A multidimensional motivation instrument

Individual empirical studies of motivation show little divergent validity of various factors and call for better measures, especially multidimensional instruments. The same conclusions were reached from a meta analysis of 40 motivation studies by Uguroglu and Walberg (1979). After a study of approximately 50 instruments that measured motivation constructs of social, emotional, and physical self-concept; locus of control; and achievement motivation, among others, a 23-anchored-item questionnaire using a five-point scale was developed that included these factors. The instrument was administered in May of the first and second year to 115 students in grades three through eight. The purpose of the research was to operationalize and field test a motivation instrument using multidimensional measures; also to consider whether any change would occur in the correlation of a multidimensional instrument to various achievement measures over unidimensional ones. Results of the study show the correlations of motivation to academic achievement, test-retest reliability, and the predictive validity of a multidimensional instrument.     

A comparison of role concepts between public and parochial school teachers

This study seeks to determine if the same five bipolar factors that appear for the ideal role concepts of public school teachers also appear for parochial school teachers. Subjects included 185 teachers from a Catholic diocese. The data were factor analyzed by means of a principal axis analysis with varimax rotation. An analysis of variance was used to compare the factor analyses. The results indicated that parochial and public school teachers have similar factor structures. When comparing factor scores of the two groups, there were significant differences on several factors, indicating that parochial school teachers adopt a more facilitating role than do public school teachers.     

Interjudge agreement in classifying students as learning disabled

Eighteen judges with backgrounds in assessment, decision making, and learning disabilities were asked to use an array of information to differentiate learning disabled and nonlearning disabled students. Each judge was provided with forms containing information on 42 test or subtest scores of 50 school-identified LD students and 49 non-LD students. Judges were extremely inaccurate in their classifications and in little agreement with each other. Also, it appeared that different judges emphasized different factors when making their decisions. The results suggest that, given current definitions of the condition called “learning disabilities,” there is considerable doubt that school personnel can accurately and reliably identify such students.