all collected data would be kept confidential and used for research purposes only. The students completed the questionnaire about reading motivation first, before moving on to the one about reading attitudes. The entire session lasted between 15 and 20 min, after which time the researchers and teachers immediately collected the completed questionnaires.

Analysis

Construct validity

To investigate the construct validity of the CMRQ, confirmatory factor analysis, which is useful for investigating the factorial validity of multi-subscale instruments such as the MRQ, was conducted via Amos 22.0 using a maximum likelihood estimation method. A confirmatory rather than exploratory factor analysis was chosen because the assumed factor structure of the MRQ was theoretically and empirically well grounded (see Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Lim, 2016; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997).

Based on a theoretical rationale for grouping motivational factors into different categories (Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Wigfield, 1997a, 1997b; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997), three separate sets of CFAs were performed. For the first set of analyses, we conducted CFAs on the items of the competence beliefs scale for a theoretically derived three-factor solution, which comprises three underlying factors: Self-Efficacy, Challenge, and Work Avoidance. In the second set of analyses, we conducted CFAs on the items of the goals for reading scale for a theoretically derived six-factor model in which Curiosity, Involvement, Importance, Recognition, Grades, and Competition were proposed as individual factors and for a second-order factor model (intrinsic and extrinsic motivation) nested within a six-factor model. Finally, regarding the factor structure of the social motivation scale, a theoretically derived two-factor model consisting of Social and Compliance items was tested.

Based on previous findings, we also tested other potential models, including five-, six-, seven-, and eight-factor solutions (For more details, see Table 1 “Other plausible models”).

Table 1.

Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for the Factor Models of Reading Motivation.

Models	χ²(df)	Model fit				Model comparison
		CFIGood: ≥ .95Acceptable: ≥ .90	TLIGood: ≥ .95Acceptable: ≥ .90	RMSEAGood: ≤ .06Acceptable: ≤ .08	SRMRGood: ≤ .06Acceptable: ≤ .08	AIC	BIC
		CFIGood: ≥ .95Acceptable: ≥ .90	TLIGood: ≥ .95Acceptable: ≥ .90	RMSEAGood: ≤ .06Acceptable: ≤ .08	SRMRGood: ≤ .06Acceptable: ≤ .08	the lower, the better
Competence beliefs
Three-factor model	261.18*** (62)	.91	.89	.08	.06	—	—
Modified three-factor model	155.70*** (61)	.96	.95	.06	.05	—	—
Goals for reading
Six-factor model	1,093.08*** (309)	.86	.84	.07	.07	—	—
Second-order six-factor model	1,123.92*** (317)	.85	.84	.07	.07	—	—
Six-factor model (without 19, 20)	904.65*** (260)	.88	.86	.07	.06	—	—
Modified six-factor model	689.35*** (255)	.92	.90	.06	.06	—	—
Social motivation
Two-factor model	223.24*** (34)	.91	.87	.10	.06	—	—
Modified two-factor model	130.19*** (32)	.95	.93	.08	.05	—	—
Other plausible models
Five-factor Model A (Curiosity, Involvement, Challenge, Recognition, and Competition; Guthrie et al., 1999)	883.93*** (289)	.89	.87	.06	.06	1,007.93	1,271.90
Five-factor Model B (Curiosity, Involvement, Grades, Competition, and Recognition; Schiefele & Schaffner, 2016)	963.39*** (265)	.86	.84	.07	.07	1,083.39	1,338.85
Six-factor model (Curiosity, Involvement, Challenge, Recognition, Competition, and Self-Efficacy; Guthrie et al., 1999)	1,261.41*** (390)	.86	.85	.07	.06	1,411.41	1,730.74
Seven-factor model (Curiosity, Involvement, Work Avoidance, Grades, Recognition, Competition, and Compliance; Schiefele et al., 2012)	1,295.11*** (443)	.87	.85	.06	.06	1,465.11	1,827.02
Eight-factor Model A (Self-Efficacy, Work Avoidance, Curiosity, Involvement, Recognition, Competition, Grades/Compliance, and Social; Watkins & Coffey, 2004)	2,656.46*** (832)	.80	.79	.07	.07	2,884.46	3,369.83
Eight-factor Model B (Curiosity, Involvement, Challenge, Grades, Recognition, Competition, Social, and Compliance; J. H.-Y. Wang & Guthrie, 2004)	2,092.18*** (712)	.84	.83	.06	.07	2,308.18	2,768.01
Modified five-factor Model A	708.11*** (264)	.91	.90	.06	.06	830.11	1,089.83

Note. CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; AIC = Akaike information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion.

The bold-faced values were goodness-of-fit indexes for the finally selected models.

***

p < .001.

Various goodness-of-fit indexes were used to assess the model fit: the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI; Tucker & Lewis, 1973), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Browne & Cudeck, 1993), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR; Bentler, 1995). As suggested by L. Hu and Bentler (1999), adequate and good model fit may be indicated by values greater than .90 and .95, respectively, on CFI and TLI, and by values lower than .08 and .06, respectively, on RMSEA and SRMR. To consider which model fit the data significantly better, the changes in chi-square (∆χ², for nested models) as well as Akaike and Bayesian Information Criterion (AIC and BIC; for non-nested models, see Kline, 2015) were examined.

Concurrent validity

To obtain evidence of the CMRQ’s concurrent validity, we calculated the extent to which the CMRQ produced results that were consistent with the CSARA by examining the correlation coefficients between the two scales’ raw scores.

Descriptive analysis

To examine the mean level of Chinese students’ reading motivation, we computed scores for each of the dimensions of reading motivation by summing the scores on each item and then computing the mean.

Results

Construct Validity

Table 1 presents goodness-of-fit indicators for the models that were tested. First, for the competence beliefs scale, originally, the theoretically derived three-factor model did not show a satisfactory fit as indicated by TLI. After examining the modification indexes and the item contents, the residuals of Item 3 (“I learn more from reading than most students in the class”) and Item 4 (“In comparison to my other school subjects I am best at reading”) were allowed to be correlated within the Self-Efficacy scale. Both items referred to the beliefs that one can be successful at reading whether comparing oneself to peers or to one’s own performance in other school subjects. The adapted model presented a high level of fit (see Table 1), and thus was selected as the potential final model for the competence beliefs scale (see Supplemental Appendix B).

Regarding the goals for reading scale, the theoretically derived six-factor model showed a statistically significantly better fit compared with the second-order six-factor model: ∆χ²(8) = 30.84, p < .001. However, as indicated by CFI and TLI, it seemed that more work needed to be done to further refine the six-factor model. Having closely reviewed the content, we removed Item 20 (“I read stories about fantasy and make-believe”) from the Involvement scale because it presented the lowest factor loading (.21). This item also generated the lowest item-total correlation with the Involvement scale (.25). Since students may have totally different reading interests regarding book genres, reading stories from the fantasy and make-believe genre might not necessarily be particularly relevant to students’ reading involvement. We also eliminated Item 19 (“I enjoy reading books about people in different countries”) from the Curiosity scale due to its low factor loading (.48) as well as the low item-total correlation it generated with the Curiosity scale (.39). Since it is possible for people to have their own preferences for specific reading topics, the degree of an individual’s interest in books about people in different countries might not fully represent that individual’s curiosity level.

The remaining items showed acceptable factor loadings (>.51). CFA was performed on those items to identify a six-factor solution, and significant improvements in data fit were found (see Table 1). However, they still failed to satisfy the TLI and CFI cutoff standards. The inspection of the modification indexes and the item contents led us to correlate the residuals within the Involvement (Items 23 and 25, 21 and 22) and Recognition (Items 28 and 32, 29 and 30) scales. The review of the item contents shows that both Item 23 (“I like mysteries”) and Item 25 (“I read a lot of adventure stories”) referred to enjoyment generated by reading certain book genres, and both Item 21 (“I make pictures in my mind when I read”) and Item 22 (“I feel like I make friends with people in good books”) referred to the engagement and imaginative actions experienced in the reading process. In addition, both Item 28 (“My friends sometimes tell me I am a good reader”) and Item 32 (“I like to get compliments for my reading”) expressed the pleasure of getting compliments for one’s reading, and both Item 29 (“I like hearing the teacher say I read well”) and Item 30 (“I am happy when someone recognizes my reading”) expressed the pleasure in receiving recognition for one’s success in reading.

Residuals across the Grades (Item 35, “I read to improve my grades”) and Competition (Item 37, “I like being the only one who knows an answer in something we read”) scales were also allowed to be correlated since previous findings have indicated a high correlation between Grades and Competition (Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Schiefele & Schaffner, 2016). Furthermore, as extrinsic motivational factors, both items indicate one’s desire to outperform others in reading in the school context. The modified model showed a good level of fit (see Table 1), pointing to the modified six-factor model as a viable final solution for the goals for reading scale (see Supplemental Appendix C).

For the social motivation scale, originally, the two-factor model did not fit the data properly as indicated by TLI and RMSEA. Additional modifications were made based on modification indexes and the examination of item contents such that the residuals were allowed to be correlated within the Social scale (Items 42 and 43, 44 and 45). Both Item 42 (“I often read to my brother or my sister”) and Item 43 (“I sometimes read to my parents”) expressed the frequency pertaining to literacy practices conducted within the family, while both Item 44 (“My friends and I like to trade things to read”) and Item 45 (“I talk to my friends about what I am reading”) expressed preferences pertaining to literacy practices within peer groups. The revised model exhibited a satisfactory level of fit (see Table 1). Although the chi-square to df ratio was relatively large, it was considered acceptable due to the chi-square’s sample size sensitivity (Marsh et al., 1988). As such, the modified two-factor model was adopted as a final solution for the social motivation scale (see Supplemental Appendix D).

Table 2 presents standardized factor loadings, item-total correlations, means, and standard deviations for the CMRQ’s items. With the exception of Item 4, which had a factor loading of .49, the factor loadings for the other items ranged from .50 to .83, suggesting that they effectively defined the latent variables. The correlations between each item and a total subscale score ranged from .41 to .90, indicating that no specific item conflicted with other items on the same scale.

Table 2.

Standardized Factor Loadings, Item-Total Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations for the Reading Motivation Items.

Items	Factor loadings	Item-total correlations	M	SD
Self-Efficacy
1. I know that I will do well in reading next year.	.70***	.80**	3.30	.77
2. I am a good reader.	.80***	.82**	3.16	.74
3. I learn more from reading than most students in the class.	.54***	.77**	2.68	.84
4. In comparison to my other school subjects I am best at reading.	.49***	.55**	2.73	.87
Challenge
5. I like hard, challenging books.	.71***	.78**	3.09	.83
6. I like it when the questions in books make me think.	.78***	.79**	3.29	.72
7. I usually learn difficult things by reading.	.76***	.82**	3.16	.82
8. If the project is interesting, I can read difficult material.	.63***	.73**	3.22	.75
9. If a book is interesting I don’t care how hard it is to read.	.51***	.64**	3.37	.70
Work Avoidance
10. I don’t like reading something when the words are too difficult.	.59***	.73**	2.46	.95
11. I don’t like vocabulary questions.	.73***	.80**	2.22	.91
12. Complicated stories are no fun to read.	.78***	.81**	2.06	.94
13. I don’t like it when there are too many people in the story.	.65***	.76**	2.14	.96
Curiosity
14. If the teacher discusses something interesting I might read more about it.	.59***	.68**	3.25	.70
15. I read about my hobbies to learn more about them.	.69***	.70**	3.25	.74
16. I read to learn new information about topics that interest me.	.71***	.74**	3.32	.68
17. I like to read about new things.	.68***	.74**	3.41	.68
18. If I am reading about an interesting topic I sometimes lose track of time.	.58***	.68**	3.28	.80
Involvement
21. I make pictures in my mind when I read.	.61***	.81**	3.40	.69
22. I feel like I make friends with people in good books.	.70***	.85**	3.31	.70
23. I like mysteries.	.54***	.47**	3.12	.86
24. I enjoy a long, involved story or fiction book.	.69***	.78**	3.27	.77
25. I read a lot of adventure stories.	.51***	.41**	3.27	.74
Importance
26. It is very important to me to be a good reader.	.83***	.88**	3.26	.76
27. In comparison to other activities I do, it is very important to me to be a good reader.	.70***	.90**	2.96	.85
Recognition
28. My friends sometimes tell me I am a good reader.	.73***	.57**	2.81	.84
29. I like hearing the teacher say I read well.	.75***	.87**	2.86	.87
30. I am happy when someone recognizes my reading.	.66***	.82**	3.13	.79
31. My parents often tell me what a good job I am doing in reading.	.75***	.81**	2.86	.87
32. I like to get compliments for my reading.	.82***	.85**	2.97	.84
Grades
33. I look forward to finding out my reading grade.	.67***	.66**	3.09	.82
34. Grades are a good way to see how well you are doing in reading.	.67***	.80**	2.74	.96
35. I read to improve my grades.	.56***	.77**	2.68	.97
36. My parents ask me about my reading grade.	.60***	.74**	2.70	.89
Competition
37. I like being the only one who knows an answer in something we read.	.50***	.72**	2.58	.98
38. I try to get more answers right than my friends.	.76***	.80**	2.93	.82
39. I like to finish my reading before other students.	.76***	.81**	2.95	.86
40. I am willing to work hard to read better than my friends.	.69***	.73**	3.08	.78
Social
41. I visit the library often with my family.	.63***	.72**	2.91	.89
42. I often read to my brother or my sister.	.66***	.83**	2.77	.95
43. I sometimes read to my parents.	.67***	.81**	2.90	.94
44. My friends and I like to trade things to read.	.57***	.66**	3.25	.76
45. I talk to my friends about what I am reading.	.67***	.59**	3.25	.82
46. I like to help my friends with their schoolwork in reading.	.54***	.64**	2.84	.94
47. I like to tell my family about what I am reading.	.64***	.52**	3.02	.87
Compliance
48. I always do my reading work exactly as the teacher wants it.	.70***	.82**	3.14	.80
49. Finishing every reading assignment is very important to me.	.78***	.86**	3.18	.77
50. I always try to finish my reading on time.	.80***	.86**	3.28	.76

p < .01. ***p < .001.

Among the other potential models that have been suggested by previous studies, we found that five-factor Model A fit the data best (see Table 1). Salient decreases of AIC and BIC were also found in this model. After eliminating Item 20 that had a low factor loading (.24) and correlating the residuals of Involvement Items 21 and 22, the good fit of the modified model was confirmed. Thus, the five-factor Model A can also be adopted as an alternative model for measuring Chinese students’ reading motivation (see Supplemental Appendix E).

Concurrent Validity

The CMRQ’s concurrent validity was demonstrated by examining its correlations with reading attitudes (see Table 3, lower section). Most of the motivation dimensions showed significant positive correlations with reading attitudes, with Recognition, Self-Efficacy, Curiosity, and Involvement relating most strongly. More specifically, Compliance had the highest correlations with attitudes toward academic reading in both print and digital settings. Curiosity, Challenge, and Involvement had the highest correlations with attitudes toward recreational print reading. Work Avoidance, in which case a higher score indicates a lower motivation level, had a significantly negative correlation with attitudes toward recreational print reading and no correlations with attitudes toward academic reading in print and digital settings. Special attention should be paid to students’ attitudes toward recreational digital reading since it exhibited either low or no significant correlations with most motivation dimensions while exhibiting the highest positive correlation with Work Avoidance.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics, Reliability Coefficients, Intercorrelations Among Subscales, and Relations to Reading Attitudes.

Subscale	M	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis	Cronbach’s alpha	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1. Self-Efficacy (4 items)	3.05	.62	–.46	.55	.71	—
2. Challenge (5 items)	3.23	.58	–.52	.27	.81	.57**	—
3. Work Avoidance (4 items)	2.22	.73	.30	–.17	.78	–.06	–.19**	—
4. Curiosity (5 items)	3.30	.53	–.50	.35	.78	.46**	.64**	–.10*	—
5. Involvement (5 items)	3.33	.58	–.40	–.27	.77	.48**	.60**	–.09*	.53**	—
6. Importance (2 items)	3.11	.72	–.37	–.54	.73	.50**	.52**	–.03	.43**	.59**	—
7. Recognition (5 items)	2.96	.71	–.31	–.01	.86	.46**	.45**	.03	.39**	.38**	.44**	—
8. Grades (4 items)	2.80	.68	–.19	–.08	.73	.35**	.34**	.14**	.27**	.30**	.36**	.54**	—
9. Competition (4 items)	2.88	.66	–.12	–.19	.76	.46**	.41**	.12**	.36**	.34**	.41**	.49**	.51**	—
10. Social (7 items)	2.93	.66	–.42	.25	.83	.45**	.45**	.00	.34**	.39**	.41**	.44**	.48**	.42**	—
11. Compliance (3 items)	3.20	.66	–.69	.56	.80	.49**	.50**	–.13**	.44**	.41**	.42**	.45**	.45**	.44**	.56**	—
Relations of reading motivations to reading attitudes
Academic print						.44**	.42**	–.05	.32**	.30**	.34**	.42**	.38**	.38**	.45**	.47**
Academic digital						.34**	.36**	–.00	.36**	.32**	.27**	.31**	.34**	.33**	.31**	.37**
Recreational print						.45**	.49**	–.18**	.49**	.47**	.42**	.37**	.25**	.27**	.36**	.42**
Recreational digital						.11**	.07	.33**	.15	.12**	.04	.23**	.13**	.25**	.03	–.03
Total scale scores for reading attitudes						.43**	.38**	.07	.43**	.40**	.34**	.46**	.33**	.38**	.39**	.33**

Note. All variables are latent variables. Cronbach’s alpha for the total scale is .92. The correlations between the competence beliefs and goals for reading scales (r = .55), between the competence beliefs and social motivation scales (r = .51), and between the goals for reading and social motivation scales (r = .67) are all significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).

p < .05 (two tailed). **p < .01 (two-tailed).

Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities, and Intercorrelations

Based on the results of the CFAs, Table 3 (upper section) represents means, standard deviations, and reliabilities for each subscale and bivariate correlations among the mean scores of the subscales. The Cronbach’s alpha for the total scale scores was .92, indicating a high level of internal consistency. The Cronbach’s alphas of the 11 subscales ranged from .71 to .86, all exceeding the .70 threshold

as recommended by Reynolds and colleagues (2009). Each item’s item-total correlations in its designated scale provided additional evidence for the scales’ internal consistency.

The means for each of the CMRQ’s dimensions were generally above the midpoint of 2.50, showing that students characterized themselves as motivated readers with respect to most dimensions. It is noteworthy that students scored the highest on intrinsic motivation (3.25) followed by social motivation (3.07), competence beliefs (3.02), and extrinsic motivation (2.88). Dimensions with higher means fell under Involvement, Curiosity, Challenge, and Compliance, whereas the relatively low means fell under Work Avoidance, Grades, and Competition.

Correlations among subscales were generally significantly positive, falling within a moderate range of .27 to .64. An exception was found for Work Avoidance, which was negatively or nonsignificantly related to most of the other subscales, as one would expect. Interestingly, it was found to correlate positively with two extrinsic motivational factors, Grades and Competition. The strongest correlations were found between Challenge and Curiosity and between Challenge and Involvement, while the weakest was found between Curiosity and Grades.

Discussion

To become lifelong readers, students must possess both the skills and the will to read. Despite the crucial role that motivation plays in students’ reading development, there are few studies on Chinese students’ reading motivation, and even fewer have developed a validated, reliable instrument for measuring this construct in Chinese students. In light of this deficiency, the current study attempted to extend the MRQ to Chinese culture and offer some preliminary evidence for the CMRQ’s adequacy in terms of validity and reliability.

The Multidimensionality of Reading Motivation

The results of the three separate sets of CFAs showed that the three-factor model for the competence beliefs scale, the six-factor model for the goals for reading scale, and the two-factor model for the social motivation scale exhibited good levels of fit for Chinese students, echoing those obtained for U.S. (Baker & Wigfield, 1999) and Korean (Lim, 2016) students. All of the items (with the exception of 19 and 20) proposed to load on a scale indeed did load on the assessed factor. The item-total correlations showed that all the items proposed to be part of a given scale related moderately to strongly. All of these results further confirm the multidimensionality of reading motivation as suggested in the previous research (Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Guthrie et al., 2007; Wigfield, 1997b; Wigfield et al., 1996), demonstrating that students are motivated to read for various purposes or reasons and that they might have multifaceted senses of themselves as readers. Therefore, we should not simply characterize students according to a binary conception of motivated and unmotivated readers.

Consistent with previous findings (Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Lim, 2016; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997), we found significant positive and moderate correlations among reading motivation subscales, except for Work Avoidance, which was either negatively or nonsignificantly associated with most of the other subscales. Notably, Work Avoidance showed small but significant positive correlations with Grades and Competition, partially confirming previous findings (Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997), which showed that Work Avoidance positively correlated to Competition. This result indicates that students who are motivated to read to improve their grades or outperform their peers are more likely to avoid reading. This idea is also supported by previous findings reporting that both Work Avoidance (Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Lim, 2016) and extrinsic motivational factors (e.g., Grades and Competition; Schiefele & Schaffner, 2016) are negatively associated with students’ reading amount.

In addition, five-factor Model A, in which Challenge, Curiosity, Involvement, Recognition, and Competition were proposed as individual factors, also fit the data properly. This result is in line with previous studies that regarded Challenge as a form of intrinsic motivation (Guthrie et al., 1999, 2007; Unrau & Schlackman, 2006; J. H.-Y. Wang & Guthrie, 2004; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). This result also finds support in the fact that the highest correlations among subscales were between Challenge and two intrinsic motivational factors, Curiosity and Involvement (see also Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). Items from Challenge and Curiosity were even found to be loaded together in previous studies (e.g., Wigfield et al., 1996), showing that students who like to read for personal interest tend to read more challenging materials. Thus, teachers might consider Challenge an important indicator of Chinese students’ intrinsic motivation and use more challenging materials to engage students in reading activities.

The Relations of Students’ Reading Motivation to Reading Attitudes

The CMRQ’s concurrent validity has been bolstered by its significant associations with reading attitudes. Specifically, most of the motivation dimensions were found to be significantly positively correlated with reading attitudes, except in the case of Work Avoidance. This result evinces a close connection between high levels of reading motivation and positive attitudes toward reading. The dimensions that were most strongly correlated with reading attitudes are Recognition, Self-Efficacy, Curiosity, and Involvement. Thus, students who happily receive rewards from others for excellence in reading, those who believe that they will succeed in reading, and those who are intrinsically motivated to read seem to exhibit more positive attitudes toward reading.

Social motivation, especially Compliance, had the highest correlation with attitudes toward academic reading in both print and digital settings. This result is mostly due to the content of many items in the Compliance scale (e.g., “I always do my reading work exactly as the teacher wants it”) that were directly related to the school context and addressed school-related reading only. It can be concluded that students who tend to be motivated to read to fulfill school requirements and who tend to complete reading assignments exactly as the teacher wants seem to harbor more positive attitudes toward academic reading. In addition, Challenge, Curiosity, and Involvement, which can be regarded as forms of intrinsic motivation, showed the highest correlations with attitudes toward recreational print reading. This result is in line with the argument that leisure time reading activity is more strongly motivated by internal incentives (Schaffner et al., 2013).

It is worth noting that the positive correlations between motivation dimensions and attitudes toward recreational digital reading were either nonsignificant or small in size. The attitudes toward recreational digital reading dimension was also the only one that had a positive correlation with Work Avoidance. This is a predictable result given that Chinese students perceive recreational digital reading very differently than the other three types of reading, largely because the content of the items in this scale (e.g., using social media, instant messaging or emailing friends, texting friends) represented forms of reading that differed significantly from conventional reading and were entirely social in nature (see X. Wang & Jin, 2020, for further discussion of this issue).

In Chinese learning environments, recreational digital literacy is often dismissed as a distraction and is generally not seen as connected with academic studies or the exercise of literacy skills (see also Buelow et al., 2015; Merga & Moon, 2016). This view is supported by previous findings that have revealed attitudes toward recreational digital reading as the only dimension that had no correlation with reading achievement (Jang & Ryoo, 2019; Lupo et al., 2017). In the same context, extrinsic motivation (e.g., Recognition, Grades, Competition), which is nonsignificantly or negatively associated with reading achievement (Guthrie et al., 1999; Schiefele et al., 2012; Unrau & Schlackman, 2006; J. H.-Y. Wang & Guthrie, 2004), had a significantly positive correlation with attitudes toward recreational digital reading.

The Mean Level of Chinese Students’ Reading Motivations

Another indication that reading motivation is multidimensional comes from the mean scores on different dimensions, which showed that students endorsed some dimensions more strongly than they did others (see also Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Wigfield et al., 1996; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). Specifically, students were found to endorse intrinsic motivations more than extrinsic motivations. This finding supports the view that Chinese students generally harbor positive attitudes and achievement motivation in learning (Huang, 2007, 2013; Lau, 2004, 2009). The dimensions that had relatively low means were Work Avoidance, Grades, and Competition, suggesting that students were not highly motivated to read to achieve good grades or outperform peers; in other words, they did not appear to treat reading as a pathway to academic success, nor did they seem to read mainly for instrumental purposes. More positively, they did not seem to shy away from difficult reading activities. This result deviates from the previous findings of studies targeting students in the United States (Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Wigfield et al., 1996; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997) and Taiwan (Huang, 2007, 2013), among which the most strongly endorsed subscales were extrinsic motivations, especially those related to Grades.

Unexpectedly, Recognition was found to have the strongest connection with reading attitudes and no correlation with Work Avoidance. It seems that Chinese students perceive Recognition differently from the other two extrinsic motivational factors, Grades and Competition, probably due to the Chinese collective culture’s emphasis on human interdependence and the consideration of others’ perspectives and feelings (Hong, 2001). That is, in contrast to Western culture’s highly valued personal independence and individualism, people in the Chinese culture care about how others, particularly experienced adults such as parents and teachers, perceive them. In this respect, it is necessary to reconsider whether Recognition might represent some variance of social motivation. In addition, according to self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), extrinsic motivation can be divided into different levels, from the most surface (external regulation) to the most internal (integrated regulation). When students fully identify with and internalize the value of recognition, this kind of extrinsic motivation might also represent some variance of intrinsic motivation.

Notably, social motivation, especially Compliance, was found to be one of the most endorsed dimensions, suggesting that students tend to be motivated to read because school curricula or teachers require it. This result again confirms the view that social motivation is particularly important for Chinese students who have been socialized under a collectivistic culture (Yang, 1997) and that teachers have a strong influence on Chinese students’ reading motivation (Huang et al., 2014; Lau, 2009; Lau & Chan, 2003). Compared to Western culture’s emphasis on independence and self-reliance, Chinese culture’s strong collectivistic orientation prioritizes conformity and the respectful acceptance of advice from others, especially one’s elders (Hong, 2001). Respecting teachers’ authority is also closely related to the strong value people place on education. Moreover, given the pervasive influence of Confucian philosophy, the Chinese school system places a strong emphasis on discipline and obedience. Consequently, Chinese students are more likely to be socially orientated learners (J. H.-Y. Wang, 2001) and normally give primacy to social obligations.

This result is inconsistent with the findings of studies that have focused on students in the United States (Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Guthrie et al., 2007; Wigfield et al., 1996; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997), Hong Kong (Lau, 2004, 2009; Lau & Chan, 2003; Law, 2009), and Taiwan (Huang, 2013; J. H.-Y. Wang & Guthrie, 2004), which concluded that not only were social values not emphasized, they were the least endorsed dimension compared with personal interest or intrinsic motivation, which was emphasized. In interpreting this result, one should bear in mind that students in Hong Kong and Taiwan live in a modernized society where the sociopolitical environment is similar to Western students’, and thus, their motivation tends to be individually rather than socially oriented (Lau, 2009). Ho (1994) stated that, given the influence of modernization in Chinese society, students’ motivation for achievement tends to be individually oriented and has been gradually decentralized from socially oriented achievement.

Limitations

While the findings of this study provided support for the multidimensional structure of the CMRQ and the validity and reliability of the proposed dimensions of reading motivation, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, although there is a theoretical rationale for grouping motivational factors into different categories, the best structure of the CMRQ can be conclusively identified by including entire items in the analysis. Therefore, future research should use a larger sample to examine the validity of the CMRQ based on all of its items.

Second, the generalizability of our results is constrained due to the limitations that arose from sampling participants from particular regions and grades. It therefore remains unclear whether the confirmed factor structure can be applied to other regions and grades. To generate more generalizable results, cross-replication studies based on more diverse samples, especially in terms of regions and grades, are recommended. Furthermore, the measurement invariance across gender and grade also need to be tested.

Third, the CMRQ is a self-reported inventory that may have inherent limitations. For instance, it may reflect distorted responses shaped by respondents’ personal moods or environmental factors that are present at the time of assessment, and students may complete the measures with the goal of making themselves look good to survey administrators. Thus, triangulation between CMRQ results and other qualitative methods, such as observation and interview, will prove useful in examining the CMRQ’s validity and capturing students’ reading motivation.

Implications

Despite these limitations, our results have several important implications for literacy instruction and research. First, the results show that the 48-item CMRQ and five-factor Model A can be valid and reliable instruments for measuring Chinese students’ reading motivation; furthermore, students may be situated at different levels with respect to each of the 11 dimensions. Teachers can use the validated CMRQ to better identify students’ dimension-specific motivational problems so that more focused instructional practices can be implemented to improve students’ reading motivation.

Second, the validated CMRQ now provides opportunities for researchers to further explore the relationships between reading motivation and various reading-related variables, such as comprehension, reading amount, and strategy use, and to investigate whether such relationships differ from those that characterize other cultures.

Third, the model modifications have suggested that the translated CMRQ items might not fully represent Chinese students’ reading motivation while also not fully corresponding with Chinese culture due to cultural differences. Thus, rather than merely translating the entire body of MRQ items into Chinese, future studies should consider developing and validating more culturally situated items that can better measure Chinese students’ reading motivation.

Supplemental Material

sj-zip-1-jlr-10.1177_1086296X211030474 – Supplemental material for A Validation of the Chinese Motivation for Reading Questionnaire

Supplemental material, sj-zip-1-jlr-10.1177_1086296X211030474 for A Validation of the Chinese Motivation for Reading Questionnaire by Xiaocheng Wang and Yuanying Jin in Journal of Literacy Research

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China (Grant No. CHA150180), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China (Grant No. JUSRP11984), and the High-Level Innovation and Entrepreneurship Talents Introduction Program of Jiangsu Province of China.

ORCID iD

Xiaocheng Wang

Supplemental Material

The appendices referenced in this article and abstracts in languages other than English are available at

References

Alexander

J. E.

Filler

R. C.

(1976). Attitudes and reading. International Reading Association.

Ames

(1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261

Anmarkrud

Ø.

Bråten

. (2009). Motivation for reading comprehension. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(2), 252–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.09.002

Artelt

Schiefele

Schneider

(2001). Predictors of reading literacy. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16(3), 363–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173188

Baker

Brown

(1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In Pearson

P. D.

Barr

Kamil

M. L.

Mosenthal

(Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353–394). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Baker

Wigfield

(1999). Dimensions of children’s motivation for reading and their relations to reading activity and reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(4), 452–477. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.34.4.4

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.

Bentler

P. M.

(1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.

Bentler

P. M.

(1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Multivariate Software.

10.

Borkowski

J. G.

Weyhing

R. S.

Carr

(1988). Effects of attribution retraining on a strategy-based reading comprehension in learning-disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.1.46

11.

Browne

M. W.

Cudeck

(1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen

K. A.

Long

J. S.

(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). SAGE.

12.

Buelow

R. K. D.

Hansen

Hoffman

M. K.

(2015). Serious reading, Internet, and the development of social interest. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 71(2), 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1353/jip.2015.0014

13.

Chapman

J. W.

Tunmer

W. E.

(1995). Development of young children’s reading self-concepts: An examination of emerging subcomponents and their relationship with reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(1), 154–167. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.87.1.154

14.

Chen

Stevenson

H. W.

(with Hayward

Burgess

). (1995). Culture and achievement: Ethnic and cross-cultural difference. In Maehr

M. L.

Pintrich

P. R.

(Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 119–151). JAI Press.

15.

Conradi

Jang

B. G.

Bryant

Craft

McKenna

M. C.

(2013). Measuring adolescents’ attitudes toward reading: A classroom survey. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(7), 565–576. https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.183

16.

Cramer

E. H.

Castle

(1994). Fostering the love of reading: The affective domain in reading education. International Reading Association.

17.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7

18.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1992). The initiation and regulation of intrinsically motivated learning and achievement. In Boggiano

A. K.

Pittman

T. S.

(Eds.), Achievement and motivation: A social developmental perspective (pp. 3–36). Cambridge University Press.

19.

De Naeghel

Van Keer

Vansteenkiste

Rosseel

. (2012). The relation between elementary students’ recreational and academic reading motivation, reading frequency, engagement, and comprehension: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1006–1021. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027800

20.

Dweck

C. S.

Leggett

E. L.

(1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256

21.

Eccles

J. S.

Adler

T. F.

Futterman

Goff

S. B.

Machala

C. M.

Meece

Midgley

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

J. T.

(Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives (pp. 75–146). Freeman.

22.

Eccles

J. S.

Wigfield

Schiefele

(1998). Motivation to succeed. In Eisenberg

(Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 4, 5th ed., pp. 1017–1095). John Wiley.

23.

Gambrell

L. B.

Palmer

B. M.

Codling

R. M.

Mazzoni

S. A.

(1996). Assessing motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 49(7), 2–19.

24.

Gan

(2009). “Asian learners” re-examined: An empirical study of language learning attitudes, strategies and motivation among mainland Chinese and Hong Kong students. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 30(1), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434630802307890

25.

Guthrie

J. T.

Hoa

A. L.

Wigfield

Tonks

S. M.

Humenick

N. M.

Littles

(2007). Reading motivation and reading comprehension growth in the later elementary years. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(3), 282–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.05.004

26.

Guthrie

J. T.

Wigfield

(2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In Kamil

M. L.

Mosenthal

P. B.

Pearson

P. D.

Barr

(Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 403–420). Lawrence Erlbaum.

27.

Guthrie

J. T.

Wigfield

Metsala

J. L.

Cox

K. E.

(1999). Motivational and cognitive predictors of text comprehension and reading amount. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(3), 231–256. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0303_3

28.

Henk

W. A.

Marinak

B. A.

Melnick

S. A.

(2012). Measuring the reader self-perceptions of adolescents: Introducing the RSPS2. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(4), 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.00144

29.

Henk

W. A.

Melnick

S. A.

(1995). The reader self-perception scale (RSPS): A new tool for measuring how children feel about themselves as readers. The Reading Teacher, 48(6), 470–482.

30.

Hildebrandt

(2001). “But there’s nothing good to read” (in the library media center). Media Spectrum: The Journal for Library Media Specialists in Michigan, 28(3), 34–37.

31.

D. Y. F.

(1986). Chinese patterns of socialization: A critical review. In Bond

M. H.

(Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 1–37). Oxford University Press.

32.

D. Y. F.

(1994). Cognitive socialization in Confucian heritage cultures. In Greenfield

P. M.

Cocking

R. R.

(Eds.), Cross-cultural roots of minority child development (pp. 285–313). Lawrence Erlbaum.

33.

Hong

(2001). Chinese students’ and teachers’ inferences of effort and ability. In Farideh

Chi

(Eds.), Student motivation: The culture and context of learning (pp. 105–120). Springer.

34.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

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

35.

(2004). The cultural significance of reading instruction in China. The Reading Teacher, 57(7), 632–639.

36.

Huang

S. H.

(2007). 7th grade Chinese students’ reading motivation in Taiwan [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Oklahoma.

37.

Huang

S. H.

(2013). Factors affecting middle school students’ reading motivation in Taiwan. Reading Psychology, 34(2), 148–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2011.618799

38.

Huang

S. H.

Ruan

Capps

(2014). What Chinese cultural values and instructional practices influence Chinese middle school students’ reading motivation in Taiwan. Quarterly Journal of Chinese Studies, 3(2), 55–76.

39.

Hui

C. H.

Triandis

H. C.

(1986). Individualism-collectivism: A study of cross-cultural researchers. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 17(2), 225–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002186017002006

40.

Jang

B. G.

Conradi

McKenna

M. C.

Jones

J. S.

(2015). Motivation: Approaching an elusive concept through the factors that shape it. The Reading Teacher, 69(2), 239–247. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1365

41.

Jang

B. G.

Pei

Wen

(2014, December). Developing an instrument to measure reading attitudes of Chinese middle school students [Paper presentation]. Literacy Research Association annual meeting, Marco Island, FL, United States.

42.

Jang

B. G.

Ryoo

J. H.

(2019). Multiple dimensions of adolescents’ reading attitudes and their relationship with reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 32(7), 1769–1793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9926-6

43.

Kline

R. B.

(2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford.

44.

Lau

K. L.

(2004). Construction and initial validation of the Chinese reading motivation questionnaire. Educational Psychology, 24(6), 845–865. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341042000271773

45.

Lau

K. L.

(2009). Reading motivation, perceptions of reading instruction and reading amount: A comparison of junior and senior secondary students in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(4), 366–382. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01400.x

46.

Lau

K. L.

Chan

D. W.

(2003). Reading strategy use and motivation among Chinese good and poor readers in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Reading, 26(2), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.00195

47.

Law

Y. K.

(2009). The role of attribution beliefs, motivation and strategy use in Chinese fifth-graders’ reading comprehension. Educational Research, 51(1), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131880802704764

48.

L. Y.

(2014). Survey on the recreational reading of secondary school students. Information on Publication, 15, 14–15. (In Chinese)

49.

Lim

H. J.

(2016). A development and validation of multidimensional reading motivation scale. The Journal of Educational Research, 14(1), 149–174. (In Korean)

50.

Liu

Q. Y.

(2015). Research on Chinese adolescents’ reading. Chinese Youth Research, 8, 5–10. (In Chinese)

51.

Logan

Medford

(2011). Gender differences in the strength of association between motivation, competency beliefs and reading skill. Educational Research, 53(1), 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2011.552242

52.

Lupo

Jang

B. G.

McKenna

M. C.

(2017). The relationship between reading achievement and attitudes toward print and digital texts in adolescent readers. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 66(1), 264–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381336917719254

53.

Malloy

J. A.

Marinak

B. A.

Gambrell

L. B.

Mazzoni

S. A.

(2013). Assessing motivation to read: The Motivation to Read Profile–revised. The Reading Teacher, 67(4), 273–282. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1215

54.

Marsh

H. W.

Balla

J. R.

McDonald

R. P.

(1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 391–410. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.103.3.391

55.

McGeown

S. P.

Duncan

L. G.

Griffiths

Y. M.

Stothard

S. E.

(2015). Exploring the relationship between adolescent’s reading skills, reading motivation and reading habits. Reading and Writing, 28(4), 545–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9537-9

56.

McKenna

M. C.

Conradi

Lawrence

Jang

B. G.

Meyer

J. P.

(2012). Reading attitudes of middle school students: Results of a U.S. survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(3), 283–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.021

57.

Merga

M. K.

Moon

(2016). The impact of social influences on high school students’ recreational reading. The High School Journal, 99(2), 122–140. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2016.0004

58.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). PISA 2018 results (Vol. 1): What students know and can do.

59.

Reynolds

C. R.

Livingston

R. B.

Willson

(2009). Measurement and assessment in education (2nd ed.). Merrill/Prentice Hall.

60.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Research, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

61.

Salili

(1996). Achievement motivation: A cross-cultural comparison of British and Chinese students. Educational Psychology, 16(3), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341960160304

62.

Schaffner

Schiefele

Ulferts

(2013). Reading amount as a mediator of the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(4), 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.52

63.

Schiefele

Schaffner

(2016). Factorial and construct validity of a new instrument for the assessment of reading motivation. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(2), 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.134

64.

Schiefele

Schaffner

Möller

Wigfield

(2012). Dimensions of reading motivation and their relation to reading behavior and competence. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), 427–463. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.030

65.

Schutte

N. S.

Malouff

J. M.

(2007). Dimensions of reading motivation: Development of an adult reading motivation scale. Reading Psychology, 28(5), 469–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710701568991

66.

Spence

J. T.

(1985). Achievement American style: The rewards and costs of individualism. American Psychologist, 40(12), 1285–1295. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.12.1285

67.

Stevenson

H. W.

(1992). Learning from Asian schools. Scientific American, 267(6), 70–76. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1292-70

68.

Tucker

L. R.

Lewis

(1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291170

69.

Unrau

Schlackman

(2006). Motivation and its relationship with reading achievement in an urban middle school. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(2), 81–101. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.100.2.81-101

70.

Urdan

Schoenfelder

(2006). Classroom effects on student motivation: Goal structures, social relationships, and competence beliefs. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5), 331–349.

71.

Wang

J. H.-Y.

(2001). Motivational process of text comprehension: Structural modeling of cross-cultural relation [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Maryland.

72.

Wang

J. H.-Y.

Guthrie

J. T.

(2004). Modeling the effects of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, amount of reading, and past reading achievement on text comprehension between U.S. and Chinese students. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 162–186. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.39.2.2

73.

Wang

Jin

(2020). Measuring multiple dimensions of Chinese adolescents’ attitudes toward reading: Introducing the Survey of Adolescent Reading Attitudes to Chinese Teachers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 63(6), 661–673. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1040

74.

Watkins

M. W.

Coffey

D. Y.

(2004). Reading motivation: Multidimensional and indeterminate. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 110–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.110

75.

Wentzel

K. R.

(1996). Social goals and social relationships as motivators of school adjustment. In Juvonen

Wentzel

K. R.

(Eds.), Social motivation: Understanding school adjustment (pp. 226–247). Cambridge University Press.

76.

Wigfield

(1997a). Children’s motivations for reading and reading engagement. In Guthrie

J. T.

Wigfield

(Eds.), Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated instruction (pp. 14–33). International Reading Association.

77.

Wigfield

(1997b). Reading motivation: A domain-specific approach to motivation. Educational Psychologist, 32(2), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3202_1

78.

Wigfield

Eccles

J. S.

(1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12(3), 265–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(92)90011-P

79.

Wigfield

Guthrie

J. T.

(1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 420–432.

80.

Wigfield

Wilde

Baker

Fernandez-Fein

Scher

(1996). The nature of children’s motivations for reading, and their relations to reading frequency and reading performance. National Reading Research Center.

81.

Yang

K. S.

(1997). Theories and research in Chinese personality: An Indigenous approach. In Kao

H. S. R.

Sinha

(Eds.), Asian perspectives on psychology (pp. 236–262). SAGE.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.11 MB

0.00 MB