Much attention has been given to the development and validation of measures of growth mindset and its impact on learning, but the previous work has largely been focused on general measures of growth mindset. This research was focused on establishing the psychometric properties of a reading mindset (RM) measure among a sample of upper elementary school students and validating the measure through its relations with standardized measures of word reading and comprehension. The RM measure was developed to capture student’s beliefs about their ability, learning goals, and effort during reading. Item response theory was used to select items that optimally measured the RM measure from a pool of existing items from previous research. The final five-item RM measure predicted reading comprehension outcomes above and beyond the effects of word reading, indicating that this measure may be an important tool for diagnosing noncognitive areas of improvement for developing readers. The implications, limitations, and future directions for expanding upon the measure were discussed.
BairdG. L.ScottW. D.DearingE.HamillS. K. (2009). Cognitive self-regulation in youth with and without learning disabilities: Academic self-efficacy, theories of intelligence, learning vs. performance goal preferences, and effort attributions. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28, 881–908. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2009.28.7.881
4.
BakerL.WigfieldA. (1999). Dimensions of children’s motivation for reading and their relations to reading activity and reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 452–477. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.34.4.4
5.
BlackwellL.TrzesniewskiK.DweckC. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78, 246–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995
6.
Brasseur-HockI. F.HockM. F.KiefferM. J.BiancarosaG.DeshlerD. D. (2011). Adolescent struggling readers in urban schools: Results of a latent class analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 438–452. https://doi.org/10.10162011.01.008
7.
BrykA. S.GomezL. M.GrunowA.LaMahieuP. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools get better at getting better. Harvard Press.
8.
BuehlM. M.AlexanderP. A.MurphyP. K. (2002). Beliefs about schooled knowledge: Domain specific or domain general?Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(3), 415–449. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2001.1103
9.
BurnetteJ.O’BoyleE.VaneppsE.PollackJ.FinkelE. (2013). Mind-sets matter: A meta-analytic review of implicit theories and self-regulation. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 655–701. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029531
10.
CainK.OakhillJ. V.BarnesM. A.BryantP. E. (2001). Comprehension skill, inference-making ability, and their relation to knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 29, 850–859. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196414
11.
CainK.OakhillJ. V.BryantP. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.31
12.
ChalmersR. P. (2012). mirt: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i06
13.
ChoE.TosteJ. R.LeeM.JuU. (2019). Motivational predictors of struggling readers’ reading comprehension: The effects of mindset, achievement goals, and engagement. Reading and Writing, 32, 1219–1242. doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9908-8
14.
CurranP. J.WestS. G.FinchJ. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16–29. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16
15.
De AyalaR. J. (2013). The theory and practice of item response theory. Guilford Press.
16.
DeVellisR. F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications (3rd ed.). Sage.
17.
DuckworthA. L.YeagerD. S. (2015). Measurement matters: Assessing personal qualities other than cognitive ability for educational purposes. Educational Researcher, 44, 237–251. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15584327
18.
DunnT. J.BaguleyT.BrunsdenV. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105, 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046
DweckC. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology Press.
21.
DweckC. S.ChiuC.HongY. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A word from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1
22.
DynarskiM.ClarkeL.CobbB.FinnJ.RumbergerR.SminkJ. (2008). Dropout prevention: IES practice guide (NCEE 2008-4025). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/9
23.
FoormanB. R.KoonS.PetscherY.MitchellA.TruckenmillerA. (2015). Examining general and specific factors in the dimensionality of oral language and reading in 4th–10th grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 884–889. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000026
24.
FrancisD. J.ShaywitzS. E.StuebingK. K.ShaywitzB. A.FletcherJ. M. (1996). Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading disability: A longitudinal, individual growth curves study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.1.3
GutschallC. A. (2013). Teachers’ mindsets for students with and without disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 1073–1083. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21725
27.
JoshiR. M.TaoS.AaronP. G.QuirozB. (2012). Cognitive component of componential model of reading applied to different orthographies. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 480–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411432690
28.
KimY. S. G. (2017). Why the simple view of reading is not simplistic: Unpacking component skills of reading using a direct and indirect effect model of reading (DIER). Scientific Studies of Reading, 21, 310–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1291643
29.
KlineR. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
30.
LoganS.JohnstonR. (2009). Gender differences in reading ability and attitudes: Examining where these differences lie. Journal of Research in Reading, 32, 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2008.01389
31.
LoganS.MedfordE.HughesN. (2011). The importance of intrinsic motivation for high and low ability readers’ reading comprehension performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 124–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.09.011
32.
LordánE.SoléI.BeltranF. S. (2017). Development and initial validation of a questionnaire to assess the reading beliefs of undergraduate students: The Cuestionario de Creencias sobre la Lectura. Journal of Research in Reading, 40(1), 37–56.
McClellandM. M.CameronC. E.ConnorC. M.FarrisC. L.JewkesA. M.MorrisonF. J. (2007). Links between behavioral regulation and preschoolers’ literacy, vocabulary, and math skills. Developmental Psychology, 43, 947–959. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.947
35.
McGeownS.GoodwinH.HendersonN.WrightP. (2012). Gender differences in reading motivation: Does sex or gender identity provide a better account?Journal of Research in Reading, 35, 328–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01481
36.
MoatsL. C. (1999). Teaching reading is rocket science. American Federation of Teachers.
37.
MyszkowskiN.StormeM. (2019). Judge response theory? A call to upgrade our psychometrical account of creativity judgments. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 13, 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000225
38.
OuelletteG.BeersA. (2010). A not-so-simple view of reading: How oral vocabulary and visual-word recognition complicate the story. Reading and Writing, 23, 189–208.
39.
PetscherY. (2010). A meta-analysis of the relationship between student attitudes towards reading and achievement in reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(4), 335–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01418
40.
PetscherY.Al OtaibaS.WanzekJ.RivasB.JonesF. (2017). The relation between global and specific mindset with reading outcomes for elementary school students. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(5), 376–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1313846
41.
QuinnJ. M.WagnerR. K. (2018). Using meta-analytic structural equation modeling to study developmental change in relations between language and literacy. Child Development, 89(6), 1956–1969. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13049
42.
QuinnJ. M.WagnerR. K.PetscherY.LopezD. (2015). Developmental relations between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension: A latent change score modeling study. Child Development, 86(1), 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12292
43.
RobinsonH. M.WeintraubS. (1973). Research related to children’s interests to developmental values in reading. Library Trends, 22, 81–108.
44.
RosseelY. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5–12 (BETA). Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36.
SiskV. F.BurgoyneA. P.SunJ.ButlerJ. L.MacnamaraB. N. (2018). To what extent and under which circumstances are growth mind-sets important to academic achievement? Two meta-analyses. Psychological Science, 29, 549–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617739704
47.
TaboadaA.TonksS. M.WigfieldA.GuthrieJ. T. (2009). Effects of motivational and cognitive variables on reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 22, 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-008-9133-y
48.
TosteJ. R.CapinP.VaughnS.RobertsG. J.KearnsD. M. (2017). Multisyllabic word-reading instruction with and without motivational beliefs training for struggling readers in the upper elementary grades. Elementary School Journal, 117, 593–615. https://doi.org/10.1086/691684
49.
TunmerW. E.ChapmanJ. W. (2012). The simple view of reading redux: Vocabulary knowledge and the independent components hypothesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 453–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411432685
50.
VaughnS.Linan-ThompsonS.KouzekananiK.BryantD. P.DicksonS.BlozisS. A. (2003). Reading instruction grouping for students with reading difficulties. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 301–315. http://doi.org/10.1177/07419325030240050501
51.
WagnerR. K.TorgesenJ. K.RashotteC. A.PearsonN. A. (2010). Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension (TOSREC) examiner’s manual. Pro-Ed.
52.
WanzekJ.PetscherY.Al OtaibaS.DoneganR. E. (2019). Retention of reading intervention effects from fourth to fifth grade for students with reading difficulties. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 35(3), 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2018.1560379
53.
WanzekJ.RobertsG. (2012). Reading interventions with varying instructional emphases for fourth graders with reading difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35(2), 90–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948711434047
54.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.MatherN. (2001). Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Riverside.
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.
