«L., Ratsameemonthon El Achievement Goal Questionnaire-Revised (AGQ-R) para estudiantes universitarios tailandeses y el contexto asiático Electronic ...»
Their mean age was 20 (SD = 0.99) years, ranging from 18 to 27 years and their GPA mean was 2.68 (SD=0.57), ranging from 1.08 to 4.00. About 76% were female and 24% were male.
They completed questionnaires voluntarily. Most of them were studying in the Business Administration department (n=389) and in the Science department (n=162).
Instrumentation Achievement Goal Questionnaire-Revised (AGQ-R; developed by Elliot and Murayama, 2008). The revised version of AGQ–R was developed to rectify problems present in the original version of the Achievement Goal Questionnaire (AGQ developed by Elliot and McGregor 2001). For example, more direct and precise words were needed because achievement goals focus on purpose and guide future behaviors. Some of the original version items seem referenced to a minor group (e.g., some performance-based goal items focus on an extreme group) and some achievement-goal items may not compare equally with the normative group. AGQ-R consisted of 12 items which were separated equally and systematically organized into four achievement goals (mastery approach/avoidance goals, performance approach/avoidance goals). The mastery-approach goals focus on attaining task-based or intrapersonal competence (3 items). Mastery-avoidance goals involve avoiding task-based or intrapersonal incompetence (3 items). Performance-approach goals are based on attaining
normative competence (3 items). And, performance-avoidance goals derive from avoiding normative incompectence (3 items). Participants responded on a scale of 1 = absolutely disagree to 5 = absolutely agree. All of the subscales demonstrated high levels of internal consistency. Regarding to the study of Elliot & Murayama, 2008 conducted a study that examined the measure’s structural validity and predictive utility of achievement goal questionnairerevised with 229 undergraduates at northeastern university in United States. The result showed that mastery-approach goals, mastery-avoidance goals, performance-approach goals, and performance-avoidance goals represented Cronbach’s alphas equal to.84,.88,.92, and.94, respectively (Elliot & Murayama, 2008).
Procedures To translate the AGQ-R into Thai, diverse methods were used to ensure that content, semantic, and technical equivalence was ascertained and was relevant to the target culture.
To accomplish this, the achievement goal questionnaire was translated and back-translated by two independent bilingual experts. The first translator was granted a scholarship from the government to study abroad for one year. Moreover, she has performed non-full-time translation for more than five years, mostly related to academic contexts. The other translator also was granted the Royal Thai Government’s Scholarship to study in the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences, major Econometrics, at New York University in The United States for two years. Upon graduation, she has worked as a 'Plan and Policy Analyst' at the Bureau of International Industrial Economics, Office of Industrial Economics, Ministry of Industry for seven years. After, back and forth translation, the researcher compared and resolved discrepancies by discussing in committee (researcher and the two bilinguals). The discussion was aimed to convey items content ‘equivalent to original version’ as well as to be able to communicate as simply as in the Thai language. As a result, the committee made the necessary adjustments to the original version to rectify translation differences in order to obtain the final English original and the final Thai version. After receiving the final English and Thai versions, they were tested again on the other two independent bilingual experts. The second comparison supported the proposition that the modified English and back-translated versions were similar to each other. The final Thai version was then examined further during the 2011 academic year (November 2011 to May 2012), using direct contact to obtain 1,071 respondents. Only complete questionnaire were accepted; therefore, some questionnaires were took out (e.g., gave only straight line answer). Consequently, 988 completed questionnaires were deemed valid and subjected to data analysis. Prior to actual participation, the participants
were fully notified about the purpose of the study via an informed consent form, and that was to be kept strictly confidential.
Data Analysis Data derived from the 988 participants were divided into two groups: 494 were tested via exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and the other 494 were assessed through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). EFA was used to explain a common relationship of each variable to determine whether two or more could be combined into the same variable if they demonstrate a high correlation and share some common characteristics, whereas, CFA was used to confirm the factor structure identified via EFA. A goodness-of-fit model with the empirical data was indicated by the incremental fit indices (Normed Fit Index – NFI, Incremental Fit Index – IFI, Tucker-Lewis Index – TLI, Comparative Fit Index – CFI) is close to or at 1 (a perfect fit) and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ranged from.05 to.08 are acceptable values suggested by Browne and Cudeck (1993). Cronbach’s alphas were then used to identify the internal consistency (reliability) of the scales indicated 0.7 to be an acceptable reliability coefficient (Nuunaly, 1978).
The result showed that data’s distribution of the four factors of achievement goal is admissible regarding assumption that the areas present under the normal curve. Table 1 demonstrates means, standard deviations, minimum-maximum, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, and Item-total correlation. Table 2 and Figure 1 show summary of factor loading of achievement goal questionnaire-revised.
The first factor accounted for 24.68% of the variance (eigenvalue = 2.96) and consisted of three mastery-approach goal items. The second factor accounted for 16.04% of the variance (eigenvalue = 1.92) and consisted of three performance-avoidance goal items. The third factor accounted for 11.09 % of the variance (eigenvalue = 1.33) and consisted of three performance-approach goal items. The fourth factor accounted for 9.99 % of the variance (eigenvalue = 1.19) and consisted of three mastery-avoidance goal items. The result from ex
ploratory factor analysis reported that the factor structure of the Thai version of AGQ–R appeared to be the same as that of the original scale.
Confirmation Factor Analysis (CFA) CFA was employed to test the null hypothesis that the sample covariance matrix was obtained from a population that has the proposed model structure. Table 3 presents the goodness-of-fit indices for this model. Table 4 and Figure 2 demonstrate standardized regression weights of the four-factor measurement model representing achievement goal.
Results indicated that the model fitted the data well. Although the overall chi-square value was significant, χ2 (df=48) = 138.68, p.001, the incremental fit indices (NFI, IFI, TLI, and CFI) were close to or above.90 (range:.89 to.93). These fit indices indicated that the model provided a good fit relative to a null or independent model. The RMSEA value of.06
is also within the range (.04 to.08) suggested by Browne and Cudeck (1993) and 90% CI =.05 -.74 indicate that the model fits the population covariance matrix reasonably well. The standardized regression coefficients (factor loadings) for the measurement indicators were all positive and significant by the critical ratio test, (C.R. +1.96, p.001). Standardized loadings ranged from.56 to.76 (M =.64). These values suggested that the indicator variables hypothesized to represent their respective latent constructs did so in a reliable manner. The percentage of residual (unexplained) variance for the 12 indicator variables ranged from 42% to 69%.
The result confirmed that the examination of the domain of achievement goal in two different cultures (Western and Eastern perspectives) represented the same four domains of achievement goal. Similar to Awofala, Arigbabu, Fatade and Awofala, (2013) studied the validity of 2x2 framework of achievement goal within the context of African students in Nigeria living in collectivist society. They also found a four-factor model of achievement goal fitted in the Nigeria’s student with high alpha values. The four factorial structures of the Thai AGQ-R distinctly supported the four factorial structures of the original English AGQ-R, which was developed by Elliot and McGregor (2001), and Elliot and Murayama (2008). The four-factor structure of achievement goal has been grounded in established theories and philosophies such as the theories of intelligence which illustrate the reasons for individuals adopting mastery and performance goals. For example, the intelligence theory stated that individuals adopting an incremental theory who believe that intelligence is malleable and can be improved through increasing effort were likely to espouse mastery goals. In contrast, individuals adopting an entity theory who believe that intelligence and performance are fixed as an innate ability were likely to espouse performance goals (Elliot, 1999). Moreover, the hedonism of human needs for achievement motivation verified a separation of the approach (need for success) and avoidance (fear of failure) domains. This strong theoretical perspective advocated a separation of the four-factor structure of achievement goal and could bridge the cultural gap of people living in different cultures having the same factor structural domain of achievement goal.
It is quite interesting that why Thai students also adopt Mastery approach goal even if students’ in Asian context are more likely to endorse performance goal than mastery goal
(Bong, 2008; Thongnoum, 2002). Due to that fact that, individuals from Southeast Asia may often pursue others’ goals, particularly those of their parents as their own goals, in order to maintain harmony between the self and parents as a given family’s obligation (Pomerantz, Grolnick, & Price, 2005). In the research of Meece, Blumenfeld, and Hoyle (1988) and Bong (2008) found significant others could play a role in influencing students to adopt mastery goal as well. They found that when students believe their teachers are emphasizing mastery of the learning tasks and that a deep understanding of the study material is more important than test scores, the students are more likely to adopt the mastery goal than to endorse the performance goal. Gonida, Karabenick, Makara and Hatzikyriakou (2014) found that perceived parent’s acheivement goals could predict their children seeking help and help avoidance attitude as well as achievement goals. It could be implied that although the mastery goal focuses on selfimprovement, it may be used less by Asian students because they are less motivated by success and more motivated by avoidance of failure (Chiu & Hong, 2005). As a result, the working out of the role of significant others toward students may influence Thai students to adopt the mastery-approach goal to pursue their academic goals in this research.
Although, in this research verified that the four domains of achievement goal from the Western perspective could be applied in Thai context, the reliability estimates for the scores on the Thai achievement goal questionnaire-revised (α ranged from.62 to.72) found in this study were lower than those reported by Elliot & Murayama, (2008) for the original version of the scales (α ranged from.84 to.94). The possible explanation was that the items of these scales were based on theory and research developed in the United States and published in English language journals. Even though the translation of the items into Thai was verified by bilingual experts and that the translated items were subjected to a content validation process, some of the items might not have been clear, causing students to misinterpret the items and respond on some basis unrelated to the content being measured, thereby lowering the reliability of the responses. Moreover, Elliot & Murayama, (2008) mentioned about the combination of positive and negative contents particular in mastery avoidance goal which may create a puzzling interpretation how this achievement goal operates.
Limitations of the study and Future research The limitations should be noted and interpretation should be cautious on the present findings. First, since this research examined sophomore students studying in the universities located in Songkhla province, generalization of results to other Thai undergraduate students is
limited. Future research should be replicated with other academic years or with other educational levels or other locations to increase validity and reliability of this assessment. Second, the two factors of achievement goals assessed in the current study showed low Cronbach’s alphas for performance-approach and mastery-avoidance; therefore, achievement goal in the Thai version should be replicated to verify and validate the instrument’ reliability.