Achievement goals, social goals, and students' reported persistence and effort in high school athletic settings.
Over the last 25 years, the achievement goal theory has been used as an important framework to address achievement motivation in academic (e.g., Ames, 1992a, 1992b; Ames & Archers, 1988; Nichollos, Patashnick, & Nolen, 1985), sport (e.g., Duda, 1989; Duda & Nicholls, 1992; Duda & Whitehead, 1998; Dunn, Dunn, & Syrotuik, 2002; Roberts, Treasure, & Balague, 1998; Stornes & Ommundsen, 2004), and physical education settings (e.g., Cury, Fonseca, Rufo, Peres, & Sarrazin, 2003; Guan, Xiang, McBride, & Bruene, 2006; Standage, & Treasure, 2002; Xiang, McBride, & Guan, 2004). Achievement goals are defined the purposes of competence-relevant activities that individuals strive for in achievement contexts (Ames, 1992b). To date, achievement goals researchers in athletic settings almost exclusively use a mastery (task)-performance (ego) goal dichotomous model to assess individual differences in goal orientation (Conroy, Elliot, & Hofer, 2003). A mastery goal orientation focuses on developing competency or gaining mastery of a task, while a performance goal orientation focuses on demonstrating superior ability relative to peers or achieving success with lesser effort (Ames, 1984, 1992b; Covington, 1984). For an in-depth review of dichotomous model application in sport settings, see Duda and Whitehead (1998).
In recent years the dichotomous model has developed to the more sophisticated trichotomous and finally to the most recent 2 x 2 model. In the trichotomous model, the performance goal construct is partitioned into performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals, but the mastery goal construct remained the same. Individuals with a performance-approach goal focus on the attainment of favorable judgments of competence. In contrast, individuals with a performance-avoidance goal focus on the avoidance of unfavorable judgments of competence (Elliot & Church, 1997). Each of these goals is hypothesized to lead to a unique motivational pattern (Elliot, 1999; Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Thrash, 2001). For example, performance-approach goals would lead to some adaptive outcomes (e.g., work hard for success, attribute success to effort, and persist in the face of difficulty), whereas performance-avoidance goals would result in maladaptive outcomes (e.g., avoiding challenging tasks, attributing lack of ability, and giving up easily in the face of difficulty). Analysis of validity and internal consistency provides support for the trichotomous framework (see Elliot, 1999; Elliot & Church, 1997; Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Skaalvik, 1997). To date, the trichotomous achievement goal model has been widely used in the classroom context (e.g., Elliot, 1999; Elliot & Church, 1997; Levy, Kaplan, & Patrick, 2004; Smith, Duda, Allen, & Hall, 2002) and also used in physical education settings (e.g., Cury, 2000; Cury, Elliot, Sarrazin, Fonseca, & Rufo, 2002; Cury, Fonseca, Rufo, Peres, & Sarrazin, 2003).
In the 2 x 2 achievement goal model, the mastery goal construct, like the performance goal construct, is also separated into mastery-approach and mastery-avoidance goals. Like mastery goals in the dichotomous or trichotomous model, individuals pursuing mastery approach goals focus on mastering tasks, learning, and understanding. Individuals pursuing mastery-avoidance goals focus on avoiding task-referential or self--referential incompetence such as trying not to lose one's skills and abilities, striving to avoid misunderstanding materials, and striving not to forget what one has learned (Elliot, 1999; Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Given the somewhat hybrid regulatory structure, the mastery--avoidance goals are expected to produce a mixed motivational pattern regarding the antecedents and consequences of these goals. For example, the mastery component of the goal may emerge from optimal antecedents and have positive consequences (i.e., persistence and effort expenditure) provided the individual views the possible negative occurrences as either obstacles or setbacks as opposed to an indicator of poor or limited ability (Elliot, 1999). Conversely, the avoidance component of the goal may emerge from nonoptimal antecedents and lead to negative consequences (i.e., intrinsic motivation and self-determination) when the individual is guided by a fear of failure and views possible negative occurrences not as setbacks, but rather as events to be avoided for fear of feeling shame (Elliot, 1999).
To verify the 2 x 2 model, Elliot and McGregor (2001) developed a 12-item 2 x 2 achievement goal questionnaire comprising four achievement goals: performance-approach goals (e.g., "it is important for me to do better than other students."), mastery-approach goals (e.g., "I want to learn as much as possible."), performance-avoidance goals (e.g., "I just want to avoid doing poorly."), and mastery-avoidance goals (e.g., "I worry that I may not learn all that I possibly could."). Each achievement goal includes three items. Reliability and validity analyses strongly supported the 2 x 2 model and CFA analysis showed that the 2 x 2 model provided a better fit to the data than the trichotomous one (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Similar results were obtained from college sport (Conroy, Elliot, & Hofer, 2003) and high school physical education settings (Guan et al., 2006). However, validation is a continuous process, replication studies should be ongoing and expand to different populations and contexts.
In addition to achievement goals, students' social goals may have important influences on their academic success. To date at least two types of social goals associated with students' academic success have been reported by researchers (Guan, et al., 2006; Hicks, 1996; Hicks, Murphy, & Patrick, 1995; Patrick, Hicks, & Ryan, 1997). One is the social relationship goal that Hicks (1996) defines as the basic desire to form or maintain positive peer relationships in school. The other is the social responsibility goal that reflects an individual desire to follow societal rules or conform to role expectations (Wentzel, 1991).
Evidence on the social goal research reveals a positive relationship between social goals and achievement goals. In a study on social goals and achievement goals in early adolescence, for example, Hicks et al. (1995) examined the relationship between achievement goals and social goals. They reported that both social relationship and responsibility goals were positively associated with performance goals and mastery goals. Similar findings were reported by Guan et al. (2006) who used the 2 x 2 achievement goal model to examine the relationships among achievement goals and social goals in physical education settings. Guan and his colleagues found that high school students' four achievement goals and two social goals were positively related to one another. The positive relationships between social goals and achievement goals revealed that these goals reciprocally influence each other and further supported the inclusion of social goals in research on motivation in the physical education environment.
Additionally, social goal researchers reported that there is a positive relationship between students' social goals and their school achievement. In a longitudinal study, for example, Alexander and Entwisle (1988) reported that children who maintained good friendships scored higher on standardized verbal and mathematics achievement scores than those who were rejected by their peers in the first 2 years of school. In contrast, children who had lower levels of school achievement had difficulty becoming accepted by peers or making friends (Ladd, 1990; Parker & Asher, 1987; Vadell & Hembree, 1994).
A positive relationship between students' responsibility goals and their school achievement was also reported by researchers (Alexander, Entwisle, & Dauber, 1993; Anderman & Anderman, 1999; Wentzel, 1991, 1993). In a study of the relationship between motivation and achievement in early adolescence, for example, Wentzel (1993) reported a significantly positive relationship between social responsibility goals and students' school grades. The major reason was that students who were willing to follow the social rules of schooling tend to endorse the importance of learning and personal improvement in their academic work (Anderman & Anderman, 1999).
Because of the relationship between students' social goals, achievement goals, and school achievement, there has been a growing call for social goals to be considered in the study of achievement goals (e.g., Blumenfeld, 1992; Ford, 1992; Urdan & Maehr, 1995). Few studies to date, however, have examined and assessed the social goals with high school students in general, athletes in particular. There is a clear need for additional research investigating the joint influence of achievement goals and social goals on the cognitive, affective, and behavioral patterns of individuals in athletic settings.
Persistence and effort are two important predictors of student school achievement in both classroom and physical education settings (Dweck, 1986; Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999; Heckhausen, 1991; Xiang & Lee, 2002). Persistence refers to a continued investment in learning when obstacles are encountered in the context of studying and effort is defined as the overall amount of energy expended in the process of learning (Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997). There is a close relationship between student achievement goals and persistence and effort. Elliot et al. (1999), for example, found that students' persistence and effort were positive predictors of their exam performance. Additionally, Guan, et al. (2006) revealed that high school students' social responsibility goals, mastery-approach goals, mastery-avoidance goals, and performance-approach goals were significantly positive predictors of persistence/effort toward their physical activities, whereas performance-avoidance goals and social relationship goals were not significant predictors of persistence/ effort toward their physical activities.
In summary, achievement goals and social goals are two important factors that facilitate our understanding of achievement-related outcomes and motivated behaviors in both academic and physical activity settings. These research findings, however, have been based on the traditional dichotomous achievement goals model. Additionally, few empirical studies have examined social and achievement goals simultaneously with high school students in athletic settings. With the appearance of the 2 x 2 model, more research effort should be done to further examine the relationships among students' achievement goals, social goals, and achievement outcomes including persistence and effort in athletic settings. The purposes of this study, therefore, were twofold: (a) to examine whether the trichotomous and 2 x 2 achievement goal model can be applied to high school athletic settings and whether one model represents a better fit to the data than the other, and (b) to explore the relative contributions of achievement goals and social goals to students' persistence and effort toward their sport training.
Based on the achievement goals and social goals frameworks and past empirical studies (e.g., Elliot et al., 1999; Guan, et al., 2006), we hypothesized that the 2 x 2 model would be more appropriate than the trichotomous one in high school athletic settings. It was also hypothesized that students' social responsibility goals, mastery-approach goals, and performance-approach goals would significantly predict their persistence and effort toward sport training, whereas students' performance-avoidance goals, mastery-avoidance goals, and social relationship goals would not be significant predictors for their persistence and effort toward sport training.
A total of 171 student athletes (123 boys, 48 girls) from a high school in the southern United States served as participants representing four team sports: football (n = 106), softball (n = 25), volleyball (n = 23), and soccer (n = 17). Participants consisted of ninth (48.0%), tenth (28.7%), eleventh (17.5%), and twelfth (5.8%) graders. Students' age ranged from 15-19 years (M = 16.34, SD = 1.07). The majority, 60.8%, were African-American, with 21.6% Caucasian, 12.3% Hispanic-American, 2.9% Asian-American, and 2.3% others.
Participants completed the 39-item Achievement Goal Questionnaire-Athletic Programs (AGQ-AP). The AGQ-AP includes the 2 x 2 achievement goal scale, the trichotomous scale, the social goal scale, and the persistence and effort scale (see Appendix). The format for all items is a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (not at all true for me) through 7 (very true for me). The stem for all items is "In my athletic class...".
2 x 2 achievement goal scale. This scale consists of 12 items adapted from Elliot and McGregor (2001). These items represent four achievement goals: mastery-approach goals, performance-approach goals, performance-avoidance goals, and mastery-avoidance goals. Each achievement goal includes three items.
Trichotomous achievement goal scale. Elliot's (1999) 18-item trichtomous achievement goal scale was adapted to this study. All items included in the 2 x 2 scale are also included in the trichotomous model, with the exception of the three mastery-avoidance goal items. Each of three goals (mastery, performance-approach, and mastery-avoidance) consists of six items.
Social goal scale. This scale consists of 10 items adapted from Patrick's et al. (1997). Five items address relationship goals and the other five items address responsibility goals. A principle component analysis with VARIMAX rotation was employed to examine the factorial validity of test scores produced by the social goal scale. The results revealed that the responsibility and relationship goal factors were retained in their entirety. Additionally, the two factors accounted for 46.36% of the variance and all factor loadings equaled or exceeded .50 (.50 - .78), indicating the scale produced valid scores to assess the high school students' social goals. Internal consistency estimates were .74 and .60 for the responsibility goals and relationship goals respectively. While some statisticians (e.g., Cronbach, 1951; De Vellis, 1991; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994) suggest that internal consistency is acceptable if a Cronbach alpha value is greater than .70, Kline (1999) noted that when dealing with psychological constructs, alpha values below .70 might be expected realistically because of the diversity of the constructs being measured.
Persistence and effort scale. This scale includes eight items adapted from Elliot (1997) and two from Wentzel (1996), with four items each assessing persistence and effort. Although persistence and effort represent two different constructs theoretically, many researchers (e.g., Dweck, 1999; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Guan, et al., 2006; Xiang & Lee, 2002) suggested that they could be considered one single construct empirically. To assess these two constructs, a principle component analysis with VARIMAX rotation was performed to determine whether or not the persistence and effort represented a single construct. Our data revealed that all eight items were retained in one factor that accounted for 62.63% of the variance. Additionally, all factor loadings exceeded .64 (.65-.85), indicating this single factor produced valid scores. Cronbach's coefficient (.91) showed a high internal consistency for this factor. Due to this, persistence and effort were collapsed into a single factor named Persistence/Effort in the subsequent data analyses.
Prior to data collection, permission to conduct this study was obtained from the research team's institution, school districts, parents, and participant informed consent. The AGQ-AP was administered to participants by the lead researcher during regularly scheduled athletic classes. The AGQ-AP took approximately 25 minutes to complete. To ensure the independence of participants' response, participants were spread out and told that there were no right or wrong answers. Additionally, participants were assured that information in the survey would be kept confidential and their coaches would not have access to their responses.
Cronbach's alpha coefficients were calculated to examine internal consistency of test scores for all achievement goals. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed to evaluate the fit of the trichotomous and 2 x 2 achievement goal models. In addition to reporting the chi-square ([chi square]) test statistic, a number of fit indices can be used to assess a model-data-fitness, and different fit indices may lead to different research outcomes. Because of this, most researchers suggest using multiple fit indices to assess overall fit of a model (Hoyle & Panter, 1995). Following their recommendation, we employed multiple fit indices including the comparative fit index (CFI), the goodness of fit index (GFI), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) to assess the adequacy of the measurement models. For the CFI and GFI, values exceeding .90 are generally considered indicators of a good fitting model (Hu & Bentler, 1995). RMSEA values less than .05 are indicative of close fit, while values between .05 and .08 as indicative of marginal fit of the model (Browne & Gudeck, 1993). CFA was conducted using AMOS 5.0, and the models were estimated using the maximum likelihood method.
Descriptive statistics were performed to provide a summary of students' achievement goals, social goals, and persistence/effort toward their sport training. Pearson product moment correlations were employed to examine relationships between achievement goals and social goals. Finally, a simultaneous multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the relative contributions of achievement goals and social goals to students' persistence/effort toward their sport training.
Reliability estimates were .68, 79, 60, and .80 for the performance-approach goals, mastery-approach goals, performance-avoidance goals, and mastery-avoidance goals respectively, indicating the internal consistency of the 2 x 2 achievement goal scale was acceptable or marginally acceptable (Kline, 1999). The significant [chi square] (100.68, df= 48) suggested the model did not fit data well. However, the chi-square test is frequently not valid in applied settings and should be interpreted with caution and supplemented with other goodness of fit indices (Hatcher, 1994). This is because the chi-square can he influenced by many factors such as sample size and complexity of the model. Due to the small sample size in this study, additional fit indices were used to assess a model-data-fitness. The results from additional fit indices revealed that the 2 x 2 model represented an adequate fit to the data (CFI = .92, GFI = .91, and RMSEA = .08). Additionally, all standardized factor loadings were significant and ranged from .38 to .81 (see Figure 1), indicating that all the items were indicators of the factors they were hypothesized to measure.
Reliability analyses also revealed that the internal consistency of the trichotomous model was acceptable or marginally acceptable with alpha coefficients of .76, .82, and .64 for the performance-approach, mastery-approach, and performance-avoidance goals, respectively. However, examination of the fit indices indicated that the trichotomous model did not fit the data. Although all standardized factor loadings were significant (See Figure 2), the [chi square] (311.57, df= 132), CFI (.81), GFI, (.83), and the RMSEA (.09) failed to meet the criterion, indicating a poor fit for the trichotomous model. Because of this, the following descriptive, correlation, and multiple regression analyses for the achievement goals were applied only to the 2 x 2 model.
The results of descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. Of the six goals, students placed the highest value on mastery-approach goals, followed by performance-approach goals, social responsibility goals, performance-avoidance goals, social relationship goals, and mastery-avoidance goals. Analysis of Pearson product moment correlations showed that four achievement goals and two social goals were positively related to one another (see Table 1). Multiple regression analysis revealed that social responsibility goals, performance-approach goals, and mastery-approach goals significantly and positively predicted students' persistence/effort toward their sport training. Performance-avoidance goals, social relationship goals, and mastery-avoidance goals, however, were not significant predictors of persistence/effort (see Table l). The [R.sup.2] value was .64, demonstrating a stronger linear relationship between the outcome variable (persistence/effort) and predictor variables (achievement goals and social goals).
This study examined the psychometric properties of the trichotomous and 2 x 2 achievement goal models in high school athletic settings and assessed which model might represent a better fit to the data. The results from the present study confirmed that the 2 x 2 was the better model. Scores from the performance-approach, mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, and performance-avoidance factors exhibited favorable psychometric properties of reliability and validity, indicating that each of the four achievement goals represents a distinct construct. Multiple fit indices, however, suggested that the trichotomous model did not generate valid scores for three factors (mastery, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goals) in high school athletic settings. The result that the trichtomous model did not demonstrate good psychometric properties as the 2 x 2 model was consistent with the findings reported by Elliot and McGregor (2001) in the academic and by Guan et al. (2006) in physical education settings. The present results provided further information for noting the distinction between approach and avoidance goals into an achievement goal model when evaluating high school student achievement goal orientations in athletic settings.
This study also examined the relationship between achievement goals and social goals, as well as the relative contributions of achievement goals and social goals to students' persistence/effort toward their sport training. Our data revealed significant correlations between achievement goals and social goals. The results were in line with previous findings reported by Guan et al. (2006) who found that high school students' four achievement goals and two social goals were positively related to one another in physical education settings. This finding provides additional supports that both achievement goals and social goals do not function in isolation from one another and that social goals should be included in research on motivation and achievement. Only in this way can we fully understand high school students' cognition, affect, and behavior in both physical education and athletic settings.
It is assumed that the pursuit of mastery-approach goals would lead to a host of positive outcomes (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Additionally, the pursuit of performance-approach goals is hypothesized to elicit similar outcomes produced by mastery-approach goals when the focus of performance-approach goals is undergirded by challenge cues or by need for achievement (Elliot, 1999). Given that performance-approach goals are focused on positive possibilities or grounded in the need for achievement, these goals are predicted to be positively related to persistence and effort (Elliot et al., 1999). The results from the present study revealed that both mastery-approach and performance-approach goals significantly contributed to students' persistence/effort toward their sport training and provide strong empirical support for the above hypotheses. The results were also similar to previous findings reported by Elliot et al. (1999) who found that students' mastery goals and performance-approach goals were positive predictors of persistence and effort in the college classrooms.
According to the 2 x 2 achievement goal hypothesis, the pursuit of performance-avoidance goals would elicit negative affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses that result in a host of negative outcomes. Therefore, performance-avoidance goals are hypothesized to be negatively related or unrelated to persistence and effort (Elliot et al., 1999). Our results revealed that the performance-avoidance goals failed to have predictive utility on student reports of their persistence/effort toward sport training and provide additional support for the applicability of the 2 x 2 achievement goal hypothesis to high school athletic settings. Additionally, the results empirically confirmed that performance-avoidance goals and performance-approach goals are two differential predictors because they produced differential results on students' persistence/effort toward their sport training. Finally, the results suggest a need to partition performance goals into approach and avoidance forms of regulation because they provide a good explanation of why previous studies using the dichotomous achievement goal model revealed a mixed pattern of results regarding the relationship between performance goals and persistence (Miller, Greene, Montalvo, Ravindran, & Nichols, 1996; Pintrich, Simith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993) or effort (MacIver, Stipek, & Danniels, 1991; Wentzel, 1996).
As mentioned previously, the pursuit of mastery-avoidance goals may produce a mixed motivational pattern regarding the antecedents and consequences of these goals. The results from the present study revealed that the mastery-avoidance goals did not significantly predict student reports of their persistence/effort toward sport training and provide empirical evidence to support that mastery-avoidance goals would lead to some negative consequences. This result further confirms that mastery-avoidance goals and mastery-approach goals represent two independent constructs.
An interesting finding is that the social responsibility goals represented the greatest contributor to student persistence/effort in their sport training. This finding not only reveled that students' goals to behave responsibly in athletic settings were positively related to their degree of participation in sport training, but demonstrated the importance of incorporating social goals into achievement goal research in athletic settings as well. The result was also consistent with those reports by Guan et al. (2006) who found that high school students who endorsed responsibility goals were more likely to participate in physical activities. Based on these findings, coachers might consider and capitalize on students' responsibility goals in the athletic classes. To motivate athlete participation in sport training and interscholastic sport, for example, coaches can make their expectations clear in practices by communicating rules, expectations, and consequences early and frequently across the duration of an athletic season. Additionally, developing students' goals to behave responsibly in athletic settings may help coaches enhance the social cohesion of the team. For example, when things are not going well, coaches should encourage team members to make constructive and positive changes, and get themselves back on track, rather than blaming others for poor performances. These types of teambuilding activities enhance the social cohesion of the team.
Although previous studies in academic settings (Ladd, 1990; Parker & Asher, 1987; Vadell & Hembree, 1994) reported that students' endorsement of social relationship goals were positively related to their achievement outcomes, the current study did not support this positive lineal relation. This indicated that the students' desire to maintain good friendships did not relate uniquely to their persistence/effort when achievement goals and social responsibility goals were considered. This result was also consistent with previous findings reported by Guan et al. (2006) in high school physical education settings. The similar results from both physical education and athletic settings suggest that social goals researchers should consider the differences between academic and athletic/physical education settings when conducting studies relevant to the relationship goals. Again, additional study is recommended in order to explore the relationship between students' social relationship goals and their achievement outcomes in athletic settings.
Over the past 25 years, the dichotomous achievement goal model has been almost exclusively employed by achievement goal researchers in the domain of sport (Conroy, Elliot, & Hofer, 2003). This study represents the first attempt to examine and compare the fit of trichotomous and 2 x 2 achievement goal models in high school athletic settings. The results revealed that the 2 x 2 model is more appropriate for high school students than the trichotomous one in athletic settings. The validation of the 2 x 2 model makes an important contribution to motivation research because it provides a methodologically valid and reliable tool to assess high school student achievement goals in athletic settings.
This study provided empirical evidence that the mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goals represent four independent constructs, demonstrating the importance of partitioning mastery and performance goals into approach and avoidance forms of regulation. Additionally, this study integrated both achievement goals and social goals into a single study and provided a more complete picture of the relative contributions of four achievement goals and two social goals to students' persistence/effort toward their sport training in high school athletic settings. The finding that the social responsibility goals represented the greatest contributor to student persistence/effort toward sport training indicated that the sole use of achievement goals may oversimplify the complexity of student motivation in athletic settings. Based on the findings, we advocate the use of multiple goals for a comprehensive understanding of student motivation and achievement in high school athletic settings.
One major limitation of the study should be recognized. Only one outcome variable (persistence/effort) was used for this study. Additional variables (e.g., intrinsic motivation, physical activity levels, perceived ability, and motivational climate, etc.) should be added to future research so that achievement goals, social goals, and their various correlates can be understood. Additionally, the participants in this study were only from team sports. Future study should examine individual or dual sport participants such as golf and tennis. Finally, persistence/effort in this study was students' self-report measure that might be different from the actual observations of their behavior. Additional research may need to examine relationships among achievement goals, social goals, and achievement outcomes in athletic settings by actual observations of student behavior.
Achievement Goal Questionnaire-Athletic Programs
1. It is important for me to do better than other athletes.*
2. It is important for me to do well compared to others.*
3. It is my goal to perform better than most of the other athletes.*
4. I am motivated by the thought of outperforming others.
5. I strive to demonstrate my ability relative to others.
6. I want to do well so 1 can show my ability to my family, friends, advisors, or others.
Mastery and mastery-approach goals
1. I want to learn as much as possible.*
2. It is important for me to understand the content of this course as thoroughly as possible.*
3. I want to completely master the athletic skill presented to me.*
4. I hope to gain a broader and deeper knowledge of sports skills.
5. I prefer athletic activities that arouse my curiosity, even if it is difficult to learn.
6. I prefer activities that really challenge me so I can learn new things.
1. I just want to avoid doing poorly.*
2. My goal is to avoid performing poorly.*
3. My fear of performing poorly is often what motivates me.*
4. I often think to myself, "What if I do badly in athletics?"
5. I worry about the possibility of performing poorly.
6. I'm afraid that if I ask my coach a "dumb" question, people might think I'm not very smart.
1. Sometimes I'm afraid that I may not understand my sport as thoroughly as I'd like.
2. I'm often concerned that I may not learn all that there is to learn.
3. I worry that I may not learn all that I possibly could.
Achievement Goal Questionnaire-Athletic Programs
Social responsibility goals
1. I try to do what the coach asks me to do.
2. It's important to me that I follow class rules.
3. It's important to me to keep working even when other kids are goofing off.
4. I'd like the coach to think I'm a responsible student.
5. I do not like to distract a teammate when he/she is performing an activity.
Social relationship goals
1. I'd like to get to know my school friends really well.
2. I would like to have a friend I can confide in.
3. I'd like to get along with most other students.
4. It's important to me that I am accepted by other teammates.
5. It's important to me to have one or two really close friends.
1. When I have trouble performing some skills, I go back and practice.
2. Regardless of whether or not I like the drills, I work my hardest to do them.
3. When something that I am practicing is difficult, I spend extra time and effort trying to do it right.
4. I try to learn and do well, even if an activity is boring.
1. I put a lot of effort into preparing for our competitions.
2. I work very hard to prepare for our competitions.
3. I work hard to do well even if I don't like what we are doing.
4. I always pay attention to my coach.
Note. "*" indicates that the items were used for both the trichotomous and 2 x 2 achievement goal scales.
Alexander, K. L., & Entwisle, D. R. (1988). Achievement in the first 2 years of school: Patterns and processes. Monographs of the Society for Research in Children Development, 53 (2, Serial No. 218).
Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Dauber, S. L. (1993). First-grade classroom behavior: Its short-and long-term consequences for school performance. Child Development, 64, 801-814.
Ames, C. (1984). Competitive, cooperative, and individualistic goal structures: A motivational analysis. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 1, pp. 177-207). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Ames, C. (1992a). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
Ames, C. (1992b). Achievement goals and classroom motivational climate. In J. Meece & D. Schunk (Eds.), Students 'perceptions in the classroom (pp. 327-348). Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267.
Anderman, L. H., & Anderman, E. M. (1999). Social predictors of changes in students' achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 21-37.
Blumenfeld, E C. (1992). Classroom learning and motivation: Clarifying and expanding goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 272-281.
Browne, M. W., & Gudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structure equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Conroy, D. E., Elliot, A. J., & Hofer, S. M. (2003). A 2 x 2 achievement goals questionnaire for sport: Evidence for factorial invariance, temporal stability, and external validity. Journal of Sport Psychology, 25, 456-476.
Covington, M. V. (1984). The motive for self worth. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Student motivation (Vol. 1, pp. 77-113). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structures of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
Cury, F. (2000). Predictive validity of the approach and avoidance achievement in sport model. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 21, $32.
Cury, F., Elliot, A., Sarrazin, P., Fonseca, D., & Rufo, M. (2002). The trichotomous achievement goal model and intrinsic motivation: A sequential mediational analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 473-481.
Cury, F., Fonseca, D. Da., Rufo, M., Peres, C., & Sarrazin, P. (2003). The trichotomous model and investment in learning to prepare for a sport test: A mediational analysis. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 529-543.
DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and application. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Duda, J. L. (1989). Relationship between task and ego orientation and the perceived purpose of sport among high school athletes. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 318-335.
Duda, J. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Dimensions of Achievement Motivation in Schoolwork and Sport. Journal of Educational Psychology. 84, 290-299.
Duda, J. L., & Whitehead, J. (1998). Measurement of goal perspectives in the physical domain. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 21-48). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.
Dunn, J. G. H., Dunn, J. C., & Syrotuik, D. G. (2002). Relationships between multidimensional perfectionism and goal orientations in sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24, 376-395.
Dweck, C. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.
Dweck, C. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Dweck, C., & Leggett, E. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 2, 256-273.
Elliot, A. J. (1997). Integrating the "classic" and "contemporary" approaches to achievement motivation: A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. In M. Maehr & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 243-279). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169-189.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218-232.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501-519.
Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Gable, S. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies, and exam performance: A mediational analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 549-563.
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2001). Achievements goals and the hierarchical model of achievement motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 139-156.
Ford, M. E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions, and personal agency. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Guan, J., Xiang, P., McBride, R., & Bruene, A. (2006). Achievement goals, social goals, and students' persistence and effort in high school physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2L 58-74.
Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using SAS for Factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
Heckhausen, H. (1991). Motivation and action. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Hicks, L. (1996, March). Changes and stability in social and academic goals during junior high school. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Adolescence, Boston, MA.
Hicks, L., Murphy, A. M., & Patrick, H. (1995, April). Social goals and achievement goals in early adolescence. Poster presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. T. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 158176). London: Sage.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76-99). London: Sage.
Kline, P. (1999). The handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Ladd, G. W. (1990). Having friends, keeping friends, making friends, and being liked by peers in the classroom: Predictors of children's early school adjustment? Child Development, 61, 1081-1100.
Levy, 1., Kaplan, A., & Patrick, H. (2004). Early adolescent's achievement goals, social status, and attitudes towards cooperation with peers. Social Psychology of Education, 7, 127-159.
MacIver, D., Stipek, D., & Danniels, D. (1991). Explaining within-semester changes in student effort in junior high school and senior high school courses. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 201-211.
Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An underexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710-718.
Miller, R. B., Greene, B. A., Montalvo, G. E, Ravindran, B., & Nichols, J. D. (1996). Engagement in academic work: The role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others, and perceived ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 388-422.
Nichollos, J. G., Patashnick, M., & Nolen, S. B. (1985). Adolescents' theories of education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 683-692.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment are low-accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357-389.
Patrick, H., Hicks, L., & Ryan, A. M. (1997). Relations of perceived social efficacy and social goal pursuit to self-efficacy for academic work. Journal of Early Adolescence, 17, 109-128.
Pintrich, P. R., Simith, D., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801-813.
Roberts, G., Treasure, D. C., & Balague, G. (1998). Achievement goals in sport: The development and validation of the perception of success questionnaire. Journal of Sports Sciences, 16, 337-347.
Skaalvik, K. M. (1997). Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego orientation: Relations with task and avoidance orientation, achievement, self-perceptions, and anxiety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 71-81.
Smith, M., Duda, J., Allen, J., & Hall, H. (2002). Contemporary measures of approach and avoidance goal orientations: Similarities and differences. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 155-190.
Standage, M., & Treasure, D. C. (2002). Relationship among achievement goal orientations and multidimensional situational motivation in physical education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 87-103.
Stornes, T., & Ommundsen, Y. (2004). Achievement goals, motivational climate and sportspersonship: A study of young handball players. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 48, 205-221,
Urdan, T. C., & Maehr, M. L. (1995). Beyond a two-goal theory of motivation and achievement: A case for social goals. Review of Educational Research, 65, 213-243.
Vandell, D. L., & Hembree, S. E. (1994). Peer social status and friendship: Independent contributors to children's social and academic adjustment. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40, 461-477.
Wentzel, K. R. (1991). Social competence at school: Relation between social responsibility and academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 61, 1-24.
Wentzel, K. R. (1993). Motivation and achievement in early adolescence: The role of multiple goals. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13, 4-20.
Wentzel, K. R. (1996). Social and academic motivation in middle school: Concurrent and long-term relations to academic effort. Journal of Early Adolescence, 16, 390-406.
Xiang, P., & Lee, A. (2002). Achievement goals, perceived motivational climate, and students' self-reported mastery behaviors. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73, 58-65.
Xiang, P., McBride, R., & Guan, J. (2004). Children's motivation in elementary physical education: A longitudinal study. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75, 71-80.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Self-regulatory dimensions of academic learning and motivation. In G. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of academic learning (pp. 105-125). New York: Academic Press.
University of Texas at San Antonio
Ping Xiang and Ron McBride
Texas A&M University
Xiaofen D. Keating
University of Texas, Austin
Address correspondence to: Jianmin Guan, Dept. of Health & Kinesiology, University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249. Tel: 210-458-5406 Fax: 210-458-5873 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Table l. Means, Standard Deviations, Beta Weights, and Correlations among Achievement Goals and Social Goals for the Overall Samples Correlations Variables M SD [beta] t value Outcome Variable 1. Persistence/Effort 6.044 0.919 Predictor Variables 1. Performance-Approach 6.277 0.816 0.182 2.938 2. Mastery-Approach 6.476 0.817 0.222 2.881 3. Performance-Avoidance 6.010 1.113 0.081 1.575 4. Mastery-Avoidance 4.858 1.673 0.040 0.818 5. Social Responsibility 6.159 0.823 0.438 6.131 6. Social Relationship 5.912 0.856 0.044 0.870 Correlations Variables p 1 2 3 Outcome Variable 1. Persistence/Effort Predictor Variables 1. Performance-Approach 0.004 -- 2. Mastery-Approach 0.004 .628 ** -- 3. Performance-Avoidance 0.117 .375 ** .339 ** -- 4. Mastery-Avoidance 0.414 .199 ** .208 ** .215 ** 5. Social Responsibility 0.001 .501 ** .734 ** .304 ** 6. Social Relationship 0.385 .242 ** .258 ** .145 ** Correlations Variables 4 5 6 Outcome Variable 1. Persistence/Effort Predictor Variables 1. Performance-Approach 2. Mastery-Approach 3. Performance-Avoidance 4. Mastery-Avoidance -- 5. Social Responsibility .169 ** -- 6. Social Relationship .204 ** .361 ** -- ** P<.01
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Guan, Jianmin; Xiang, Ping; McBride, Ron; Keating, Xiaofen D.|
|Publication:||Journal of Sport Behavior|
|Date:||Jun 1, 2013|
|Previous Article:||Multimodal modeling increases performance and biomechanical indicators in intercollegiate softball players: a longitudinal study.|
|Next Article:||Youth soccer participation and withdrawal: gender similarities and differences.|