Original Article

Measuring a Mastery Goal Structure

Using the TARGET Framework
Development and Validation of a Classroom Goal Structure
Questionnaire
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Marko Lftenegger,1 Ulrich S. Tran,2 Lisa Bardach,1 Barbara Schober,1

and Christiane Spiel1
1
Department of Applied Psychology: Work, Education and Economy, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Austria
2
Department of Basic Psychological Research and Research Methods, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Austria

Abstract: In prior research, goal structures have been measured as macroscopic and holistic constructs referring to all activities in the
classroom setting associated with learning and performing on a meta-level. A more comprehensive approach for identifying concrete
classroom structures that should foster students mastery goals is provided by the multidimensional TARGET framework with its six
instructional dimensions (Task, Autonomy, Recognition, Grouping, Evaluation, Time). However, measurement instruments assessing students
perceptions of all TARGET dimensions are largely lacking. The main aim of this study was to develop and validate a new student questionnaire
for comprehensive assessment of the perceived TARGET classroom structure (the Goal Structure Questionnaire GSQ). Scales were
constructed using a rational-empirical strategy based on classical conceptions of the TARGET dimensions and prior empirical research. The
instrument was tested in a study using a sample of 1,080 secondary school students. Findings indicate that the scales are reliable, internally
valid, and externally valid in terms of relationships with students achievement goals. More concretely, analyses revealed that the TARGET
mastery goal structure positively predicts mastery goals, performance approach goals, and an incremental implicit theory of intelligence. No
associations were found with performance avoidance goals.

Keywords: motivation, achievement goals, classroom, goal structure, TARGET framework

The most important attitude that can be formed is that
of desire to go on learning John Dewey (1938, p. 48).
One of the most important objectives of school is to enable,
empower, and equip children to become lifelong learners
(Schober, Lftenegger, Wagner, Finsterwald, & Spiel,
2013). This is crucial for both personal development across
the life span as well as the necessity of being able to handle
constant change and transition as a result of rapid techno-
logical and scientific changes, organizational innovation,
and global competition. Schools and in particular contextual
characteristics in the classroom can promote and children
can adopt profoundly different definitions of what teaching
and learning are about: mastery or performance goals.
Mastery goals are related to developing new skills and
improving ones level of competence, whereas performance
goals focus on demonstrating competence and ability in
comparison to others (approach focus), or avoiding failure
and unfavorable judgments of ones ability by others
(avoidance focus) (Elliot, 2005). Studies demonstrated that
students show the most beneficial motivational and
cognitive patterns when they focus on mastery goals (see
Meece, Anderman, & Anderman, 2006). Consequently,
researchers investigated characteristics of the classroom
context in order to describe the extent and the way in which
environmental factors support the adoption of different
goals. One prominent example of these efforts is the
TARGET framework (Epstein, 1988) with its six instruc-
tional strategies or dimensions (Task, Authority, Recogni-
tion, Grouping, Evaluation, Time). Different types of
achievement goals can be stressed in classrooms along
any of these dimensions, and students tend to adopt these
goals (Meece et al., 2006). However, measurement instru-
ments assessing students perceptions of the TARGET
dimensions are largely lacking. Of particular importance,
a comprehensive measurement instrument assessing all
six TARGET dimensions that represent a mastery goal
structure is missing so far. Additionally, the majority of
studies examining consequences of goal structures have
mainly relied on college or high school student samples.

Zeitschrift fr Psychologie (2017), 225(1), 6475 2017 Hogrefe Publishing

DOI: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000277
 M. Lftenegger et al., Classroom Goal Structure Questionnaire
Thus, we know less about the adoption of achievement
goals in younger students, particularly immediately after
the transition to secondary school.
Therefore, the aim of the present study is to develop a
measurement instrument to adequately assess a perceived
mastery goal structure following the six TARGET dimen-
sions. Moreover, another aim is to test the associations
between the perceived TARGET mastery goal structure
and personal achievement goals.
Personal Achievement Goals
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
In educational settings, student goals are the purposes or
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
reasons for engaging, choosing, and persisting in different
learning activities or achievement tasks (Pintrich, 2003).
Research on students achievement goals has a long
tradition in educational research and has resulted in the
development of various conceptual models. The dichoto-
mous model (Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Maehr,
1989; Nicholls, 1984) distinguishes between mastery goals
(to develop competence) and performance goals (to demon-
strate competence). Central for individuals pursuing
mastery goals is a focus on developing new skills, improving
ones level of competence, and trying to understand new
learning subjects. In contrast, individuals with performance
goals focus on demonstrating their competence and ability
in comparison to others (approach focus). The dichotomous
model was extended by bifurcating performance goals into
performance approach and performance goals (focus on
avoiding failure and unfavorable judgments of ones ability
by others, respectively) (Elliot, 2005). This trichotomous
achievement goal model was further expanded into a
2  2 model by also bifurcating the mastery goal construct
into approach and avoidance goal types (Elliot, 2005).
In addition to the expansion of the model, there is an active
debate about the precise definition of achievement goals
(see Hulleman, Schrager, Bodmann, & Harackiewicz,
2010; Kaplan & Maehr, 2007). In this study, we confine
ourselves to the trichotomous achievement goal model as
a theoretical basis because the mastery-avoidance construct
has received little empirical support at the early secondary
education level (junior high school) so far. Young children
and adolescents are still improving their competences,
wherefore mastery-avoidance goals may be of greater
importance among older populations (Lee & Bong, 2016).
The effects of students achievement goals have been
extensively studied in experimental and correlational
research designs over the last three decades. Most studies
have relied on samples from a higher education context
(college, university). We focus on empirical findings within
the school context. The findings for mastery goals have
been consistent and mostly favorable. Mastery goals
are positively associated with greater effort and persistence
2017 Hogrefe Publishing
65
in learning (Wolters 2004), deep-level learning strategies
(Greene, Miller, Crowson, Duke, & Akey, 2004), self-
efficacy (Bong, 2009), and well-being (Kaplan & Maehr,
1999). The association between mastery goals and perfor-
mance is more complex, and the empirical evidence is
mixed so far (Bergsmann, Lftenegger, Jstl, Schober, &
Spiel, 2013; Bong, 2009; Hulleman et al., 2010; Kaplan &
Maehr, 1999).
Performance avoidance goals are typically associated
with negative consequences like self-handicapping (Midgley
& Urdan, 2001; Urdan, 2004), anxiety (Federici, Skaalvik,
& Tangen, 2015), procrastination and low persistence
(Wolters, 2004).
In contrast, empirical findings on performance approach
goals are mixed and possible consequences are subject
to controversial discussion (see Senko, Hulleman, &
Harackiewicz, 2011). For example, this applies to the
relation between performance approach goals and
academic performance: Performance approach goals have
been found to be positively related to academic perfor-
mance (Bong, 2009) or not related (Paulick, Watermann,
& Nckles, 2011). These mixed results with regard to
performance can be partly explained by the different con-
ceptualizations of performance approach goals (focus on
normative comparison vs. demonstration of competence;
see Senko et al., 2011). For instance, normative perfor-
mance approach goals are positively associated with perfor-
mance, whereas competence demonstration goals are not
(see Hulleman et al., 2010).
Goal Structure and TARGET Framework
From the beginnings of achievement goal theory, research-
ers have highlighted the idea that students adoption of
personal achievement goals may be influenced by what
happens in the classroom (Ames 1992; Maehr & Midgley,
1996). Classroom structure has the potential to be managed
and modified by the actions of those within the classroom
(both teachers and students) and can make different
achievement goals salient on a contextual level. Children
tend to adopt the goals that are stressed in their classroom
as their own guiding purposes. More accurately, their
perception of these goal structures (Meece et al., 2006),
also known as classroom goal structures or classroom goals,
should determine the adoption of personal achievement
goals. To avoid ambiguities, we use the term goal structures
consistently throughout this paper. Empirical findings are in
agreement and strongly suggest that perceived goal
structures are related to students personal achievement
goals (e.g., Bergsmann et al., 2013; Church, Eliott, & Gable,
2001; Federici et al., 2015; Greene et al., 2004; Lau & Nie,
2008; Lftenegger, van de Schoot, Schober, Finsterwald, &
Spiel, 2014; Urdan, 2004; Wolters, 2004).
Zeitschrift fr Psychologie (2017), 225(1), 6475
 66
However, which classroom structures exactly shape
students achievement goals? Researchers have identified
core dimensions of instructional practices in classrooms
involved in the shaping of students personal achievement
goals. Joyce Epstein (1988) used the acronym TARGET
for a prominent systematization of key classroom dimen-
sions that affect students development and learning:
Task design, distribution of Authority/autonomy, Recogni-
tion/rewards of students, Grouping arrangements, Evalua-
tion practices, and Time allocation. Carole Ames (1992)
used these six classroom dimensions to describe how
personal mastery goals should be facilitated. Therefore,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
the TARGET dimensions were conceptualized to represent
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
a mastery goal structure.
The task dimension concerns the design of classwork and
homework. Appropriate tasks include a focus on learning,
moderate challenges, curiosity, and active involvement.
Authority refers to the opportunity to participate actively
in making decisions in the classroom that are relevant to
instruction. Teachers share authority over instructional
decisions with students, taking into account their needs
and feelings. The opportunity to decide for oneself what
exercises and tasks one should complete in a certain subject
area is also included in this dimension, as is shared respon-
sibility in social decision-making processes, for instance
enacting class rules. To better reflect the theoretical
description of this classroom dimension, we decided to
use autonomy instead of authority throughout the
manuscript.
The recognition dimension concerns the formal or infor-
mal provision of recognition through incentives, rewards,
or feedback. Rewards can be useful for students if they
provide information about their progress or competence.
The grouping dimension involves the use of heterogeneous
cooperative groups and peer interaction to encourage work-
ing with others (Ames, 1992). The evaluation dimension
focuses on methods that assess progress and improvement
while avoiding the establishment of a competitive environ-
ment. Students should experience that it is normal to make
mistakes and that these are allowed in the classroom
(Steuer, Rosentritt-Brunn, & Dresel, 2013). Time encom-
passes the appropriateness of workload, the pace of instruc-
tion, and the time allotted for students to introduce their
own topics and interests. The time dimension is closely
linked to the design of tasks and autonomy. In some con-
cepts and studies, time and task are treated as a joint single
dimension (Ames, 1992; Greene et al., 2004).
Against the background of the manifold nature of the
aspects covered, we assume that the six described dimen-
sions are distinguishable, but nevertheless interrelated
subdimensions of students perception of their goal struc-
ture in line with the TARGET framework (Lftenegger
et al., 2014). We assume that each of the dimensions
Zeitschrift fr Psychologie (2017), 225(1), 6475
M. Lftenegger et al., Classroom Goal Structure Questionnaire
contributes to the perception of the overall TARGET goal
structure in the classroom. Therefore, we assume that
perceptions of the six subdimensions vary rather consis-
tently between learners and that one superordinate uniform
factor of TARGET can be conceptualized.
Assessment of Perceived Goal Structure
and TARGET
In line with tradition among achievement goal researchers,
we argue that students subjective perception of their learn-
ing environment is the appropriate source of data (e.g.,
Maehr & Midgley, 1996; Schwinger & Stiensmeier-Pelster,
2011; but also Ldtke, Robitzsch, Trautwein, & Kunter,
2009). It is not what the assumed objective outsider (e.g.,
the teacher or the researcher) sees that is the immediate
cause of student attitudes, behavior, or goal adoption.
Students perceptions of the goals emphasized in the class-
room affect thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes associated with
the personal investment in learning. Different classrooms
have different learning environments with different class-
room goal messages that influence students goal adoption.
Therefore, it is important to examine the degree to which
perceptions in classrooms are shared.
A broad array of empirical evidence indicates that a
mastery goal structure is linked to students adoption of a
personal mastery goal orientation (e.g., Lau & Lee, 2008;
Lftenegger et al., 2014; Urdan, 2004). Studies examining
the relation between a perceived mastery goal structure and
students personal performance approach and avoidance
goals reveal contradictory results: For instance, one study
showed that the perception of a mastery goal structure
was positively related to both types of performance goals
(Federici et al., 2015), whereas no significant relations
between mastery goal structure and the two performance
goal orientations were found in another study (Midgley &
Urdan, 2001). Only including performance approach goals
in their analyses, Lau and Lee (2008) showed a positive
relationship between the perception of a mastery goal struc-
ture and performance approach goals. Other studies report
that a mastery goal structure negatively predicts perfor-
mance approach goals or found no significant relation with
performance avoidance goals (Urdan, 2004; Wolters,
2004). In summary, reported studies cover the whole range
of possible relations between a mastery goal structure and
the two types of performance goals and no consistent
pattern explaining these differing results could be found.
It should be noted that the reported studies differ with
respect to the complexity of their statistical analyses.
However, the inconsistent empirical evidence could also pos-
sibly be traced back to the measurement instruments used
and their underlying conceptualizations of performance
2017 Hogrefe Publishing
 M. Lftenegger et al., Classroom Goal Structure Questionnaire
approach and avoidance goals. Instruments assessing
achievement goals often vary in their theoretical conceptions
and operational definitions of performance goals (see e.g.,
Hackel, Jones, Carbonneau, & Mueller, 2016). Regarding
the operationalization of performance approach and avoid-
ance goals, two critical elements can be distinguished: the
desire to demonstrate competence (e.g., Kaplan & Maehr,
2007) or to outperform others (e.g., Elliot, 2005). Therefore,
Senko and colleagues (2011) suggest refining the constructs
of both performance goals by distinguishing between norma-
tively-focused performance goals (outperforming others)
and appearance-based performance goals (demonstrating
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
competence). Current measurements of achievement
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
goals tend to either mix the normative and appearance purpose of the present study was to develop a reliable
components in their scales for performance approach and
performance avoidance goals (e.g., SELLMO; Spinath,
Stiensmeier-Pelster, Schne, & Dickhuser, 2002), or use
items that assess solely normative (e.g., Achievement
Goals Questionnaire, AGQ; Elliot & Murayama, 2008) or
appearance aspects (e.g., Patterns of Adaptive Learning,
PALS; Midgley et al., 2000).
So far, goal structures in the classroom have been
measured as a macroscopic and holistic construct that
refers to all activities in the classroom setting associated
with learning and performing on a meta-level (e.g., PALS,
Midgley et al., 2000; Schwinger & Stiensmeier-Pelster,
2011). Research on the TARGET framework has been
mostly conducted in empirical studies where individual
dimensions were investigated separately (Church et al.,
2001; Greene et al., 2004; Lau & Lee, 2008; Tapola &
Niemivirta, 2008), or where a few dimensions represent-
ing a mastery goal structure were observed together
(Bergsmann et al., 2013). Examining singular dimensions,
therefore, presumably leads to different results than consid-
ering classroom instruction in its entire complexity (Church
et al., 2001). Particularly, the systematic promotion of
mastery goals possibly necessitates a classroom structure
that does not singularly focus on a set of strategies or a
particular instructional method, but rather the engagement
of a complete constellation of strategies that are conceptu-
ally related, such as the system theoretically provided by
the TARGET framework. Lftenegger and colleagues
(2014) considered all six TARGET dimensions and could
show in a longitudinal design that a mastery goal structure
following TARGET has a causal effect on junior high school
students personal mastery goals. However, the measure-
ment of several dimensions was very limited in terms of
content validity due to the use of single items. So far, to
the best of our knowledge, no instrument has been
presented that comprehensively assesses all six TARGET
dimensions and has been rigorously validated.
Due to the comprehensive conceptualization of the
TARGET dimensions in the classroom, it is not sufficient
2017 Hogrefe Publishing
67
to include some items in other instruments of mastery goal
structure (e.g., PALS, Midgley et al., 2000) or existing
operationalizations of TARGET dimensions (Church et al.,
2001; Greene et al., 2004; Lau & Lee, 2008; Tapola &
Niemivirta, 2008; Lftenegger et al., 2014). Instead, a
comprehensive assessment of all six dimensions seems
necessary to ensure the content validity of scores regarding
the overall TARGET goal structure.
The Present Investigation
Based on prior work on favorable goal structures, the main
measurement instrument to assess perceived goal structure
based on the TARGET framework with its six subdimen-
sions. Furthermore, we aimed to analyze the effects of this
perceived TARGET goal structure on students achieve-
ment goals and implicit theories. Specifically, the present
research is designed to investigate the structural validity
of the measurement instrument and to examine links with
achievement goals and implicit theories that have been
shown to be both conceptually and empirically important
in prior work on goal structure and personal achievement
goals more generally.
Based on theory and prior research (Lftenegger et al.,
2014), we expected the TARGET mastery goal structure
to be a multidimensional classroom characteristic.
We expected that the TARGET goal structure has multi-
ple, interrelated subdimensions that, in concert, constitute a
superordinate and uniform overall perceived TARGET
mastery classroom structure (Hypothesis 1a). This varies
between classrooms (Hypothesis 1b).
The second objective was to investigate how the
TARGET classroom goal structure is related to students
personal achievement goals and implicit theories of intelli-
gence. Prior research (Lftenegger et al., 2014) found that a
perceived TARGET mastery goal structure influenced
students mastery goals over time. To our knowledge, no
study has investigated the effects on other achievement
goals. Moreover, we focused on implicit theories of intelli-
gence, which have been shown to be conceptually and
empirically important for the adoption of achievement
goals (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). To our knowledge, studies
focusing on goal structures as possible antecedents of impli-
cit theories are lacking so far. As such, it would seem
promising to include implicit theories in the goal structures
nomological network.
Perceived TARGET mastery goal structure is expected to
positively predict personal mastery goals (Hypothesis 2a).
Perceived TARGET mastery goal structure is expected to
predict implicit theories (Hypothesis 2b). Due to inconsistent
research results, interrelations with performance goal types
Zeitschrift fr Psychologie (2017), 225(1), 6475
 68
(approach normative, approach appearance, avoidance
normative, avoidance appearance) are indeed expected,
but their direction cannot be specified (Hypothesis 2c).
Method
Sample
The survey was conducted with 1,080 Austrian students in
May 2015. Participation was voluntary, and only students
with active parental consent participated in the study. Less
than 1% of students were not allowed to participate by their
parents. Students completed the questionnaire during
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
normal classroom hours and were instructed by trained
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
research assistants. The students did not receive compensa-
tion for their participation in the study. The data were
collected in five academic-track secondary schools
(Gymnasium schools) in Vienna. In line with the typical
composition of academic-track schools in Austria, girls were
slightly overrepresented in this study (53.2% of the sample).
Students mean age was 12.8 years (SD = 1.01) and they
were enrolled in grades six (34%), seven (37.1%), and eight
(28.9%). The average number of children per classroom
was 23.46 (SD = 3.29). The subject for each class was
determined randomly prior to data collection. The subjects
investigated were German (51.8%) and mathematics
(48.2%). In Austria, the new school year begins in
September; therefore, sufficient time had clearly passed
for goal structures to be established.
Measures
Personal achievement goals, the TARGET goal structure,
and implicit theories were all assessed with a questionnaire.
All questionnaire items, except those measuring implicit
theories, used a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (= strongly
disagree) to 6 (= strongly agree) and referred to specific
school subjects, that is, mathematics and German language
class. Mathematics and German language were chosen as
the focus of study, because previous research on goals in
secondary schools has found these to be particularly
important domains of inquiry (e.g., Midgley & Urdan,
2001; Murayama, & Elliot, 2009; Schwinger & Stiensmeier-
Pelster, 2011; Wolters, 2004).
Personal Achievement Goals
Following the trichotomous achievement goal conceptual-
ization, we assessed mastery goals, performance approach
goals, and performance avoidance goals with the respective
subscales of the well-validated German achievement goal
questionnaire SELLMO-S (Spinath et al., 2002). The scales
reflect several dimensions of achievement goals classified
in a meta-analysis of achievement goal measures
(Hulleman et al., 2010). The items for mastery goals mainly
focus on a preference for challenging activities, but also
Zeitschrift fr Psychologie (2017), 225(1), 6475
M. Lftenegger et al., Classroom Goal Structure Questionnaire
represent the motivation to master a task in order to gain
new knowledge. The operationalization of performance
approach goals and performance avoidance goals focuses
on both the normative and appearance components of
performance goals. We divided both performance goals
scales into two subscales, one with a focus on appearance
and the other on normative comparisons, resulting in four
performance goal scales (approach normative, approach
appearance, avoidance normative, avoidance appearance).
All items were introduced with the phrase In my
German/math class, I personally strive . . . followed by
the statements referring to the respective goal type.
Examples are . . .to learn as much as possible for mastery
goals (eight items), . . .to get my work done better than
others for performance approach goals with a normative
focus (four items), . . .to demonstrate what I can and what
I know for performance approach goals with an appearance
focus (three items), . . .not to stand out by stupid questions
for performance avoidance goals with an appearance focus
(three items) and . . .to that other students dont consider
me stupid for performance avoidance goals with a norma-
tive focus (five items) (see Schwinger & Stiensmeier-Pelster,
2011, for a complete list of items). Internal consistencies of
the five subscales were good ( = .70.86; CR = .71.86).
Implicit Theory of Intelligence
Students implicit theory of intelligence was measured
using a subscale of a well-established German instrument
for the assessment of subjective beliefs about factors under-
lying learning and achievement (SE-SBELLKO; Spinath &
Schne, 2003). The scale consists of three items in the form
of statements about the nature of intelligence. Students
completed these statements by indicating the degree of
malleability they believe in on a 6-point semantic differen-
tial (sample item: You have a certain amount of intelli-
gence that cannot be changed vs. that can be changed.).
Higher values represent higher endorsement of an incre-
mental theory ( = .80; CR = .80).
TARGET Goal Structure
TARGET goal structure was assessed via student percep-
tions of the six proposed dimensions. These comprised
Task, Autonomy, Recognition, Grouping, Evaluation, and
Time (the items are provided in the Electronic Supplemen-
tary Material, ESM 1). The development of the measure-
ment instrument comprised several steps. First, we newly
formulated 1215 items for each TARGET dimension that
were derived from the conceptual understanding of the
respective dimension. Second, to ensure content validity,
we revised these items using expert judgments from
members of our research group. In the next step, we
selected the ten items with the best representation of the
conceptual understanding of the respective dimension
2017 Hogrefe Publishing
 M. Lftenegger et al., Classroom Goal Structure Questionnaire
and used criteria for semantic redundancy. These items
were used as a preliminary version of the questionnaire in
the present study. The selection of items for the final scales
was based on several criteria: (1) having an efficient and
balanced instrument; (2) representation of all proposed
aspects of the respected TARGET dimension; (3) good psy-
chometric properties of the scales (reliability and validity).
This also included attending to both convergent and diver-
gent scale validity. Items were selected according to conver-
gent item validity (i.e., high factor loadings on the relevant
TARGET scale) as well as divergent item validity (i.e., low
factor loadings on other TARGET scales). We selected six
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
items per dimension according to these three criteria.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Analyses on the item level showed sufficient properties for
the 36 items constituting the final Goal Structure Question-
naire (GSQ). Analyses on the scale level also revealed suffi-
cient properties for all subscales ( = .69.85; CR = .69.85).
Strategy of Analyses and Missing Data
Statistical analyses were conducted using structural equation
models (SEMs) with the complex design option in Mplus 7.4
(Muthn & Muthn, 19982015) to control for the hierar-
chical nature of the data. The complex design option takes
into account the nonindependence of the scores of students
from the same class that is, the clustering effect of students
nested within classes. As the constructs are measured as
ordinal-level variables, we used robust weighted least
squares estimation (WLSMV) for all analyses.
Goodness-of-fit of the models was evaluated using several
different indices, including the w2 Test of Model Fit, the
Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI),
and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA).
In addition, a 90% confidence interval around the point
estimate enabled an assessment of the precision of the
RMSEA estimate (for details about these indices, see Kline,
2011). We used traditional cutoff scores indicative of
excellent and adequate fit to the data, respectively: CFI
and TLI  .95 and  .90, and RMSEA  .06 and  .08.
We provide standardized coefficients. Standardized
coefficients represent the amount of change in the outcome
that can be expected from a one standard deviation unit
change in the predictors. Following Cohens (1988) guideli-
nes, in the context of regression parameters, standardized
values greater than 0.10, 0.30, and 0.50 generally reflect
small, moderate, and large effect sizes. The influence of
domain and sex was investigated in preliminary analyses.
Main effects of the domain were found for autonomy and
grouping. Main effects of sex were found only for mastery
goals. All significant main effects were considered in the
main analysis.
The rate of individuals omitting items (nonresponse)
in the present study was at a maximum of 1.3% for all
considered items and, as such, very low. We used the full
2017 Hogrefe Publishing
69
information maximum likelihood (FIML) approach imple-
mented in Mplus 7.4 to deal with missing values. This
approach takes all available information from the observed
data into account when estimating parameter estimates and
standard errors.
Results
Table 1 provides descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations,
and reliabilities (Cronbachs and composite reliability) of
the investigated variables. The findings indicate that there
was sufficient variation of scores on all scales and reliability
for all scales ranged from moderate to excellent.
Dimensionality of the Perceived Goal Structure
In order to analyze the dimensionality of the perceived
TARGET goal structure, confirmatory factor analyses
(CFAs) were performed. In a first step, six CFAs were
conducted to examine the construct validity of each of
the six TARGET dimensions. All six models showed moder-
ate to good model fit, CFI = .951.992, TLI = .919.975,
RMSEA = .049.100. Standardized item loadings were in
the range of = .45.81 with four exceptions: two items in
the subscale task and two items for grouping only had a
standardized loading of less than of = .27 and were
excluded from all subsequent analyses and the final scales
(see ESM 1). Without these items, the task and grouping
model was characterized by good model fit indices and sat-
isfactory standardized loadings (Figure 1).
In a second step, we examined three models to test for the
dimensionality of the perceived goal structure. Our hypothe-
sized Model 1 included one factor for each of the six
perceived TARGET dimensions with loadings of the
respective items. This model fitted well with the data (see
Table 2). We additionally tested Model 1 against an alterna-
tive model. Model 2 was a one-factor model reflecting a
strictly unidimensional conceptualization of perceived goal
structure in which all items load on one factor (Model 2).
Model estimation and model comparison revealed
significant advantages for the hypothesized Model 1 (see
Table 2).
To test our hypothesis that the six TARGET dimensions
constitute a superordinate and uniform factor reflecting the
overall goal structure in the classroom (Hypothesis 1),
we specified another model (Model 3): Based on Model 1,
we modeled one second-order factor with loadings of all
six dimensions. This model also showed acceptable fit to
the data (see Table 2), although slightly worse than that
for Model 1. The model comparison revealed advantages
for Model 1 over Model 2. Model 3 provides estimates of
the latent relationships, which were in the range of
= .54.94, indicating the appropriateness of a mastery
goal structure conception including six subdimensions.
Zeitschrift fr Psychologie (2017), 225(1), 6475
 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
70

Table 1. Bivariate correlations, descriptive statistics, and reliabilities

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
TARGET classroom structure
1. Task
2. Autonomy .44
3. Recognition .48 .69
4. Grouping .37 .63 .50

Zeitschrift fr Psychologie (2017), 225(1), 6475

5. Evaluation .52 .68 .75 .50
6. Time .47 .75 .73 .51 .74
Student characteristics
7. Mastery goal .42 .34 .40 .27 .42 .39
8. Performance goal AP-N .13 .02 .02 .05 .05 .03 .26
9. Performance goal AP-A .28 .23 .27 .18 .32 .28 .65 .43
10. Performance goal AV-N .16 .02 .01 .08 .04 .01 .19 .63 .31
11. Performance goal AV-A .10 .01 .03 .04 .03 .02 .26 .52 .32 .68
12. Implicit theories .07 .09 .09 .00 .10 .07 .16 .06 .12 .08 .03

Number of items 4 6 6 4 6 6 8 3 3 5 3 3
M 3.90 3.73 4.05 3.13 4.41 4.10 4.41 3.35 4.45 3.09 3.64 4.67
SD 0.94 1.06 0.95 1.22 1.03 1.04 0.86 1.27 1.03 1.17 1.30 1.24
Skewness 0.41 0.41 0.51 0.02 0.73 0.59 0.77 0.19 0.68 0.25 0.83 0.97
Actual range 1.006.00 1.006.00 1.006.00 1.006.00 1.006.00 1.006.00 1.006.00 1.006.00 1.006.00 1.006.00 1.006.00 1.006.00
.69 .80 .74 .74 .85 .81 .86 .82 .70 .82 .71 .80
CR .69 .80 .74 .75 .85 .81 .86 .82 .71 .82 .71 .80
95% CI CR .67.71 .78.82 .72.77 .72.77 .84.87 .79.83 .84.88 .80.84 .67.75 .80.84 .67.74 .77.83
ICC 1 .11 .19 .15 .30 .15 .17 .05 .04 .03 .02 .03 .01
ICC 2 .74 .85 .81 .91 .81 .83 . 56 .48 .44 .33 .42 .24
Notes. AP-A = approach appearance; AP-N = approach normative; AV-A = avoidance appearance; AV-N = avoidance normative; CI = confidence interval; CR = composite reliability; ICC = intraclass correlation.
|r|  .07, p < .05.

2017 Hogrefe Publishing

M. Lftenegger et al., Classroom Goal Structure Questionnaire
 M. Lftenegger et al., Classroom Goal Structure Questionnaire 71
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Figure 1. Structural equation modeling showing external linkages of the superordinate and uniform TARGET goal structure factor. Standardized
regression coefficients are reported and nonsignificant paths are shown as dashed lines. PGAP-A = performance goals approach appearance;
PGAP-N = performance goals approach normative; PGAV-A = performance goals avoidance appearance; PGAV-N = performance goals avoidance
normative.

Although some of the relationships between conceptual
similar constructs, such as recognition and evaluation, were
high, they clearly indicate that all of the dimensions are
separable, given that the latent coefficients were corrected
for unreliability and represent the highest possible esti-
mates for these relationships. These results indicate that
it is justifiable to conceptualize perceived goal structure as
hierarchically structured, consisting of distinguishable
subdimensions that contribute to one superordinate uni-
form factor of mastery goal structure (see Hypothesis 1a).
Thus, we decided in favor of the model with one superordi-
nate factor and six dimensions.
Classroom Differences
As expected in Hypothesis 1b, we were able to find signifi-
cant and moderate to large differences between class-
rooms in all six subdimensions and the superordinate
uniform factor of mastery goal structure (ICC1 = .11.30;
p < .001; see Table 1). Within classrooms, students percep-
tions of the TARGET subdimensions seem to be rather

2017 Hogrefe Publishing Zeitschrift fr Psychologie (2017), 225(1), 6475

 72
Table 2. Results from CFA models of mastery classroom goal structure indicators
Model fit
Model 1: six dimensions
Model 2: one overall g factor
Model 3: six subfactors and one superordinate
uniform factor of mastery goal structure
Model comparison
Model 1 vs. Model 2
Model 1 vs. Model 3
Model 3 vs. Model 2
Notes. n = 1,080. All items were treated as ordered categorical, utilizing the WLSMV estimator in Mplus (Muthn & Muthn, 19982015). Model comparisons
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
were conducted using the robust difference testing procedure for mean and variance adjusted test statistics. CFA = confirmatory factor analysis;
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; TLI: tucker-lewis index. *p < .001.
homogeneous (ICC2 = .74.91). ICC2 can be interpreted as
an indicator of the reliability of the measurement of a
contextual characteristic via several individual perceptions.
ICC2 is interpreted in line with other reliability measures
(Ldtke et al., 2009).
Predicting Students Personal Achievement Goals
In order to investigate whether students perception of
the TARGET mastery goal structure can predict their
personal achievement goals and implicit theories
(Hypotheses 2a2c), structural equation modeling was
employed (see Figure 1 structural model). Overall fit
indices showed a good model fit, CFI = .943, TLI = .940,
RMSEA = .026 [.024, .028]. Estimation revealed that a
perceived TARGET goal structure positively predicted
personal mastery goals (b = .53, SE = .03, p < .001), perfor-
mance approach goals with an appearance (b = .42, SE =
.04, p < .001) and normative focus (b = .07, SE = .04, p =
.048), and implicit theories (b = .17, SE = .03, p < .001).
No associations were found between the TARGET goal
structure and performance avoidance goals for both appear-
ance (b = .02, SE = .04, p = .632) and normative avoidance
focus (b = .04, SE = .03, p = .237).
Discussion
The purpose of the study was to develop and validate a mea-
surement instrument which adequately assesses goal struc-
tures within the TARGET conceptualization. By building
upon previous work (e.g., Lftenegger et al., 2014), this
study aimed to extend existing findings and refine previous
attempts to measure goal structures in the TARGET frame-
work. Our newly developed Goal Structure Questionnaire
(GSQ) incorporates a broad range of theoretically-rooted
aspects of the TARGET dimensions and can therefore be
considered a highly comprehensive and differentiated
measurement instrument. Results revealed that students
perceptions comprise six dimensions of interrelated but
Zeitschrift fr Psychologie (2017), 225(1), 6475
M. Lftenegger et al., Classroom Goal Structure Questionnaire
w2 or w2 df or df CFI TLI RMSEA [90% CI]
1106.92* 449 .943 .937 .037 [.034.040]
1449.06* 464 .915 .909 .044 [.042.047]
1157.39* 458 .940 .935 .038 [.035.040]
410.41* 15
93.88* 9
373.61* 6
distinguishable classroom structures (Task, Authority,
Recognition, Grouping, Evaluation, Time). Instead of
regarding these six dimensions as isolated aspects, this
studys findings provide a more holistic view of goal struc-
tures. Taken together, the six dimensions form a learning
environment in classrooms which we refer to as TARGET.
The findings of this study support the existence of TARGET
as a macroscopic construct representing students overall
perceptions of their mastery goal structure (Hypothesis
1a). As students in different classrooms receive different
goal-relevant messages from their teachers and are exposed
to different classroom practices and activities, we assumed
that the perception of TARGET varies between classrooms.
As hypothesized, we found differences between perceived
TARGET goal structures in different classrooms, indicating
adequate variability of TARGET goal structures on the class
level (Hypothesis 1b). All in all, these results substantiate the
internal validity of the TARGET questionnaire.
Moreover, the study shows that the TARGET question-
naire has predictive power in explaining students mastery
goals (Hypothesis 2a) and implicit theories (Hypothesis 2b).
As expected and in line with theoretical considerations as
well as empirical evidence (Lau & Lee, 2008; Lftenegger
et al., 2014; Tapola & Niemivirta, 2008), TARGET goal
structures turned out to be positively related to students
personal mastery goals. This finding underscores the
suitability of the developed scales for assessing a mastery
goal structure. The positive relationship to implicit theories
corroborates our research hypotheses and allows us to draw
some initial conclusions about the interplay between
TARGET goal structures and students adoption of an
incremental theory of intelligence.
Regarding the relationship between TARGET goal struc-
tures and the four types of students personal performance
goals (Hypothesis 2c), it was shown that TARGET goal struc-
tures are positively related to students performance
approach goals with an appearance focus and, to a lesser
extent, to students performance approach goals with a
2017 Hogrefe Publishing
 M. Lftenegger et al., Classroom Goal Structure Questionnaire
normative focus. No significant relations between TARGET
goal structures and either type of performance avoidance
goals were found. All in all, the results for Hypotheses 2a
2c substantiate the external validity of the measurement
instrument. Given the inconsistent findings on the relation
between mastery goal structures and students personal
performance goals (e. g. Lau & Lee, 2008; Urdan, 2004;
Wolters, 2004) this studys findings reinforce the premise
that a more comprehensive conceptualization of mastery
goal structures as provided here may be especially appropri-
ate for investigating and therefore enhancing our under-
standing of this relation. An important finding is that even
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
though personal performance approach and avoidance goals
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
are highly positively related (which is in line with broad
empirical evidence; see Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2012),
our results suggest that TARGET mastery-focused class-
rooms do not endorse both performance goals equally.
Keeping in mind the negative consequences of pursuing
performance avoidance goals, the finding that a TARGET
mastery goal structure is not related to students adoption
of performance avoidance goals has important implications
for classroom practice. Furthermore, the positive relation
of TARGET mastery goal structures with mastery goals
and (both types of) performance approach goals can be inter-
preted in terms of a multiple goal perspective (Wormington
& Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2016). Mastery goals are still consid-
ered the most beneficial goals, and their promotion should
therefore represent a major aim in class (Wormington &
Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2016). However, the simultaneous
pursuit of a performance approach goal may also be adaptive
for specific outcomes (Senko et al., 2011). The magnitude
of the relations between the TARGET mastery goal struc-
ture and students personal goals found in this study
(mastery > performance approach appearance > performance
approach normative) reflects these assumptions and further
emphasizes the suitability of the newly developed GSQ for
research and classroom practice.
Limitations and Implications for Future Research
Some limitations of the present study should be noted.
It has to be mentioned that our conclusions regarding
the external validity of this study are limited by the
correlational study design and do not allow us to interpret
relations between TARGET goal structures, achievement
goals, and implicit theories in causal ways. Additionally,
due to the cross-sectional design it was not possible to
examine the stability of the GSQ. Longitudinal studies could
bring insights into the impact of TARGET goal structures on
the development trajectories of achievement goals and
incremental theories. Our reliance on students self-reports
can be seen as another limitation. The use of multiple meth-
ods such as interviews (see e.g., Urdan, 2004) or classroom
observations (see e.g., Patrick, Anderman, Ryan, Edelin,
2017 Hogrefe Publishing
73
& Midgley, 2001) is therefore highly recommended to
expand our understanding of the TARGET goal structures.
Moreover, additional research on TARGET should obtain
information from multiple informants (teachers and stu-
dents), with the concordance between students perceptions
of classroom structures and teachers perceptions of their
instructional behavior of particular interest (Urdan,
Midgley, & Anderman, 1998). Furthermore, it is an open
question whether our findings can be generalized to other
populations (e.g., gifted students, students of different age
groups like elementary school students). More research
is also needed to investigate whether the results of this
study can be replicated in different countries and cultures.
Another interesting avenue for future research would
involve the deployment of the TARGET questionnaire in a
completely different context, for example, sport psychology.
One example of a research question might be how various
aspects of instructional structures (measured by the
TARGET questionnaire) influence the motivational devel-
opment of adolescents in competitive sports. Methodologi-
cally, the modest reliability of the dimension Task has to
be acknowledged. Further studies could address this limita-
tion by developing and psychometrically testing additional
items for the Task dimension. The high loading of especially
Recognition on the TARGET higher-order factor has two
implications: First, Recognition is apparently the most sali-
ent indicator of the overall TARGET goal structure, in the
sense that the higher-order factor is effectively identical to
this specific lower-order indicator. Second, with regard to
measurement, assessment of the Recognition factor pro-
vides at the same time a reliable proxy measure of the over-
all higher-order factor. This may be of use in future applied
research. Additionally, the TARGET questionnaire should
be further validated by fully considering the inherent multi-
level structure of goal structure using doubly latent model-
ing (latent in relation to both measurement and sampling
error). However, doubly latent models are very complex
and require substantial ICCs and large sample sizes on both
the individual and class level (Ldtke et al., 2011). Future
research should also focus on further broadening the nomo-
logical network of mastery goal structures by investigating
the effects on other motivational constructs such as
academic interest, self-efficacy or self-concept, and how
this nomological network (goal structure ? personal
motivation) is connected to school performance.
In conclusion, despite their limitations, the findings of the
present study indicate that the newly developed scales are
internally valid as demonstrated by confirmatory factor
analysis, externally valid as demonstrated in terms of rela-
tionships with achievement goals, and reliable. The GSQ
can therefore be considered the first comprehensive and
psychometrically sound instrument assessing students
perception of TARGET goal structures.
Zeitschrift fr Psychologie (2017), 225(1), 6475
 74
Electronic Supplementary Material
The electronic supplementary material is available with the
online version of the article at http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/
2151-2604/a000277
ESM 1. Text (.docx).
Items of the final questionnaire.
References
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student
motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261271.
doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Bergsmann, E., Lftenegger, M., Jstl, G., Schober, B., & Spiel, C.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
(2013). The role of classroom structure in fostering students
school functioning: A comprehensive and application-oriented
approach. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 131138.
doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2013.05.005
Bong, M. (2009). Age-related differences in achievement goal
differentiation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101,
879896. doi: 10.1037/a0015945
Church, M. A., Eliott, A. J., & Gable, S. L. (2001). Perceptions of
classroom environment, achievement goals, and achievement
outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 4554.
doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.43
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. West Lafayette, IN:
Kappa Delta Pi.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach
to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95,
256273.
Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal
construct. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of
competence and motivation (pp. 5272). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of
achievement goals: Critique, illustration, and application.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 613628. doi: 10.1037/
0022-0663.100.3.613
Epstein, J. L. (1988). Effective schools or effective students:
Dealing with diversity. In R. Haskins & D. MacRae (Eds.),
Policies for Americas public schools: Teacher, equity and
indicators (pp. 89126). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Federici, R. A., Skaalvik, E. M., & Tangen, T. N. (2015). Students
perceptions of the goal structure in mathematics classrooms:
Relations with goal orientations, mathematics anxiety, and
help-seeking behavior. International Education Studies, 8,
146158. doi: 10.5539/ies.v8n3p146
Greene, B. A., Miller, R. B., Crowson, M. H., Duke, B. L., & Akey,
K. L. (2004). Predicting high school students cognitive engage-
ment and achievement: Contributions of classroom perceptions
and motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29,
462482. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.006
Hackel, T. S., Jones, M. H., Carbonneau, K. J., & Mueller, C. E.
(2016). Re-examining achievement goal instrumentation:
Convergent validity of AGQ and PALS. Contemporary Educa-
tional Psychology, 46, 7380. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.
04.005
Hulleman, C. S., Schrager, S. M., Bodmann, S. M., & Harackiewicz,
J. M. (2010). A meta-analytic review of achievement goal
measures: Different labels for the same constructs or different
constructs with similar labels? Psychological Bulletin, 136,
422449. doi: 10.1037/a0018947
Zeitschrift fr Psychologie (2017), 225(1), 6475
M. Lftenegger et al., Classroom Goal Structure Questionnaire
Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (1999). Achievement goals and
student well-being. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24,
330358. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.0993
Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2007). The contributions and prospects
of goal orientation theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19,
141184. doi: 10.1007/s10648-006-9012-5
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation
modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lau, K. L., & Lee, J. (2008). Examining Hong Kong students
achievement goals and their relations with students perceived
classroom environment and strategy use. Educational
Psychology, 28, 357372. doi: 10.1080/01443410701612008
Lau, S., & Nie, Y. (2008). Interplay between personal goals and
classroom goal structures in predicting student outcomes: A
multilevel analysis of person-context interactions. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 100, 1529. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.
100.1.15
Lee, M., & Bong, M. (2016). In their own words: Reasons underlying
the achievement striving of students in schools. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 108, 274294. doi: 10.1037/
edu0000048
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Middleton, M. J., Ciani, K. D., Easter, M. A.,
OKeefe, P. A., & Zusho, A. (2012). The strength of the relation
between performance approach and performance avoidance
goal orientations: Theoretical, methodological, and instruc-
tional implications. Educational Psychologist, 47, 281301.
doi: 10.1080/00461520.2012.722515
Ldtke, O., Marsh, H. W., Robitzsch, A., & Trautwein, U. (2011). A
2  2 taxonomy of multilevel latent contextual models: Accu-
racy-bias trade-offs in full and partial error correction models.
Psychological Methods, 16, 444467. doi: 10.1037/a0024376
Ldtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., & Kunter, M. (2009).
Assessing the impact of learning environments: How to use
student ratings of classroom or school characteristics in
multilevel modeling. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
34, 120131. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.12.001
Lftenegger, M., van de Schoot, R., Schober, B., Finsterwald, M., &
Spiel, C. (2014). Promotion of students mastery goal
orientations: Does TARGET work? Educational Psychology, 34,
451469. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2013.814189
Maehr, M. L. (1989). Thoughts about motivation. In C. Ames &
R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp.
299315). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1996). Transforming school cultures.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006).
Classroom goal structure, student motivation, and academic
achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 487503.
doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070258
Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman,
L., Freeman, K. E., . . . Urdan, T. (2000). Manual for the Patterns
of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS). Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan.
Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (2001). Academic self-handicapping and
achievement goals: A further examination. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 26, 6175. doi: 10.1006/ceps.2000.1041
Murayama, K., & Elliot, A. J. (2009). The joint influence of personal
achievement goals and classroom goal structures on achieve-
ment-relevant outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology,
101, 432447. doi: 10.1037/a0014221
Muthn, B. O., & Muthn, L. K. (19982015). Mplus (Version 7. 4).
Los Angeles, CA: Muthn & Muthn.
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of
ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance.
Psychological Review, 91, 328346. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.
91.3.328
2017 Hogrefe Publishing
 M. Lftenegger et al., Classroom Goal Structure Questionnaire
Patrick, H., Anderman, L. H., Ryan, A. M., Edelin, K. C., &
Midgley, C. (2001). Teachers communication of goal orienta-
tions in four fifth-grade classrooms. The Elementary School
Journal, 102, 3558. doi: 10.1086/499692
Paulick, I., Watermann, R., & Nckles, M. (2011). Zielorientierun-
gen und schulische Leistungen am Grundschulbergang
[Achievement goals and school achievement during the
transition from elementary to secondary school]. Unter-
richtswissenschaft, 39, 365384.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the
role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667686. doi: 10.1037/
0022-0663.95.4.667
Schober, B., Lftenegger, M., Wagner, P., Finsterwald, M., &
Spiel, C. (2013). Facilitating lifelong learning in school-age
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
learners. European Psychologist, 18, 114125. doi: 10.1027/
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
1016-9040/a000129
Schwinger, M., & Stiensmeier-Pelster, J. (2011). Performance-
approach and performance-avoidance classroom goals and the
adoption of personal achievement goals. The British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81, 680699. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-
8279.2010.02012.x
Senko, C., Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2011).
Achievement goal theory at the crossroads: Old controversies,
current challenges, and new directions. Educational Psycholo-
gist, 46, 2647. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2011.538646
Spinath, B., & Schne, C. (2003). Die Skalen zur Erfassung
subjektiver berzeugungen zu Bedingungen von Erfolg in Lern-
und Leistungskontexten (SE-SBELLKO). In J. Stiensmeier-
Pelster & F. Rheinberg (Eds.), Diagnostik von Motivation und
Selbstkonzept [Diagnosis of motivation and self-concept] (pp.
1527). Gttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Spinath, B., Stiensmeier-Pelster, J., Schne, C., & Dickhuser, O.
(2002). Die Skalen zur Erfassung von Lern- und Leistungsmo-
tivation (SELLMO) [Scales for the assessment of learning and
performance motivation (SELLMO)]. Gttingen, Germany:
Hogrefe.
Steuer, G., Rosentritt-Brunn, G., & Dresel, M. (2013). Dealing with
errors in mathematics classrooms: Structure and relevance of
2017 Hogrefe Publishing
75
perceived error climate. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
38, 196210. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.03.002
Tapola, A., & Niemivirta, M. (2008). The role of achievement
goal orientations in students perceptions of and prefer-
ences for classroom environment. The British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 78, 291312. doi: 10.1348/
000709907X205272
Urdan, T. (2004). Using multiple methods to assess students
perceptions of classroom goal structures. European
Psychologist, 9, 222231. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040.9.4.222
Urdan, T., Midgley, C., & Anderman, E. M. (1998). The role of
classroom goal structure in students use of self-handicapping
strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 35,
101122. doi: 10.3102/00028312035001101
Wolters, C. A. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory:
Using goal structure and goal orientations to predict
students motivation, cognition and achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 96, 236250. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.
96.2.2
Wormington, S. V., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2016). A new look at
multiple goal pursuit: The promise of a person-centered
approach. Educational Psychology Review. Advance online
publication. doi: 10.1007/s10648016-93582
Received November 14, 2016
Revision received November 26, 2016
Accepted November 29, 2016
Published online July 12, 2017
Marko Lftenegger
Department of Applied Psychology: Work, Education and Economy
Faculty of Psychology
University of Vienna
Universittsstr. 7
1010 Vienna
Austria
marko.lueftenegger@univie.ac.at
Zeitschrift fr Psychologie (2017), 225(1), 6475