Premium
Contemporary measures of approach and avoidance goal orientations: Similarities and differences
Author(s) -
Smith Michaela,
Duda Joan,
Allen Justine,
Hall Howard
Publication year - 2002
Publication title -
british journal of educational psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.557
H-Index - 95
eISSN - 2044-8279
pISSN - 0007-0998
DOI - 10.1348/000709902158838
Subject(s) - psychology , amotivation , discriminant validity , construct (python library) , construct validity , anxiety , convergent validity , social psychology , predictive validity , psychometrics , developmental psychology , internal consistency , cognitive psychology , clinical psychology , intrinsic motivation , psychiatry , computer science , programming language
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.