|Appears in Collections:||Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||Contemporary measures of approach and avoidance goal orientations: Similarities and differences|
|Citation:||Smith M, Duda J, Allen J & Hall H (2002) Contemporary measures of approach and avoidance goal orientations: Similarities and differences, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72 (2), pp. 155-190.|
|Abstract:||Background: In response to a resurgence of interest in and demonstrated utility of the approach-avoidance goal distinction, a number of researchers (Elliot & Church, 1997; Midgley et al., 1998; Skaalvik, 1997) have developed instruments to assess individual differences in the tendency to adopt approach-avoidance goals. However, to date there has been no attempt to examine the psychometric properties or conceptual and measurement overlap of these instruments. Aims: (i) To determine whether three questionnaires designed to measure approach-avoidance goal orientations are assessing the same or different constructs, and (ii) to examine the psychometric properties of each of the approach-avoidance measures (i.e., internal consistency, convergent, discriminant, factorial, and construct validity). Sample: Participants in this study were 475 undergraduate students (N = 228 males; N = 244 females; three missing information) enrolled at two large universities in the United Kingdom. Method: Participants completed a questionnaire which included measures of approach-avoidance goal orientations, effort regulation, test anxiety, perceived ability, and intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation. Results: Results revealed a degree of convergence between the three instruments. Each of the instruments demonstrated good psychometric properties although construct validity results were inconsistent across the measures. Conclusion: There is a need for future research to clarify the operational definition and subsequent measurement of the performance avoidance construct, and in particular, to examine the role that effort, impression management, and anxiety/fear of failure play in its conceptualisation.|
|Rights:||The publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository. Please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author. You can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study.|
|Affiliation:||University of Birmingham|
University of Birmingham
De Montfort University
|smithdudaetal_bjep_2002.pdf||487.25 kB||Adobe PDF||Under Embargo until 31/12/2999 Request a copy|
Note: If any of the files in this item are currently embargoed, you can request a copy directly from the author by clicking the padlock icon above. However, this facility is dependant on the depositor still being contactable at their original email address.
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact email@example.com providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.