Resolving Dimensionality Issues of the Utretch Work Engagement Scale for Students Using an Integrative Data-Analytic Framework

IF 1.5 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL
Sergio Dominguez-Lara, Mario A. Trógolo, Rodrigo Moreta-Herrera, Diego Vaca-Quintana, Manuel Fernández-Arata, Ana Paredes-Proaño
{"title":"Resolving Dimensionality Issues of the Utretch Work Engagement Scale for Students Using an Integrative Data-Analytic Framework","authors":"Sergio Dominguez-Lara, Mario A. Trógolo, Rodrigo Moreta-Herrera, Diego Vaca-Quintana, Manuel Fernández-Arata, Ana Paredes-Proaño","doi":"10.1177/07342829241283982","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Academic engagement plays a crucial role in students’ learning and performance. One of the most popular measures for assessing this construct is the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale for Students (UWES-S), which is based on a tridimensional conceptualization consisting of dedication, vigor, and absorption. However, prior research on its factor structure has yielded inconsistent results, and the substantial correlations between dimensions raise doubts about their empirical distinctiveness. Thus, questions remain whether academic engagement is experienced as a global construct, or as its three components. The present study addressed this issue by examining the dimensionality of both UWES-S17 and UWES-S9 using a comprehensive factor-analytic framework. One- to four-factor CFA and ESEM models, along with corresponding bifactor-CFA and bifactor-ESEM models, were tested using data from 453 Ecuadorian university students. The results indicated that ESEM yielded superior fit indices and less correlated factors compared to CFA. However, discriminant validity test did not support the distinctiveness of UWES-S factors, and bifactor analyses consistently demonstrated a strong general factor and weak or collapsed specific factors. These findings were remarkably consistent across both UWES-S versions. Collectively, the results suggest that academic engagement, as currently operationalized by the UWES-S, can be considered as a unidimensional rather than a multidimensional construct. Implications for conceptualization, measurement, and research on academic engagement are discussed.","PeriodicalId":51446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/07342829241283982","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Academic engagement plays a crucial role in students’ learning and performance. One of the most popular measures for assessing this construct is the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale for Students (UWES-S), which is based on a tridimensional conceptualization consisting of dedication, vigor, and absorption. However, prior research on its factor structure has yielded inconsistent results, and the substantial correlations between dimensions raise doubts about their empirical distinctiveness. Thus, questions remain whether academic engagement is experienced as a global construct, or as its three components. The present study addressed this issue by examining the dimensionality of both UWES-S17 and UWES-S9 using a comprehensive factor-analytic framework. One- to four-factor CFA and ESEM models, along with corresponding bifactor-CFA and bifactor-ESEM models, were tested using data from 453 Ecuadorian university students. The results indicated that ESEM yielded superior fit indices and less correlated factors compared to CFA. However, discriminant validity test did not support the distinctiveness of UWES-S factors, and bifactor analyses consistently demonstrated a strong general factor and weak or collapsed specific factors. These findings were remarkably consistent across both UWES-S versions. Collectively, the results suggest that academic engagement, as currently operationalized by the UWES-S, can be considered as a unidimensional rather than a multidimensional construct. Implications for conceptualization, measurement, and research on academic engagement are discussed.
利用综合数据分析框架解决学生工作投入度量表的维度问题
学业投入对学生的学习和成绩起着至关重要的作用。乌特勒支学生学业投入量表(UWES-S)是评估学生学业投入的最常用的量表之一。然而,之前对其因子结构的研究结果并不一致,而且各维度之间存在很大的相关性,这让人对它们的实证独特性产生了怀疑。因此,学术参与是作为一个整体建构,还是作为其三个组成部分来体验的问题依然存在。本研究针对这一问题,采用综合因子分析框架对 UWES-S17 和 UWES-S9 进行了维度分析。使用来自 453 名厄瓜多尔大学生的数据,对单因子-CFA 和四因子 ESEM 模型,以及相应的双因子-CFA 和双因子-ESEM 模型进行了测试。结果表明,与 CFA 相比,ESEM 的拟合指数更高,相关因子更少。然而,判别效度测试并不支持 UWES-S 各因子的独特性,双因子分析始终显示出一个强的一般因子和弱的或坍塌的特定因子。这些结果在两个版本的 UWES-S 中都非常一致。总之,这些结果表明,目前由 UWES-S 操作的学术参与可被视为一种单维度而非多维度的建构。本文讨论了学术参与的概念化、测量和研究的意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.90%
发文量
61
期刊介绍: The Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment (JPA) publishes contemporary and important information focusing on psychological and educational assessment research and evidence-based practices as well as assessment instrumentation. JPA is well known internationally for the quality of published assessment-related research, theory and practice papers, and book and test reviews. The methodologically sound and impiricially-based studies and critical test and book reviews will be of particular interest to all assessment specialists including practicing psychologists, psychoeducational consultants, educational diagnosticians and special educators.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信