{"title":"Validation of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire and instructional materials motivation survey.","authors":"David A Cook, Lee P Skrupky","doi":"10.1080/0142159X.2024.2357278","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To validate the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ), which measures learner motivations; and the Instructional Materials Motivation Survey (IMMS), which measures the motivational properties of educational activities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants (333 pharmacists, physicians, and advanced practice providers) completed the MSLQ, IMMS, Congruence-Personalization Questionnaire (CPQ), and a knowledge test immediately following an online learning module (April 2021). We randomly divided data for split-sample analysis using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and the multitrait-multimethod matrix.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Cronbach alpha was ≥0.70 for most domains. CFA using sample 1 demonstrated suboptimal fit for both instruments, including 3 negatively-worded IMMS items with particularly low loadings. Revised IMMS (RIMMS) scores (which omit negatively-worded items) demonstrated better fit. Guided by EFA, we identified a novel 3-domain, 11-item 'MSLQ-Short Form-Revised' (MSLQ-SFR, with domains: Interest, Self-efficacy, and Attribution) and the 4-domain, 12-item RIMMS as the best models. CFA using sample 2 confirmed good fit. Correlations among MSLQ-SFR, RIMMS, and CPQ scores aligned with predictions; correlations with knowledge scores were small.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Original MSLQ and IMMS scores show poor model fit, with negatively-worded items notably divergent. Revised, shorter models-the MSLQ-SFR and RIMMS-show satisfactory model fit (internal structure) and relations with other variables.</p>","PeriodicalId":18643,"journal":{"name":"Medical Teacher","volume":" ","pages":"635-645"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Teacher","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2024.2357278","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To validate the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ), which measures learner motivations; and the Instructional Materials Motivation Survey (IMMS), which measures the motivational properties of educational activities.
Methods: Participants (333 pharmacists, physicians, and advanced practice providers) completed the MSLQ, IMMS, Congruence-Personalization Questionnaire (CPQ), and a knowledge test immediately following an online learning module (April 2021). We randomly divided data for split-sample analysis using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Results: Cronbach alpha was ≥0.70 for most domains. CFA using sample 1 demonstrated suboptimal fit for both instruments, including 3 negatively-worded IMMS items with particularly low loadings. Revised IMMS (RIMMS) scores (which omit negatively-worded items) demonstrated better fit. Guided by EFA, we identified a novel 3-domain, 11-item 'MSLQ-Short Form-Revised' (MSLQ-SFR, with domains: Interest, Self-efficacy, and Attribution) and the 4-domain, 12-item RIMMS as the best models. CFA using sample 2 confirmed good fit. Correlations among MSLQ-SFR, RIMMS, and CPQ scores aligned with predictions; correlations with knowledge scores were small.
Conclusions: Original MSLQ and IMMS scores show poor model fit, with negatively-worded items notably divergent. Revised, shorter models-the MSLQ-SFR and RIMMS-show satisfactory model fit (internal structure) and relations with other variables.
期刊介绍:
Medical Teacher provides accounts of new teaching methods, guidance on structuring courses and assessing achievement, and serves as a forum for communication between medical teachers and those involved in general education. In particular, the journal recognizes the problems teachers have in keeping up-to-date with the developments in educational methods that lead to more effective teaching and learning at a time when the content of the curriculum—from medical procedures to policy changes in health care provision—is also changing. The journal features reports of innovation and research in medical education, case studies, survey articles, practical guidelines, reviews of current literature and book reviews. All articles are peer reviewed.