A Comparative Analysis of Contemporary Achievement Goal Orientation Measures

93 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Examining the Psychometric Properties of the Achievement Goal Questionnaire in a General Academic Context (2004, methodology): “…for use in a general academic context, we found support for the four distinct factors of goal orientation rather than a trichotomous or dichotomous framework of goal orientation, which had previously been supported in a domain-specific context (e.g., Jagacinski & Duda, 2001; Midgley et al., 1998).”
Boredom in achievement settings: Exploring control–value antecedents and performance outcomes of a neglected emotion. (2010, background): “Mastery goals related negatively to boredom in undergraduate students’ academic activities (Jagacinski & Duda, 2001; Pekrun, Elliot, & Maier, 2006; 2009) and in elementary students’ sports activities (Duda, Fox, Biddle, & Armstrong, 1992).”
Current issues in achievement goal theory and research (2003, background): “Jagacinski and Duda (2001) tested a two-factor solution for the Button, Mathieu, and Zajac (1996), Midgley et al.”
Ethnic and Gender Differences in First-Year College Students’ Goal Orientation, Self-Efficacy, and Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation (2014, methodology): “The PALS has also been used widely in motivation research (Jagacinski & Duda, 2001; Ross, Shannon, Salisbury-Glennon, & Guarino, 2002; Urdan & Midgley, 2003) with internal consistency reliabilities from the original instrument reported to be .78 for academic self-efficacy, .85 for mastery, .89 for…”