Just a Methodological Cautionary Note: The Jingle Jangle of Self-Related Beliefs in Motivational Measures

IF 0.7 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Journal of Psychological and Educational Research Pub Date : 2020-05-08 DOI:10.33140/jepr.02.02.04
H. Lee, Peter McPartlan, Osman Umarji, Qiujie Li, J. Eccles
{"title":"Just a Methodological Cautionary Note: The Jingle Jangle of Self-Related Beliefs in\nMotivational Measures","authors":"H. Lee, Peter McPartlan, Osman Umarji, Qiujie Li, J. Eccles","doi":"10.33140/jepr.02.02.04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many fields in academia face problems with either same named scales measuring what are actually different constructs\n(i.e., the jingle fallacies) or differently named scales measuring the same construct (i.e., the jangle fallacies). In this study,\nwe examined the overlap between a set of 10 measures of self-related beliefs of academic motivation constructs in two\ndifferent biology courses: value items (e.g., utility value, interest value, attainment value, and cost value), achievement\ngoal orientation items (e.g., mastery approach, mastery avoidance, performance approach, and performance avoidance),\nand intrinsic/extrinsic motivation items. Exploratory factor analyses and structural equation modeling indicated that the\ncovariance among the items is not captured by an item-based factor solution, suggesting these named scales are plagued\nby the jingle jangle fallacy. These findings suggest that researchers should either use these constructs independently of\neach other or attempt to find a more unified theory of academic self-related motivational beliefs when examining these\nconstructs together, especially in statistical analyses.","PeriodicalId":42280,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Psychological and Educational Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Psychological and Educational Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33140/jepr.02.02.04","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Many fields in academia face problems with either same named scales measuring what are actually different constructs (i.e., the jingle fallacies) or differently named scales measuring the same construct (i.e., the jangle fallacies). In this study, we examined the overlap between a set of 10 measures of self-related beliefs of academic motivation constructs in two different biology courses: value items (e.g., utility value, interest value, attainment value, and cost value), achievement goal orientation items (e.g., mastery approach, mastery avoidance, performance approach, and performance avoidance), and intrinsic/extrinsic motivation items. Exploratory factor analyses and structural equation modeling indicated that the covariance among the items is not captured by an item-based factor solution, suggesting these named scales are plagued by the jingle jangle fallacy. These findings suggest that researchers should either use these constructs independently of each other or attempt to find a more unified theory of academic self-related motivational beliefs when examining these constructs together, especially in statistical analyses.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
只是一个方法论上的警告:动机测量中自我相关信念的叮当声
学术界的许多领域都面临着这样的问题:要么使用相同的量表来测量实际上不同的结构(即;即叮当声谬误)或测量相同结构的不同名称的音阶(即叮当声谬误)。在本研究中,我们考察了两门不同生物课程中学业动机建构自我相关信念的一组10项测量之间的重叠:价值项(如效用价值、兴趣价值、成就价值和成本价值)、成就目标导向项(如掌握方法、掌握回避、绩效方法和绩效回避)和内在/外在动机项。探索性因子分析和结构方程建模表明,项目之间的协方差不能被基于项目的因子解捕获,这表明这些命名量表受到叮当声谬误的困扰。这些发现表明,研究人员应该要么单独使用这些构念,要么在研究这些构念时,尤其是在统计分析中,试图找到一个更统一的学术自我相关动机信念理论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Journal of Psychological and Educational Research is a scientific review, appearing biannually, which publishes scientific materials belonging to all the fields of psychology. The emphasis falls on empirical studies, but it may include reviews, theoretical or methodological papers in psychology. Empirical papers with a strong theoretical framework and/or models of computational parameters are particularly encouraged. Theoretical papers of scholarly substance on abnormality may be appropriate if they advance understanding of a specific issue directly relevant to psychology and fall within the length restrictions of a regular (not extended) article. As a journal that focuses on researches within a quantitative, scientific remit, Journal of Psychological and Educational Research places particular emphasis on the publishing of high-quality empirical reports based on experimental and behavioural studies
期刊最新文献
A Narrative Inquiry into the Cultivation of Professional Identity Among Medical Students Through an Online Knowledge Community Why They Intend to Leave: The Role of Burnout Between the Faculty Work Environment and Intent to Leave Academia How Does AI Pose Challenges for Leaders in Organizations? -A Conceptual Study Both Pedagogy and Psychology Need the Concept of Thirst for Ability and Thirst for Blazing New Trails Assessment of Psychiatry Trainees Satisfaction towards Postgraduate Psychiatry Clinical MD in Sudan
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1