4.6 Review

A Meta-Analytic Review of Achievement Goal Measures: Different Labels for the Same Constructs or Different Constructs With Similar Labels?

Journal

PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN
Volume 136, Issue 3, Pages 422-449

Publisher

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/a0018947

Keywords

achievement goals; meta-analysis; motivation; interest; performance

Funding

  1. U.S Department of Education, Institute for Education Sciences [R305C050055, R305B050029]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This meta-analysis addresses whether achievement goal researchers are using different labels for the same constructs or putting the same labels on different constructs We systematically examined whether conceptual and methodological differences in the measurement of achievement goals moderated achievement goal intercorrelations and relationships with outcomes We reviewed 243 correlational studies of self-reported achievement goals comprising a total of 91,087 participants The items used to measure achievement goals were coded as being goal relevant (future-focused, cognitively represented, competence-related end states that the individual approaches or avoids) and were categorized according to the different conceptual definitions found within the literature. The results indicated that achievement goal outcome and goal goal correlations differed significantly depending on the goal scale chosen, the individual items used to assess goal strivings, and sociodemographic characteristics of the sample under study For example, performance-approach goal scales coded as having a majority of normatively referenced items had a positive correlation with performance outcomes ((r) over cap = 14), whereas scales with a majority of appearance and evaluative items had a negative relationship ((r) over cap = 14) Mastery-approach goal scales that contained goal-relevant language were not significantly related to performance outcomes ((r) over cap = 05), whereas those that did not contain goal-relevant language had a positive relationship with performance outcomes ((r) over cap = 14) We concluded that achievement goal researchers are using the same label for conceptually different constructs This discrepancy between conceptual and operational definitions and the absence of goal-relevant language in achievement goal measures may be preventing productive theory testing, research synthesis, and practical application

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available