4.4 Article

Preliminary validation of the Perceived Locus of Causality scale for academic motivation in the context of university studies (PLOC-U)

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
卷 87, 期 4, 页码 558-572

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjep.12164

关键词

motivation; self-determination theory; university studies; validation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundResearch has shown that self-determination theory can be useful in the study of motivation in sport and other forms of physical activity. The Perceived Locus of Causality (PLOC) scale was originally designed to study both. AimThe current research presents and validates the new PLOC-U scale to measure academic motivation in the university context. We tested levels of self-determination before and after academic examinations. Also, we analysed degree of internalization of extrinsic motivation in students' practical activities. SampleTwo hundred and eighty-seven Spanish university students participated in the study. MethodData were collected at two time points to check the reliability and stability of PLOC-U by a test-retest procedure. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed on the PLOC-U. Also convergent validity was tested against the Academic Motivation Scale (EME-E). ResultsConfirmatory factor analysis showed optimum fit and good reliability of PLOC-U. It also presented excellent convergent validity with the EME-E and good stability over time. Our findings did not show any significant correlation between self-determination and expected results before academic examinations, but it did so afterwards, revealing greater regulation by and integration of extrinsic motivation. The high score obtained for extrinsic motivation points to a greater regulation associated with an external contingency (rewards in the practical coursework). ConclusionsPLOC-U is a good instrument for the measurement of academic motivation and provides a new tool to analyse self-determination among university students.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据