Teaching and Student Evaluation Tasks: Cross-Cultural Adaptation, Psychometric Properties and Measurement Invariance of Work Tasks Motivation Scale for Teachers
Girum Tareke Zewude
,
Maria Hercz
,
Ngan Thi Ngoc Duong
,
Ferenc Pozsonyi
The present research aimed to test an Amharic version of the multi-dimensional Work Task Motivation Scale for Teachers (WTMST), which measures the fiv.
- Pub. date: October 15, 2022
- Pages: 2243-2263
- 818 Downloads
- 1441 Views
- 2 Citations
The present research aimed to test an Amharic version of the multi-dimensional Work Task Motivation Scale for Teachers (WTMST), which measures the five pillars of university instructors’ motivation toward teaching and student evaluation tasks based on self-determination theory (SDT). Therefore, the WTMST offers the first instrument to measure all five motivational elements, and today it is one of the most applicable instruments to assess teachers’ motivation. An Amharic version of the WTMST for teaching and student evaluation tasks was adopted and assessed in large-scale data (N=1,117). Our findings demonstrate excellent reliability and construct validity (convergent, discriminant, divergent and factorial). Besides, the results of the model comparisons provided that out of the four theoretically competing models (single-order factor, correlated factor, higher-order factor and bi-factor models), the bi-factor model was the most-fitted one used for measurement invariance across various groups. Results also suggest that the factor structure of the WTMST for both teaching and student evaluation tasks demonstrate consistency across gender (men, women), university types (research, applied, and general university), age and experience in teaching. Therefore, the WTMST for teaching and student evaluation tasks may be valid in Ethiopian higher education settings.
Keywords: Student and teacher evaluation, work task motivation scale, wellbeing in higher education, cross-cultural adaptation.
References
Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 815–824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.018
Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.
Byrne, B. M., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2010). Testing for measurement and structural equivalence in large-scale cross-cultural studies: Addressing the issue of nonequivalence. International Journal of Testing, 10(2), 107–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305051003637306
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
Chen, F. F., West, S. G., & Sousa, K. H. (2006). A comparison of bi-factor and second-order models of quality of life. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41(2), 189–225. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr4102_5
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/fd4n2m
Collie, R. J. (2014). Understanding teacher well-being and motivation: measurement, theory, and change over time. The University of British Columbia. https://doi.org/10.1037/t58623-000
Collie, R.J., Shapka, J.D., Perry, N.E., & Martin, A. (2015). Teacher well-being: exploring its components and a practice-oriented scale. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(8), 744–756. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282915587990
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
Davidov, E., Meuleman, B., Cieciuch, J., Schmidt, P., & Billiet, J. (2014). Measurement equivalence in cross-national research. Annual Review of Sociology, 40(2), 55–75. https://doi.org/gd7fzk
Davidov, E., Schmidt, P., Billiet, J., & Meuleman, B. (2018). Cross-cultural analysis methods and applications. Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315537078
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008a). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49(1), 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.14
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008b). Self-determination theory: A macro-theory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 182–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801
Eremenco, S. L., Cella, D., & Arnold, B. J. (2005). A comprehensive method for the translation and cross-cultural validation of health status questionnaires. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 28(2), 212–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278705275342
Fernet, C.. (2011). Development and validation of the work role motivation scale for school principals (WRMS-SP). Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(2), 307–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X10385108
Fernet, C., Sencal, C., Guay, F., Marsh, H., & Dowson, M. (2008). The work tasks motivation scale for teachers (WTMST). Journal of Career Assessment, 16(2), 256–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072707305764
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322
Gagné, M., Forest, J., Gilbert, M. H., Aubé, C., Morin, E., & Malorni, A. (2010). The motivation at work scale: Validation evidence in two languages. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(4), 628–646. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164409355698
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2020). IBM SPSS statistics 26 step by step:A simple guide and reference. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429056765
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2019). Multivariate data analysis. Annabel Ainscow.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.58
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Immekus, J. C., & Imbrie, P. K. (2008). Dimensionality assessment using the full-information item bifactor analysis for graded response data: An illustration with the state metacognitive inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68(4), 695–709. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164407313366
Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Djurdjevic, E. (2011). Assessing the impact of common method variance on higher order multi-dimensional constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 744–761. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021504
Kim, H.-Y. (2013). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: assessing normal distribution using skewness and kurtosis. Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics, 38(1), 52. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.52
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling.. The Guilford Press.
Lei, P.-W., & Wu, Q. (2007). Introduction to structural equation modeling: Issues and practical considerations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26(3), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2007.00099.x
Liang, X., & Luo, Y. (2020). A Comprehensive comparison of model selection methods for testing factorial invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 27(3), 380–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2019.1649983
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. (1996). Maslach burnout inventory: Educators survey. Palo Alto, CA: Consulung Psychologists Press.
Millsap, R. E. (2011). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203821961
Mishra, P., Pandey, C. M., Singh, U., Gupta, A., Sahu, C., & Keshri, A. (2019). Descriptive statistics and normality tests for statistical data. Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia, 22(1), 67–72. https://doi.org/10.4103/aca.ACA_157_18
Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41(2), 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-Determination Theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. The Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1521/978.14625/28806
Schober, P., Boer, C., & Schwarte, L. A. (2018). Correlation coefficients: Appropriate use and interpretation. Anesthesia and Analgesia, 126(5), 1763–1768. https://doi.org/gfbxr2
Steiger, J. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 893–898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.017
Stockdale, G. D., Gridley, B. E., Balogh, D. W., & Holtgraves, T. (2002). Confirmatory factor analysis of single- and multiple-factor competing models of the dissociative experiences scale in a nonclinical sample. Assessment, 9(1), 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191102009001011
van de Schoot, R., Lugtig, P., & Hox, J. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(4), 486–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.686740
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002
Wammerl, M., Jaunig, J., Mairunteregger, T., & Streit, P. (2019). The German version of the PERMA-profiler: Evidence for construct and convergent validity of the PERMA theory of well-being in German-speaking countries. Journal of Well-Being Assessment, 3(2–3), 75–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41543-019-00021-0
Wang, Y., Kim, E. S., Dedrick, R. F., Ferron, J. M., & Tan, T. (2018). A multilevel bi-factor approach to construct validation of mixed-format scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 78(2), 253–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164417690858
Zewude, G. T., & Hercz, M. (2021). Psychological capital and teacher well-being: The mediation role of coping with stress. European Journal of Educational Research, 10(3), 1227–1245. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.10.3.1227
Zewude, G. T., & Hercz, M. (2022). The teacher well-being scale (TWBS): Construct validity, model comparisons and measurement invariance in an Ethiopian setting. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 32(3), 251–262. https://doi.org/jbw5