Using Bifactor Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling to Test for a Continuum Structure of Motivation

By Joshua L. Howard, Marylène Gagné, Alexandre J. S. Morin, Jacques Forest. 2018

231 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4147d9f000d7f0a44cc9e550025c20e1d10998f0

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

1. Richard M. Ryan
2. Marylène Gagné
3. Robert J. Vallerand
4. J. Reeve
5. Edward L. Deci
6. A. van den Broeck
7. Nicolas Gillet
8. Nikos Ntoumanis

In Social Psychology

1. Richard M. Ryan
2. Marylène Gagné
3. Robert J. Vallerand
4. J. Reeve
5. Edward L. Deci
6. Nikos Ntoumanis
7. A. van den Broeck
8. Nicolas Gillet

Citations in the corpus

• Psychometric Evidence of the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) and Modeling Distinctiveness of Resilience from Depression and Stress (2018, methodology): “In the first phase of the method, EFA was carried out in the first subsample (20%) to retrieve a factor structure (Howard et al., 2016).”
• Self-Determination Theory in Work Organizations: The State of a Science (2017, methodology): “A subsequent article by Howard et al. (2016) used bifactor analyses on an academic motivation scale, finding evidence for a continuum of autonomy as well as unique variances for distinct motives.”
• Motivation profiles at work: A self-determination theory approach (2016, background): “…amotivated and highlymotivated profiles both follow the expected continuum structure so closely that it could be argued that for these profiles a single factor representing global self-determinedmotivation (e.g., Howard et al., 2016) could be sufficient to describe these employees satisfactorily.”
• Student Motivation and Associated Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis From Self-Determination Theory (2021, methodology): “This conclusion aligns with previous studies examining the structure of motivation in SDT through bifactor modeling (Howard et al., 2018; Litalien et al., 2017).”
• Stability, change, and implications of students’ motivation profiles: A latent transition analysis (2017, background): “These results are also consistent with Amabile’s (1993) suggestion that controlled motivation might synergistically combines with autonomous motivation to predict positive outcomes, especially for individuals who also display high levels of autonomous motivation (also see Howard et al., 2016b).”
• Investigating the Multidimensionality of Need Fulfillment: A Bifactor Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling Representation (2018, background): “Similar results have been previously found in SDT-related research focusing on the structure of measures of motivation (Gunnel & Gaudreau, 2015; Howard et al., 2017), need thwarting (Myers et al.”
• Evidence of a continuum structure of academic self-determination: A two-study test using a bifactor-ESEM representation of academic motivation (2017, methodology): “This framework, recently tested in organizational psychology by Howard et al. (2016), allowed us to simultaneously integrate the conceptually-adjacent constructs perspective of academic motivation advocated by Guay and colleagues (Guay et al., 2015; Litalien et al., 2015) and the overarching…”
• BASIC PSYCHOLOGICAL NEEDS, MOTIVATIONAL ORIENTATIONS, EFFORT, AND VOCABULARY KNOWLEDGE (2021, background): “Generally, empirical research supports the coexistence of these two general factors over the specific factors (e.g., Alamer & Almulhim, 2021; Alamer & Lee, 2019; Behzadnia et al., 2018; Howard et al., 2018; Olafsen et al., 2018).”
• Beyond intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis on self-determination theory’s multidimensional conceptualization of work motivation (2021, unknown): “These findings align with previous research that has examined the structure of SDT’s types of motivation (Howard et al., 2017, 2018).”