Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Kou Murayama
University of Rochester
The authors identified several specific problems with the measurement of achievement goals in the
current literature and illustrated these problems, focusing primarily on A. J. Elliot and H. A. McGregors
(2001) Achievement Goal Questionnaire (AGQ). They attended to these problems by creating the
AGQ-Revised and conducting a study that examined the measures structural validity and predictive
utility with 229 (76 male, 150 female, 3 unspecified) undergraduates. The hypothesized factor and
dimensional structures of the measure were confirmed and shown to be superior to a host of alternatives.
The predictions were nearly uniformly supported with regard to both the antecedents (need for achievement and fear of failure) and consequences (intrinsic motivation and exam performance) of the 4
achievement goals. In discussing their work, the authors highlight the importance and value of additional
precision in the area of achievement goal measurement.
Keywords: goal, performance, mastery, approach, avoidance
For the past two decades, achievement goals have been a central
construct in the study of motivation in achievement settings. Some
achievement goal research has been experimental in nature, manipulating goals and examining their effect on outcomes relevant
to achievement. However, the vast majority of achievement goal
research has been correlational, measuring preexisting goals and
examining the antecedents and consequences of these goals in
concurrent, prospective, and occasionally longitudinal designs.
Both the experimental and the correlational research have yielded
a substantial amount of information about the strivings of individuals (most commonly students, athletes, and employees) in
achievement contexts and the implications of these strivings (see
Duda, 2005; Elliot, 2005; Meece, Anderman, & Anderman, 2006;
Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubien, 2007; Ryan, Ryan, Arbuthnot, &
Samuels, 2007). Beyond doubt, the achievement goal construct
represents a landmark contribution to the century-long study of
competence and motivation.
Although clearly informative and generative, the achievement
goal approach also faces its share of challenges and difficulties.
Perhaps foremost among these challenges and difficulties is a
long-term struggle to assess achievement goals in a conceptually
rigorous manner. Some achievement goal measures rest on a weak
Andrew J. Elliot, Department of Clinical and Social Psychology, University of Rochester; and Kou Murayama, Graduate School of Decision
Science and Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan.
This research was supported by a grant from the William T. Grant
Foundation to Andrew J. Elliot. We extend thanks to the Approach
Avoidance Motivation lab at the University of Rochester for their assistance with data collection and their comments on various drafts of this
article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Andrew
J. Elliot, Department of Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychology,
University of Rochester, RC Box 270266, Rochester, NY 14627-0266.
E-mail: andrew.elliot@rochester.edu
Conceptual Foundation
Elliot and McGregors (2001) AGQ was designed to assess
achievement goals as conceptualized in the 2 2 achievement
613
614
ACHIEVEMENT GOALS
615
616
ACHIEVEMENT GOALS
617
Table 1
Items for the Achievement Goal QuestionnaireRevised (AGQ-R) Paired With the Original
Achievement Goal Questionnaire (AGQ) Items
Item
1
7
3
5
11
9
4
2
8
12
10
6
Item content
Mastery-approach goal items
My aim is to completely master the material presented in this class.
(original Item 9: I desire to completely master the material presented in this class.)
I am striving to understand the content of this course as thoroughly as possible. (original Item 8: It is
important for me to understand the content of this course as thoroughly as possible.)
My goal is to learn as much as possible. (original Item 7: I want to learn as much as possible from
this class.)
Mastery-avoidance goal items
My aim is to avoid learning less than I possibly could. (original Item 4: I worry that I may not learn
all that I possibly could in this class.)
I am striving to avoid an incomplete understanding of the course material. (original Item 5:
Sometimes Im afraid that I may not understand the content of this class as thoroughly as Id like).
My goal is to avoid learning less than it is possible to learn. (original Item 6: I am often concerned
that I may not learn all that there is to learn in this class.)
Performance-approach goal items
My aim is to perform well relative to other students. (original Item 3: My goal in this class is to get
a better grade than most of the other students.)
I am striving to do well compared to other students. (original Item 2: It is important for me to do
well compared to others in this class.)
My goal is to perform better than the other students. (original Item 1: It is important for me to do
better than other students.)
Performance-avoidance goal items
My aim is to avoid doing worse than other students. (original Item 10: I just want to avoid doing
poorly in this class.)
I am striving to avoid performing worse than others. (original Item 12: My fear of performing poorly
in this class is often what motivates me.)
My goal is to avoid performing poorly compared to others. (original Item 11: My goal in this class is
to avoid performing poorly.)
Note. Original AGQ items are from A 2 2 achievement goal framework, by A. J. Elliot and H. A.
McGregor, 2001, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501519. Copyright 2001 by the American
Psychological Association.
ment may be more likely to make strategic use of these masteryavoidance goals than those low in need for achievement. We hypothesized that fear of failure would positively predict performanceapproach goals, mastery-avoidance goals, and performanceavoidance goals (Conroy et al., 2003; Elliot & McGregor, 2001;
Tanaka, Murakami, Okuno, & Yamauchi, 2002). With regard to the
consequences of achievement goal pursuit, we hypothesized that
mastery-approach goals would be positive predictors of intrinsic motivation (Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, Carter, & Elliot, 2000; Lee,
Sheldon, & Turban, 2003; Rawsthorne & Elliot, 1999), whereas
mastery-avoidance goals would be negative predictors of intrinsic
motivation (Cury, Elliot, Da Fonseca, & Moller, 2006). We hypothesized that performance-approach goals would be positive predictors
of performance (Harackiewicz et al., 1997; Urdan, 2004; Wolters,
2004), whereas performance-avoidance goals would be negative predictors of both intrinsic motivation and performance (Elliot & Church,
1997; Finney, Pieper, & Barron, 2004; Pajares & Valiante, 2001).
Method
Participants and Achievement Context
A total of 229 (76 male, 150 female, and 3 unspecified) undergraduates enrolled in an introductory-level psychology course at a
618
Procedure
The achievement motive and response bias variables were assessed in take-home questionnaire packets during the first 2 weeks
of the semester. Participants achievement goals for their first
exam were assessed in a large group session approximately 1
month after the achievement motive and response bias variables
were assessed, and 1 week prior to the exam. Intrinsic motivation
was assessed in a large group session near the end of the semester,
approximately 3 months after the initial take-home assessments.
For all assessments, participants were assured that their responses
would remain confidential and would in no way influence their
course grade. Exam grades were obtained from the professor at the
end of the course; participants SAT scores were obtained from the
university registrar.
Measures
Need for achievement. The Achievement Motive subscale of
Jacksons (1974) Personality Research Form was used as an indicator of the need for achievement (sample item: I enjoy difficult
work). A number of empirical investigations have attested to the
construct validity of this measure (see Fineman, 1977). Participants responded with true (1) or false (0) to the 16 items; after
reverse scoring eight negatively worded items, the items were
summed to form the need for achievement index. Cronbachs ,
computed using the tetrachoric correlation matrix, is .88.
Fear of failure. The five-item short form of Conroys (2001)
Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory was used as an indicator
of fear of failure (sample item: When I am failing, I worry about
what others think about me). Several studies have demonstrated
the construct validity of this measure (see Conroy & Elliot, 2004).
Participants responded on a scale of 1 (do not believe at all) to 5
(believe 100% of the time), and responses were averaged to form
the fear of failure index (Cronbachs .76).
Achievement goals. A series of pilot studies was conducted
prior to the present research in the interest of obtaining an optimal
set of 2 2 achievement goal items. The 12 items listed in Table
1 were eventually selected because they were thought to accurately
represent the four goals of the 2 2 model while attending
carefully to the potential pitfalls reviewed in the introduction. In
the present study, the focus of the measure was on students
achievement goals for their first exam in their introductory-level
psychology course. Participants responded on a scale of 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), and the items were averaged to
form the mastery-approach, performance-approach, masteryavoidance, and performance-avoidance indexes (see Results section for internal consistencies).
Intrinsic motivation. Elliot and Churchs (1997) eight-item
measure was used to assess participants intrinsic motivation for
ACHIEVEMENT GOALS
Results
Factorial Structure of Achievement Goals
Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were conducted on the
achievement goal items using AMOS 5.0 (SPSS; Chicago, IL).
The analyses were conducted on covariance matrices, and the
solutions were generated on the basis of maximum-likelihood
estimation. As recommended by Hoyle and Panter (1995), we used
several different indexes to evaluate the fit of the models to the
data, including chi-square degree of freedom ratio (2/df), comparative fit index (CFI), incremental fit index (IFI), and root-meansquare error of approximation (RMSEA). The following criteria
were used to evaluate the adequacy of model fit: 2/df 2.0 (Hair,
Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1995), CFI .90, IFI .90, and
RMSEA .08 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). When multiple models
were compared, the Akaike information criterion and Bayesian
information criterion were used as well (the lower those values are,
the better the fit is).
Basic CFAs and internal consistencies. The first CFA examined the hypothesized model, which designated that the items for
each goal load on their respective latent factors. To identify the
model, the variance of each latent factor was fixed to 1 (Bollen,
1989). The results from this analysis strongly supported the hypothesized model, as not only were all factor loadings quite high
(ranging from .93 to .73), but each fit statistic met the criteria for
a good fitting model: 2(48, N 229) 78.32, p .01, 2/df
1.63, CFI .99, IFI .99, RMSEA .053. All of the subscales
demonstrated high levels of internal consistency: For masteryapproach goals, mastery-avoidance goals, performance-approach
goals, and performance-avoidance goals, Cronbachs .84, .88,
.92, and .94, respectively.
Comparison with alternative models. Additional CFAs investigated the fit of alternative models and compared the fit of the
hypothesized and alternative models (see Elliot & McGregor,
619
Table 2
Comparison With the 2 2 Model and Alternative Models
Overall fit indices
Variable
Hypothesized model
Trichotomous Model A
Trichotomous Model B
Trichotomous Model C
Trichotomous Model D
Masteryperformance model
Approachavoidance model
/df
2
1.63
5.81
7.45
10.10
8.52
10.75
14.89
CFI
.99
.89
.85
.78
.82
.76
.66
IFI
.99
.89
.85
.78
.82
.76
.66
RMSEA
AIC
BIC
.053
.145
.168
.200
.182
.207
.247
138.3
350.2
433.8
568.9
488.6
619.6
879.2
241.3
442.9
526.5
661.6
581.3
705.6
925.0
df
3
3
3
3
5
5
217.9
301.6
436.5
356.2
491.3
710.8
p
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
Note. CFI comparative fit index; IFI incremental fit index; RMSEA root-mean-square error of approximation; AIC Akaike information
criterion; BIC Bayesian information criterion.
620
residualizing various forms of response bias out of each achievement goal item. These new data sets are: (a) an approach
avoidance residualization data set, in which self-enhancement bias
scores were residualized out of each mastery-approach and performance-approach item, whereas self-protection bias scores were
residualized out of each mastery-avoidance and performanceavoidance item; (b) an SDE residualization data set, in which SDE
scores were residualized out of each achievement goal item; (c) an
IM residualization data set, in which IM scores were residualized
out of each achievement goal item; (d) an overall BIDR residualization data set, in which overall BIDR scores were residualized
out of each achievement goal item; and (e) an MCSDS residualization data set, in which MCSDS scores were residualized out of
each achievement goal item.
CFAs using each of these data sets indicated that the data were
a good fit to the model (Table 3); all factor loadings were highly
significant and nearly identical with those from the original data
set. These results suggest that the four-factor structure of achievement goals is not an artifact of response bias.
To address the response bias issue more extensively, we examined whether achievement goals and response bias form a common
factor (Beretvas, Meyers, & Leite, 2002). First, we constructed a
CFA model with five factors: four achievement goal factors and
one response bias factor. The achievement goal piece of the model
was identical to the CFA model reported above. The response bias
factor represented one of six types of response bias (SDE, IM,
self-enhancing response bias, self-protecting response bias, overall
BIDR, or MCSDS). When the response bias factor reflected SDE,
IM, self-enhancement response bias, or self-protection response
bias, the response bias latent factor was comprised of two 10-item
parcels, randomly selected from their corresponding measures.
When response bias reflected overall BIDR, two randomly selected 20-item parcels were used as indicators of the latent factor;
and when response bias reflected MCSDS, two randomly selected
16-item and 17-item parcels were used as indicators of the latent
factor. These five-factor models were compared with their corresponding four-factor models, created by collapsing one achievement goal factor and the response bias factor into a single factor.
With four achievement goals and six response bias indicators, a
total of 24 model comparisons were conducted using the loglikelihood ratio test. In each comparison, the five-factor model was
2
found to fit significantly better than the four-factor model, diff
(4,
Table 3
Fit Indices for the 2 2 Model After Residualizing Response
Bias
Data set
2/df
CFI
IFI
RMSEA
1.63
1.66
1.68
1.65
1.65
1.70
.99
.99
.99
.99
.98
.98
.99
.99
.99
.99
.98
.98
.053
.055
.054
.054
.056
.056
Note. CFI comparative fit index; IFI incremental fit index; RMSEA root-mean-square error of approximation; app-av approach
avoidance; SDE self-deceptive enhancement; IM impression management; BIDR Paulhuss (1991) Balanced Inventory of Desirable
Responding; MCSDS Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale.
N 221) 54.61, ps .001, indicating that each of the achievement goal variables is clearly distinct from response bias.
Investigation of the effect of prefix similarity. As stated earlier,
our achievement goal measure uses three prefixes for each
achievement goal, and these prefixes are the same across the four
goals. As such, it is possible to control for extraneous phrasing
effects, which may afford a more precise assessment of each
achievement goal construct. On the other hand, it is possible that
items using the same phrase have substantial correlated errors,
which would distort our results.
To address this issue, we examined whether assuming a correlation between error variables using the same prefix would improve model fit. Eighteen error correlations (for each prefix, six
pairs of items can be made) were investigated one by one with
log-likelihood ratio tests. The critical ratio was set to .01 to prevent
the inflation of Type I error. The results indicated that none of the
18 correlations between error variables significantly improved the
fit of the model. Moreover, in all models, each factor loading
remained highly significant and was nearly identical to that with
the original model. Therefore, it is clear that our results are not
contaminated by systematic error attributable to the common
wording of the items.
In sum, the results reported above provide strong support for the
four-factor model of achievement goals. Alternative factor models
could not explain the data better than the four-factor model.
Neither response bias nor prefix similarity distorted the results.
Given the good fit of the four-factor model and the high internal
consistency of the achievement goal subscales, participants responses on the items for each hypothesized factor were averaged to
form the four achievement goal indexes. Table 4 reports the
descriptive statistics of the main variables in this study.
ACHIEVEMENT GOALS
Table 4
Descriptive Statistics
Variable
SD
Observed
range
Possible
range
9.63
2.99
4.23
3.61
4.05
3.83
5.59
6.37
3.47
0.89
0.67
0.95
0.94
1.06
1.09
2.00
1.0016.00
1.005.00
1.675.00
1.005.00
1.005.00
1.005.00
1.007.00
1.0010.00
0.0016.00
1.005.00
1.005.00
1.005.00
1.005.00
1.005.00
1.007.00
0.0010.00
621
Figure 1. MI CT-CM model of achievement goals. Estimates are standardized. All coefficients are significant ( p .01). Error variables are not
represented in order to simplify the presentation. V1V12 represent the
individual items of the scale (numbers indicate the order of items in the
questionnaire; see Table 1).
622
Table 5
Fit Indices of CT-CM Model and Other Alternative Models
Model
2/df
CFI
IFI
RMSEA
AIC
BIC
MI CT-CM model
Masteryperformance
two-level model
Approachavoidance
two-level model
Direct product model
1.60
.99
.99
.051
136.5
236.1
3.18
.95
.95
.098
216.2
308.9
4.60
3.06
.91
.91
.126
.095
290.4
211.2
383.1
300.4
Note. CFI comparative fit index; IFI incremental fit index; RMSEA root-mean-square error of approximation; AIC Akaike information criterion; BIC Bayesian information criterion; MI CT-CM
multiple-indicator correlated trait correlated method. Dashes indicate that
data were not obtained.
.95, IFI .95, RMSEA .052, and all factor loadings were highly
significant ( p .001).
Full SEM model. In the full SEM model, we posited that the
achievement motives would lead to achievement goals that, in
turn, would directly predict the outcome variables. Specifically,
the need for achievement was hypothesized to positively predict
mastery-approach goals, performance-approach goals, and, tentatively, mastery-avoidance goals; fear of failure was hypothesized
to positively predict mastery-avoidance goals, performanceavoidance goals, and performance-approach goals. Masteryapproach goals were hypothesized to be positive predictors of
intrinsic motivation, whereas mastery-avoidance goals were posited to be negative predictors of intrinsic motivation. Performanceapproach goals were hypothesized to be positive predictors of
exam performance, whereas performance-avoidance goals were
posited to be negative predictors of both intrinsic motivation and
exam performance. Given the similar wording of the performanceapproach and performance-avoidance goal items and the masteryapproach and mastery-avoidance goal items, we allowed for correlated errors between these two latent variables (Elliot & Church,
1997).
In an initial test of the model, all hypothesized paths were
significant with the single exception of that between masteryavoidance goals and intrinsic motivation. The model was thus
tested in the final analysis with this path removed. The model
provided a good fit to the data: 2(288, N 229) 550.73, p
.01, 2/df 1.91, CFI .92, IFI .92, RMSEA .063, and all
factor loadings were highly significant ( p .001). Regarding the
antecedents of achievement goals, the need for achievement was a
positive predictor of mastery-approach goals ( .34, p .01),
performance-approach goals ( .22, p .01), and masteryavoidance goals ( .21, p .01), whereas fear of failure was a
positive predictor of performance-avoidance goals ( .31, p
.01), mastery-avoidance goals ( .15, p .05), and performance-approach goals ( .24, p .01). Regarding the consequences of achievement goals, mastery-approach goals were a
positive predictor of intrinsic motivation ( .28, p .01),
performance-approach goals were a positive predictor of exam
3
Given that there are some missing values for the SAT scores, the full
information maximum likelihood method was used to avoid loss of information due to the missing data (Arbuckle, 1996; Schafer & Graham, 2002).
ACHIEVEMENT GOALS
623
dictive patterns were the same in the present research and in the
Elliot and McGregor (2001) research, with one exception: Need
for achievement was a significant positive predictor of AGQ-R
mastery-avoidance goals, but not AGQ mastery-avoidance goals.
This positive relation is in line with our predictions regarding
mastery-avoidance goals as strategic tools that are sometimes put
to effective use by highly achievement-oriented individuals.
Third, we considered the achievement goals as simultaneous
predictors of exam performance (see Table 8; intrinsic motivation
was not examined in the Elliot & McGregor [2001] research). The
predictive patterns were the same in the present research and in the
Elliot and McGregor (2001) research.
In sum, comparison of the present data and the Elliot and
McGregor (2001) data highlights the value of the AGQ-R measure.
This new measure yielded results that replicated all of the important findings from the original research; when the results from the
present and prior research diverged, it was the present results that
were more in line with our theoretical model. Thus, the AGQ-R
appears to illustrate that it is indeed possible to address the measurement problems highlighted at the beginning of this article
without sacrificing structural validity and predictive utility.
Discussion
Sustained progress within a psychological literature requires
clear operationalization of the focal constructs in the literature that
is consistent with the way that the constructs are conceptualized. In
the present research, we have identified several problems with
existing measures in the achievement goal literature; some of them
seem relatively minor (e.g., some performance-based goal items
focus on extreme groups), but others seem to be of considerable
importance (e.g., some achievement goal items may not actually
focus on goals per se). These problems tend to go unnoticed by
researchers or, when noticed, tend to simply be acknowledged in
Figure 3. Hierarchical model of achievement goals. Estimates are standardized. Indicator variables, error
variables, and correlations between error variables are not represented in order to simplify the
presentation. *p .05. **p .01.
624
Table 6
Comparison of Present Results with Elliot and McGregor
(2001): Achievement Goal Reliabilities and Intercorrelations
Goal
Table 8
Comparison of Present Results With Elliot and McGregor
(2001): Achievement Goals as Predictors of Exam Performance
4
1. Mastery-approach
goals
.84/.88
2. Mastery-avoidance
goals
.51**/.36**
.88/.87
3. Performance-approach
.15*/.13**
goals
.16*/.07
.92/.94
4. Performance-avoidance
goals
.13/.06 .46**/.29** .68**/.27** .94/.83
Note. Results from the present study are presented before the slash;
results from Elliot and McGregor (2001) are presented after the slash.
Results from Elliot and McGregor are aggregated across three studies and
examined via meta-analysis (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991). Values in the
diagonal represent Cronbachs alphas; values in the remainder of the table
are Pearson product moment correlation coefficients.
*
p .05. **p .01.
Achievement goal
Exam performance
Mastery-approach goals
Mastery-avoidance goals
Performance-approach goals
Performance-avoidance goals
.06/.10
.07/.05
.36**/.20*
.33**/.31**
Note. Results from the present study are presented before the slash;
results from Elliot and McGregor (2001) are presented after the slash. All
values represent standardized simultaneous regression coefficients estimated from Pearson product moment correlation coefficients.
*
p .05. **p .01.
Table 7
Comparison of Present Results with Elliot and McGregor (2001): Achievement Motives as
Predictors of Achievement Goals
Achievement
motive
Mastery-approach
goals
Mastery-avoidance
goals
Performance-approach
goals
Performance-avoidance
goals
Need for
achievement
Fear of failure
.28**/.17*
.07/.12
.14*/.00
.15*/.28**
.27**/.38**
.18*/.32**
.12/.02
.26**/.31**
Note. Results from the present study are presented before the slash; results from Elliot and McGregor (2001)
are presented after the slash. All values represent standardized simultaneous regression coefficients estimated
from Pearson product moment correlation coefficients.
*
p .05. **p .01.
ACHIEVEMENT GOALS
625
626
References
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261271.
Anderman, E. M., & Wolters, C. (2006). Goals, values, and affect. In P.
Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology
(2nd ed., pp. 369 390). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in
practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological
Bulletin, 103, 411 423.
Arbuckle, J. L. (1996). Full information estimation in the presence of
incomplete data. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.),
Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp.
243277). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001). Achievement goals and
optimal motivation: Testing multiple goal models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 706 722.
Beretvas, N. S., Meyers, J. L., & Leite, W. L. (2002). A reliability
generalization study of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 4, 570 589.
Birney, R. C., Burdick, H., & Teevan, R. C. (1969). Fear of failure. New
York: Nostrand.
ACHIEVEMENT GOALS
Separating trait effects from trait-specific method effects in multitrait
multimethod models: A multiple-indicator CT-C(M-1) model. Psychological Methods, 8, 38 60.
Elliot, A. J. (1997). Integrating classic and contemporary approaches
to achievement motivation: A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. In P. Pintrich & M. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 143179). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement
goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 149 169.
Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct.
In A. Elliot & C. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 5272). New York: Guilford Press.
Elliot, A. J. (2006). The hierarchical model of approachavoidance motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 111116.
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., & Dweck, C. S. (2005). Competence and motivation. In A.
Elliot & C. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp.
312). New York: Guilford Press.
Elliot, A. J., & Fryer, J. W. (2008). The goal concept in psychology. In J.
Shah & W. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivational science (pp.
235250). New York: Guilford Press.
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance
achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461 475.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (1999). Test anxiety and the hierarchical
model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 628 644.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 2 achievement goal
framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501519.
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2001). Achievement goals and the hierarchical model of achievement motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 139 156.
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approachavoidance motivation in
personality: Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 804 818.
Fineman, S. (1977). The achievement motivation construct and its measurement: Where are we now? British Journal of Psychology, 68, 122.
Finney, S. J., Pieper, S. L., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Examining the
psychometric properties of the achievement goal questionnaire in a
general academic context. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
64, 365382.
Goffin, R. D., & Jackson, D. (1992). Analysis of multitraitmultirater
performance appraisal data: Composite direct product method versus
confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 27,
363385.
Greene, B. A., & Miller, R. B. (1996). Influences on achievement: Goals,
perceived ability, and cognitive engagement. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 21, 181192.
Hair, J. F. Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995).
Multivariate data analysis with readings (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Elliot, A. J., Carter, S. M., & Lehto,
A. T. (1997). Predictors and consequences of achievement goals in the
college classroom: Maintaining interest and making the grade. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1284 1295.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S. M., & Elliot,
A. J. (2000). Short-term and long-term consequences of achievement
goals: Predicting interest and performance over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 316 330.
Hernandez, A., & Gonzalez-Roma, V. (2002). Analysis of multitrait
627
628