学习动机策略问卷和教学材料动机调查的验证。

IF 3.3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Medical Teacher Pub Date : 2024-05-28 DOI:10.1080/0142159X.2024.2357278
David A Cook, Lee P Skrupky
{"title":"学习动机策略问卷和教学材料动机调查的验证。","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":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-28\",\"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\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","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":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:验证学习动机策略问卷(MSLQ)和教材动机调查(IMMS),前者用于测量学习者的学习动机,后者用于测量教育活动的动机特性:参与者(333 名药剂师、医生和高级执业医师)在在线学习模块(2021 年 4 月)结束后立即完成了 MSLQ、IMMS、一致性-个性化问卷 (CPQ) 和知识测试。我们使用确认性因子分析(CFA)、探索性因子分析(EFA)和多特征-多方法矩阵对数据进行随机抽样分析:大多数领域的 Cronbach alpha 均≥0.70。使用样本 1 进行的 CFA 分析表明,两种工具的拟合度都不理想,包括 3 个负向措辞的 IMMS 项目,其载荷特别低。修订后的 IMMS(RIMMS)得分(省略了负面措辞的项目)显示出更好的拟合效果。在 EFA 的指导下,我们确定了新的 3 个领域、11 个项目的 "MSLQ-简表-修订版"(MSLQ-SFR,领域包括:兴趣、自我效能感和归因)和 4 个领域、12 个项目的 RIMMS 为最佳模型。使用样本 2 进行的 CFA 证实了良好的拟合效果。MSLQ-SFR、RIMMS 和 CPQ 分数之间的相关性与预测一致;与知识分数的相关性很小:结论:原始 MSLQ 和 IMMS 分数显示出模型拟合度较差,其中负向词条的分歧明显。修订后的较短模型--MSLQ-SFR 和 RIMMS--显示出令人满意的模型拟合度(内部结构)以及与其他变量的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Validation of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire and instructional materials motivation survey.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Teacher
Medical Teacher 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
8.50%
发文量
396
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Giving the patient a leading role in bedside teaching; a truly collaborative and inclusive effort. Learning from our patients: An exploratory study to inform the development of a case tracking dashboard for internal medicine subspecialty fellows. The effectiveness of concept mapping as a tool for developing critical thinking in undergraduate medical education - a BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 81. Advancing anti-oppression and social justice in healthcare through competency-based medical education (CBME). A checklist for reporting, reading and evaluating Artificial Intelligence Technology Enhanced Learning (AITEL) research in medical education.
×
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