This article was downloaded by: [University of Cambridge]

On: 16 October 2014, At: 16:16

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

International Journal of Testing

Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hijt20

Adaptation and Analysis of

Motivated Strategies for
Learning Questionnaire in the
Chinese Setting
a

John Chi-kin Lee , Hongbiao Yin & Zhonghua

Zhang

The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Published online: 19 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: John Chi-kin Lee , Hongbiao Yin & Zhonghua Zhang (2010)
Adaptation and Analysis of Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
in the Chinese Setting, International Journal of Testing, 10:2, 149-165, DOI:
10.1080/15305050903534670
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15305050903534670

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 16:16 16 October 2014

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

International Journal of Testing, 10: 149165, 2010

C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright

ISSN: 1530-5058 print / 1532-7574 online
DOI: 10.1080/15305050903534670

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 16:16 16 October 2014

Adaptation and Analysis of Motivated

Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
in the Chinese Setting
John Chi-kin Lee, Hongbiao Yin, and Zhonghua Zhang
The Chinese University of Hong Kong

This article reports the adaptation and analysis of Pintrichs Motivated Strategies
for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) in Hong Kong. First, this study examined
the psychometric qualities of the existing Chinese version of MSLQ (MSLQ-CV).
Based on this examination, this study developed a revised Chinese version of MSLQ
(MSLQ-RCV) for junior secondary students in Hong Kong. Confirmatory factor
analysis and Graded Response Model (GRM) were used to examine the internal
consistency, construct validity, differential item functioning (DIF), and differential
test functioning (DTF) of the revised instrument, which contains six factors and 50
items. Compared with the existing MSLQ-CV, the factor structure of MSLQ-RCV
was expanded to incorporate two new factors: extrinsic value and peer learning. The
reasons for these amendments and implications of the findings are discussed.
Keywords: Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire, Chinese version, confirmatory factor analysis, item response theory, Graded Response Model, differential
item functioning, differential test functioning

INTRODUCTION
In the field of motivational research, Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ), developed by Paul R. Pintrich and his colleagues, is a wellestablished and broadly used instrument for measuring students motivational
beliefs and learning strategies in self-regulated learning (Duncan & McKeachie,
This study is supported by the Partnership for Improvement of Learning and Teaching (PILT)
project sponsored by the Education Bureau, Hong Kong S. A. R. The authors would like to thank
the reviewers for their valuable comments and the Centre for University and School Partnership, The
Chinese University of Hong Kong for its help in conducting this research.
Correspondence should be sent to John Chi-kin Lee, Dept of Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of
Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Sha Tin, N.T., Hong Kong, China. E-mail: jcklee@
cuhk.edu.hk.

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 16:16 16 October 2014

150

LEE ET AL.

2005; Schunk, 2005). The MSLQ has been under development formally since
1986, and the measures were primarily used with college students (Garcia & Pintrich, 1996). After years of work on various waves of surveys, Pintrich, Smith,
Garcia, and McKeachie (1993) finalized a 15-factor, 81-item college version of
MSLQ that contained a motivation section and a learning strategy section. Duncan
and McKeachie (2005) reviewed 56 studies using the entire MSLQ questionnaire or
some subscales, as conducted by researchers other than Pintrich and his colleagues
from 2000 to 2004. Thirty-nine of these were conducted within the contexts of
college classroom or adult learning.
Although most of the studies using MSLQ targeted toward assessing college
students motivation and self-regulated learning, Pintrich and colleagues suggested
a short version of MSLQ to measure the motivational beliefs and learning strategies
of junior high school students (JHS MSLQ). This 5-factor, 44-item JHS MSLQ
also included a motivation section consisting of intrinsic value, self-efficacy and
test anxiety, and a learning strategy section comprising strategy use and selfregulation (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Pintrich, Roeser, & De Groot, 1994).
In Duncan and McKeachies (2005) review, only 17 among the 56 studies were
conducted in primary and high schools.
In Hong Kong, based on the JHS MSLQ (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Pintrich,
Roeser, & De Groot, 1994), Rao and Sachs (1999) developed a Chinese version
of MSLQ (MSLQ-CV) to measure the motivational beliefs and learning strategies
of secondary school students. The results of confirmatory factor analysis showed
that the 44-item, 4-factor MSLQ-CV had good psychometric quality. In principle,
the MSLQ-CV is the Chinese translation of the JHS MSLQ; however, two factors
of the original JHS MSLQstrategy use and self-regulationwere combined to
form one factor in the MSLQ-CV, and another new method subscale composed
of four reverse-coded items was found (Rao, Moely, & Sachs, 2000; Rao & Sachs,
1999). Recently, the MSLQ-CV was used with other instruments, such as Learning
Process Questionnaire and State Metacognition Inventory, to assess Hong Kong
students self-regulated learning (e.g., Mok, Fan, & Pang, 2007; Sachs, Law, &
Chan, 2002).
In the MSLQ-CV, there is no item to assess students extrinsic motivation and
their perceptions of the management of learning environment. However, some
studies have shown that students are motivated to learn not only because of some
internal forces but also partly due to some external goals (Biggs, 1992; Greene,
Miller, Crowson, Duke, & Akey, 2004) as well as the influence of the management of learning environment and resources on mediating students self-regulated
learning (Hanrahan, 1998; Young, 2005). Therefore, it might be helpful for the
MSLQ-CV to incorporate some new factors related to external motivation and the
management of learning environment.
The present study aims at developing a revised Chinese version of MSLQ
(MSLQ-RCV) for the junior secondary students in Hong Kong based on the

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 16:16 16 October 2014

MSLQ-RCV

151

examination of MSLQ-CV. The development of the MSLQ-RCV consisted of two

stages. First, the MSLQ-CV was administered to a sample of junior secondary
students, and its psychometric quality was analyzed. Second, the MSLQ-RCV
containing two new factors was developed and administered to another sample
of junior secondary students to examine its reliability and psychometric quality
using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and item response theory (IRT).
In addition, differential item functioning (DIF) and differential test functioning
(DTF) were employed to detect the item and test bias for different groups of
examinees. If a test is developed to function equally for different groups such as
female and male students, the item and subtests in the test should not contain
bias for each group. DIF exists when an item does not have the same relationship
to the latent trait across the different groups of examinees (Embretson & Reise,
2000). According to IRT, an item exhibits DIF if the probabilities of responding in
different categories vary across different groups given the equivalent ability levels.
For an item without DIF, the item parameter estimation should be sufficiently
equivalent across the different groups. Several methods have been developed to
detect the DIF such as Mantel-Haenszel procedure (Holland & Thayer, 1988) and
the logistic regression procedure (Rogers & Swaminathan, 1993; Swaminathan &
Rogers, 1990). The likelihood ratio tests were widely used within the framework
of IRT models, and the log likelihood difference between the constrained model
with and without DIF was always used to assess DIF (Cohen, Kim, & Wollack,
1996; Wang & Wilson, 2005). In the study, the DIF and DTF analysis based on the
differential functioning of items and tests (DFIT) (Flowers, Oshima, & Raju, 1999)
framework were conducted to detect the item and test differential functioning.
METHODS
Participants
Two samples of Hong Kong junior secondary students from grade 7 to 9 took
part in the study. First, 1,447 students, including 778 boys (53.8%) and 669 girls
(46.2%) who were aged from 12 to 17 (M = 13.88, SD = 1.16), answered the
MSLQ-CV for high school students. Then, another sample of 2,005 grade 7 to 9
junior secondary students responded to the MSLQ-RCV. Among these students,
1,037 were boys (51.7%) and 968 were girls (48.3%). They were also between the
ages of 12 and 17 (M = 14.04, SD = 1.24).
Instruments
The MSLQ-CV developed by Rao and Sachs (1999) is an instrument containing
44 items and 4 factors that is scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The wording of item
29 was refined to make it clearer. Specifically, I always try to understand what

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 16:16 16 October 2014

152

LEE ET AL.

the teacher is saying even if it doesnt make sense was changed to I always try
to understand what the teacher is saying even if it does not sound right.
Research using MSLQ-CV in Hong Kong repeatedly suggested students had
difficulties in responding to reverse-coded items that were clustered to form a separate method scale (Rao, Moely, & Sachs, 2000; Rao & Sachs, 1999). Because
of that, the reverse-coded items were discarded (Mok, Fan, & Pang, 2007; Sachs,
Law, Chan, & Rao, 2001). However, in order to ensure the completeness of the
original conceptual frameworks, all these reverse-coded items were revised into
positive statements without changing the meanings of the questions in our study,
including items 26, 27, 37, and 38.
A new instrument, the MSLQ-RCV, was employed in this study. In this new
questionnaire, all items in the original MSLQ-CV were retained. The two factors extrinsic value (four items) and peer learning (three items) as well as the
corresponding items in the college version of MSLQ were added. The wording
of item 49 from the subscale peer learning was modified to be more suitable for
junior secondary students. For instance, When studying for this course, I often set
aside time to discuss course material with a group of students from the class was
changed to When I am reviewing the lessons, I often spare time to discuss with
some classmates. In addition, four items were newly designed to assess students
use of the strategy of peer learning. They were In classroom discussion, I cooperate with other students to complete the learning tasks, I consult other students
when I have problems in review, I often work with other students to complete
the tasks in project learning, and I usually ask classmates for help when I meet
difficulties in quizzes.
The proposed MSLQ-RCV included 6 factors and 55 items, as follows: selfefficacy (9 items); intrinsic value (8 items); extrinsic value (4 items); test anxiety
(4 items); strategy use (22 items); and peer learning (7 items). All items were
scored on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (not at all true of me) to 5 (very true
of me).
Data Analysis
CFA analysis was conducted to re-validate the MSLQ-CV. Then, CFA and IRT
models were used to evaluate the construct validity of the MSLQ-RCV. In the
IRT analysis, PARSCALE (Muraki & Bock, 1997) was used to estimate the item
parameters and person abilities using Samejimas (1969) Graded Response Model
(GRM).
The DIF and DTF analysis for gender and grade groups based on GRM were
conducted to identify those items and subscales with substantial bias. The methods
based on the differential functioning of items and tests (DFIT) framework (Flowers,
Oshima, & Raju, 1999) was used to detect the gender and grade DIF and DTF by
subscales. First, the item parameters and person abilities were estimated separately

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 16:16 16 October 2014

MSLQ-RCV

153

for each group by subscales. Because the item parameters for each group were
estimated separately, these parameters were not on the same measurement scale.
DFIT framework needs a common metric for the item parameters from different
groups. Second, the Habara test characteristic curve method (Kolen & Brennan,
2004) was accomplished to place the item parameters from the reference groups
onto the scale of the focal group. In the process of parameter linking, for gender
DIF and DTF detection, the female group was taken as the focal group and the
male group was taken as the reference group. And for the grade DIF and DTF
identification, the grade 7 group was taken as the focal group; the item parameter
estimates for the grade 8 and grade 9 as reference groups were separately linked
onto the scale of the focal groups. In addition, grade 8 was also taken as a focal
group, and the item parameters for the grade 9 group were placed onto the scale
of the grade 8 group through the linking coefficients so as to identify those items
or tests with substantial differential functioning for the students from grades 8 and
9. Finally, after the item parameters of the reference group for each subscale were
placed onto the metric of the focal group, the DFIT 8 program (Raju, Oshima,
& Wolach, 2009) were used to compute the DIF and DTF statistics. Those items
or subscales having statistically significant differential NCDIF and DTF were
taken as exhibiting substantial differential functioning (Oshima, Raju, & Nanda,
2006; Raju, Fortmann-Johnson, Kim, Morris, Nering, & Oshima, 2009). This
kind of DIF detection approach involving IRT method described above used all
the items as common items to build a metric rule so that the parameters from
the reference group were equated to the scale of the focal group. However, the
constrained-baseline approach might not fit adequately and adversely affect the
DIF detection if there were a number of DIF items from the reference group (Stark,
Chernyshenko, & Drasgow, 2006). Fortunately, some simulation studies indicated
that this approach could work fairly well if the number of DIF items were not too
large relative to the number of the total items examined (Bolt, 2002; Cohen, Kim,
& Wollack, 1996).
RESULTS
Reliabilities of the Subscales of MSLQ-CV
The internal consistency estimates for the subscales of MSLQ-CV were shown
in Table 1. The four subscales showed acceptable internal consistency, and no
Cronbachs value was less than .70.
CFA and Correlations between the Subscales of MSLQ-CV
Confirmatory factor analysis using the LISREL 8 program (Joreskog & Sorbom,
1998) was adopted to examine the factor structure of MSLQ-CV.

154

LEE ET AL.

TABLE 1
Factor Loadings and Reliability Analysis of the MSLQ-CV

Items

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 16:16 16 October 2014

Self-Efficacy
Intrinsic Value
Test Anxiety
Strategy Use

Descriptive

Range of
Factor Loadings

SD

.57.69
.52.74
.50.73
.48.68

.85
.85
.71
.92

3.14
3.36
3.10
3.23

.62
.65
.81
.59

2, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 19

1, 4, 5, 7, 10, 14, 15, 17, 21
3, 12, 20, 22
23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37,
38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44

According to the original framework of the junior high school version of MSLQ
suggested by Pintrich and De Groot (1990), strategy use and self-regulation were
two separate factors. However, in the development of MSLQ-CV, Rao and Sachs
(1999) found there was an extremely high correlation between them, so they
combined them together and generated a new factor. In this research, both the
two factor structures, suggested by Pintrich and De Groot (1990) and Rao and
Sachs (1999) were examined using CFA. The overall fit of the two proposed CFA
models was excellent. The goodness of fit indices for the four-factor CFA model
that combined the factors strategy use and self-regulation into a single factor
were shown in Table 2. The inter-factor correlations were shown in Table 2. The
italic section indicated that an extremely high correlation existed between strategy
use and self-regulation (r = .97, p < .001), which was consistent with Rao and
Sachs (1999) findings. And the separate CFA analyses for different grades of
students also found the extreme high correlation between the two factors for the
students from grade 7 (r = .97, p < .001), grade 8 (r = .98, p < .001), and grade
TABLE 2
Factor Correlations among the Factors of the MSLQ-CV

1. Self-Efficacy
2. Intrinsic Value
3. Test Anxiety
4. Strategy Use & Self-Regulation
5. Strategy Use
6. Self-Regulation

.76
.06
.79
.74
.83

.15
.79
.78
.79

.15
.20
.09

NA
NA

.97

2
Note:df
=869 = 5188.73, RMSEA = .059, NNFI = .97, CFI = .97, IFI = .97, RFI = .96; NA
Not Available; p < .05, p < .01.

MSLQ-RCV

155

9 (r = .94, p < .001). This research also combined them together. The revised
correlation matrix shown in Table 2 suggested the test anxiety had non-significant
correlation with students self-efficacy (r = .06, p > .05), and had low but significant correlations with their intrinsic value and strategy use, but the correlations
among intrinsic value, self-efficacy, and strategy use were generally from moderate
to high.

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 16:16 16 October 2014

DIF and DTF Detection of MSLQ-RCV based on GRM

The DIF analysis indicated that item 8 (I expect to do very well in school,)
(NCDIF = .0509, p < .001), item 32 (I work on practice exercises and answer
end of chapter questions even when I dont have to) (NCDIF =.0467, p < .001),
item 18 (Compared with other students in the class I think I know a great deal
about the subjects I am studying) (NCDIF = .0204, p < .001), item 31 (When
studying, I copy my notes over to help me remember materials) (NCDIF =
.0473, p < .001) and item 38 (When teacher is talking, I pay attention to what
is being said rather than think of other things) (NCDIF = .0252, p < .001)
were identified having substantial DIF for female and male students. And item 31
(NCDIF = .0163, p < .05) also exhibited substantial DIF for grade 7 and grade 9
students. According to the results of some simulation studies (Bolt, 2002; Cohen,
Kim, & Wollack, 1996; Kim & Cohen, 1998), 5 DIF items relative to the total 55
items examined were not too large to adversely affect the DIF detection. Hence,
the DIF detection approach worked fairly well in the present research, and the
results could be reliable.
The results of gender and grade DTF analysis of the subscale of MSLQ-RCV
indicated that none of subscales was identified with significant and nontrivial
differential functioning. It basically means that these subscales of MSLQ-CV
function equally for male, female, and different grades of students.
Based on the results of differential functioning analysis, items 8, 18, 31, 32, and
38, which were identified with substantial DIF, were deleted from MSLQ-RCV in
the following analysis.
Factor Loadings and Item Parameter Estimates of MSLQ-RCV
CFA and GRM analyses were conducted to assess the psychometric quality of
MSLQ-RCV which was composed of the remaining 50 items after deleting the
5 DIF items. The standardized factor loadings for CFA, item discrimination, and
category boundary parameter estimates from GRM analysis are shown in Table 3.
Overall, the patterns of the standardized factor loadings were consistent with that
of the item discrimination parameters from GRM for the items of MSLQ-RCV.
Results indicated that item 29 had a low factor loading (.40), which corresponded
with a low discrimination (a = .77) from GRM.

156

LEE ET AL.

TABLE 3
Factors Loadings and Item Parameter Estimates for MSLQ-RCV

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 16:16 16 October 2014

CFA

Self-Efficacy
item 2
item 6
item 9
item 11
item 13
item 16
item 19
Intrinsic Value
item 1
item 4
item 5
item 7
item 10
item 14
item 15
item 17
item 21
Extrinsic Value
item 45
item 51
item 55
item 58
Test Anxiety
item 3
item 12
item 20
item 22
Strategy Use
item 23
item 24
item 28
item 29
item 30
item 34
item 35
item 39
item 41
item 42
item 44
item 25
item 26
item 27

GRM

Factor Loading

Discrimination

b1

.54
.57
.61
.65
.56
.65
.63

.95
.81
.91
1.09
.77
1.16
.92

2.73
2.76
2.83
2.33
3.15
2.40
3.01

.49
.69
.70
.53
.44
.66
.73
.66
.67

.79
1.08
1.15
.92
.80
1.07
1.23
1.00
1.07

.70
.70
.65
.53

b2

b3

b4

1.26
1.29
1.36
.86
1.68
.93
1.54

.49
.46
.39
.89
.07
.82
.21

2.30
2.28
2.21
2.71
1.89
2.64
2.02

3.06
3.32
2.68
2.74
1.68
2.89
3.24
2.55
3.21

1.94
2.19
1.55
1.61
.55
1.76
2.11
1.43
2.08

.41
.67
.03
.09
.97
.24
.59
.10
.56

1.46
1.21
1.85
1.79
2.84
1.63
1.28
1.97
1.32

1.14
1.23
1.13
.95

2.52
2.62
2.74
2.25

1.67
1.77
1.89
1.39

.15
.24
.37
.13

1.25
1.16
1.03
1.53

.52
.68
.75
.58

.88
1.10
1.01
1.10

1.96
1.78
2.14
1.92

.73
.55
.91
.69

.36
.54
.17
.40

1.86
2.04
1.67
1.90

.63
.62
.54
.40
.58
.56
.57
.63
.57
.53
.69
.54
.47
.42

.99
.98
.88
.77
.88
.81
.91
1.02
.79
.85
1.06
.86
.80
.75

3.09
3.24
2.93
2.76
3.32
2.88
2.82
2.62
2.80
2.38
2.95
2.52
2.56
2.80

1.80
.14
1.94
1.95
.29
1.78
1.64
.02
2.10
1.47
.19
2.27
2.03
.38
1.70
1.59
.07
2.14
1.53
.13
2.20
1.33
.33
2.40
1.52
.14
2.22
1.10
.56
2.64
1.66
.01
2.07
1.23
.43
2.51
1.27
.38
2.46
1.51
.15
2.23
(Continued on next page)

MSLQ-RCV

157

TABLE 3
Factors Loadings and Item Parameter Estimates for MSLQ-RCV (Continued)

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 16:16 16 October 2014

CFA

item 33
item 36
item 37
item 40
item 43
Peer Learning
item 47
item 48
item 50
item 53
item 54
item 57
item 59

GRM

Factor Loading

Discrimination

b1

.50
.65
.57
.61
.58

.83
1.04
.89
.92
.80

2.64
3.03
3.41
2.84
3.09

.63
.64
.70
.71
.69
.62
.59

1.10
1.05
1.27
1.22
1.19
1.16
.99

2.05
2.27
2.36
2.38
2.43
1.94
2.25

b2

b3

b4

1.36
1.75
2.13
1.55
1.80

.30
.09
.47
.11
.15

2.38
1.99
1.61
2.18
1.93

1.23
1.45
1.53
1.56
1.61
1.12
1.43

.22
.00
.09
.11
.16
.33
.02

1.94
1.72
1.64
1.61
1.56
2.05
1.74

The results also indicated that the category boundary parameters from GRM
for the items by the six subscales were adequately spread out across the scale of the
latent variables. These estimates for the items within or between the six subscales
were not very similar, which indicated that the students treated the labels of the
five response categories differently for different items.
Correlations between the Subscales of MSLQ-RCV
The correlations between the six subscales of MSLQ-RCV computed from CFA
and GRM analysis are shown in Table 4. Generally, the correlation patterns between
the six subscales of MSLQ-RCV from the two methods were very similar. A
comparison of the correlation coefficients from the two methods indicated that the
CFA produced higher coefficients than GRM. In the research, the unidimensional
GRM analyses were separately conducted to each of the six subscales of MSLQRCV. Then the Pearson correlation was computed on the students measures on
each two of the six subscales. The correlations would be underestimated because
the estimated person measures contained amounts of measurement errors. Hence,
the correlation coefficients were affected by the measurement errors.
In addition, the findings of inter-factor correlations presented several patterns
among subscales: (1) test anxiety had no significant correlation with students
self-efficacy and showed low but significant correlations with other factors; (2)
the newly added factor peer learning, both had moderate to high correlations
with other factors except for test anxiety; (3) the correlations among self-efficacy,
intrinsic value, extrinsic value, and strategy use were high. There is much in

158

LEE ET AL.

TABLE 4
Factor Correlations among the Six Factors of the MSLQ-RCV

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 16:16 16 October 2014

1
1. Self-Efficacy
CFA
GRM
2. Intrinsic Value
CFA
GRM
3. Extrinsic Value
CFA
GRM
4. Test Anxiety
CFA
GRM
5. Strategy Use
CFA
GRM
6. Peer Learning
CFA
GRM

.75
.62

.53
.39

.65
.51

.09
.08

.17
.13

.73
.61

.82
.72

.75
.60

.09
.07

.56
.45

.63
.55

.67
.53

.12
.08

.79
.69

.03
.02

Note: p < .01.

common behind what these questions from the four subscales tended to measure.
A new CFA model was checked in which these four factors were combined into
a single factor. The goodness of fit indices of the six-factor CFA model and the
three-factor CFA model are displayed in Table 5. Although both models fit the data
well, the great improvement of chi-square and the general better goodness of fit
indices indicated that the six-factor model was better than the three-factor model.
More importantly, these four factors were conceptually different in measuring
students motivation and strategies. Hence, the six-factor model was preferred
here.
TABLE 5
Goodness of Fit Indices for MSLQ-RCV Models
Model
Six-factor Model
Three-factor Model

df

RMSEA

NFI

CFI

IRF

RFI

7337.16
11666.22

1160
1172

.05
.07

.97
.95

.97
.96

.97
.96

.96
.95

Note: Six-factor Model the developed MSLQ-RCV models composed of Self-Efficacy, Intrinsic
Value, Extrinsic Value, Test Anxiety, Strategy Use, and Peer Learning; Three-factor Model the
factors Self-Efficacy, Intrinsic Value, Extrinsic Value, and Strategy Use were combined to be a single
factor.

MSLQ-RCV

159

TABLE 6
Reliability and Descriptive Analysis of the MSLQ-RCV
Total

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 16:16 16 October 2014

Subscales
Self-Efficacy
Intrinsic Value
Extrinsic Value
Task Anxiety
Strategy Use
Peer Learning

Female

Male

SD

SD

SD

.80
.84
.74
.73
.90
.84

3.21
3.51
3.58
3.11
3.38
3.39

.60
.60
.73
.82
.53
.68

3.19
3.53
3.62
3.17
3.41
3.46

.56
.53
.69
.81
.49
.63

3.23
3.50
3.54
3.05
3.36
3.34

.64
.65
.75
.82
.56
.71

.17
.76
2.58
3.33
1.90
4.06

Note: p < .05; p < .01.

Reliabilities and Descriptive Analysis of the Subscales of

MSLQ-RCV
The internal consistency estimates by the subscales of MSLQ-RCV are shown in
Table 6. Except for the subscale extrinsic value (.74) and test anxiety (.73), the
other four subscales showed good internal consistency, and all Cronbach values
were above .80. A few items for the subscales extrinsic value and test anxiety might
partly account for the low reliability. Using this newly developed instrument, the
gender differences on the six factors were examined (see Table 6).
DISCUSSION
The main purpose of this study is to develop a revised Chinese version of MSLQ
using different methods to investigate the psychometric properties of MSLQ-RCV.
First, the MSLQ-CV suggested by Rao and Sachs (1999) was administrated to
junior secondary students in Hong Kong. Just like Rao and Sachs (1999) research,
this study found cognitive strategy use and self-regulation should be combined into
one factor for Hong Kong students as the correlation between them is extremely
high, which supported Rao and Sachs (1999) assumption that memorization and
understanding are more closely related for learners in Confucian-heritage cultures
than for their Western counterparts.
Based on these findings, the MSLQ-RCV was revised and examined. The results
of this study showed the revised questionnaire had good psychometric qualities
with high reliability; the items with substantial differential item functioning were
also detected and removed, all of which indicated that the MSLQ-RCV is a valid
instrument for assessing junior secondary students self-regulated learning in
Hong Kong. In short, the finalized MSLQ-RCV contained 6 factors and 50 items
(see Appendix): self-efficacy (8 items); intrinsic value (8 items); extrinsic value

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 16:16 16 October 2014

160

LEE ET AL.

(4 items); test anxiety (4 items); strategy use (20 items); and peer learning (7 items).
The comparison of gender differences indicated that there were no statistically
significant differences on self-efficacy, intrinsic value, and strategy use for male
and female students. However, male students tend to experience more test anxieties
than female students. In addition, female students had lower scores than male
students on extrinsic values and peer learning.
Regarding construct and predictive validity, the MSLQ-CV in a study by Sachs,
Law, Chan, and Rao (2001) revealed that four scales significantly predicted Hong
Kong students Chinese Language scores in the standardized Hong Kong Achievement Test, although the variance accounted for was only 4.2%. Nonetheless, no
correlation between the MSLQ-RCV and other scales or external variables had
been conducted, and so the internal psychometric properties, especially construct
and predictive validity of the MSLQ-RCV, remain an interesting research question.
It is notable that in the MSLQ-RCV, the factor structure was expanded to
incorporate two new factors, i.e., the extrinsic value in the motivation section and
the peer learning in the learning strategy section, which made the new instrument
more enriched than the pervious one. The reasons for adding the two factors into
the factor structure were not only because the results of data analyses showed
they were clear and independent constructs but also due to their relevance to the
motivation theory, especially in the context of Hong Kong schools.
First, many motivation researchers pointed out that students might be motivated to learn because of some deep and internal forces (e.g., interests in learning
or characteristics of the task) as well as due to some instrumental and external
goals (e.g., getting praises from teachers or gaining high marks in examinations)
(Biggs, 1992; Elliot & Church, 1997; Greene, Miller, Crowson, Duke, & Akey,
2004). In this study, it was found that extrinsic and intrinsic motivations were
highly correlated, which could be explained by the influence of the Chinese context where education could be viewed from both internal (intrinsic) and external
(extrinsic) perspectives, as they are important for both personal development and
social mobility (Lee, 1996). In Hong Kong, extrinsic value of learning was especially relevant because many students still regard learning as a means of securing
good career prospects, which is reinforced by Hong Kongs societal culture and
schooling system that places much emphasis on high scores in various competitive
examinations. Students in Hong Kong tend to increasingly use surface learning
approaches instead of some deep strategies like metacognitive skills as they proceed from one grade level to the next (Mok, Fan, & Pang, 2007). In a recent
study, perceived instrumentalityan individuals understanding of the future instrumental value of a present behavior (Husman & Lens, 1999)was found as the
most important reason for Hong Kong students learning (Lau & Lee, 2008). It is,
however, notable that high motivation subscale correlations could be undesirable
from the diagnostic perspective because feedback to students may become redundant. A safe approach perhaps is a combination of strategies for enhancing both

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 16:16 16 October 2014

MSLQ-RCV

161

extrinsic and intrinsic motivations such as giving praise and reward to students
and inculcating them with the meaning and joy of learning.
Second, as Pintrich (2004) pointed out, a complete conceptual framework for
assessing students motivation and learning strategies consisted of four parts,
including the regulation of cognition, motivation/affect, behavior, and context.
As to the fourth part, peer learning was a fundamental element, which reflected
how effective an individual student leveraged on peers as a resource for learning.
Moreover, in recent educational reforms in Hong Kong, students are expected to
engage actively in thinking, questioning, communicating, and cooperating with
each other (Education Commission, 2000). Among the nine generic skills advocated by Hong Kongs curriculum reform, both the skills of communication
and collaboration focused on facilitating students to learn from others, including
their peers (Curriculum Development Council, 2001). After years of educational
reforms, it can be inferred that the importance of peer learning is emphasized in
the current classroom practice in Hong Kong, which can be different from the
context with which Rao and Sachs (1999) conducted their research about ten years
ago. Hence, it is necessary to consider the roles played by extrinsic value and
peer learning if we want to better understand Hong Kong students motivation
and self-regulated learning. In addition, more research is needed with respect to
disentangling various motivational forces, their antecedents, and consequences.
REFERENCES
Biggs, J. B. (1992). Why and how do Hong Kong students learn? Using the learning and study process
questionnaire (Education Papers 14). Hong Kong: Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong.
Bolt, D. M. (2002). A Monte Carlo comparison of parametric and nonparametric polytomous DIF
detection methods. Applied Measurement in Education, 15, 113141.
Cohen, A. S., Kim, S.-H., & Wollack, J. A. (1996). An investigation of the likelihood ratio test for
detection of differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 1526.
Curriculum Development Council. (2001). Learning to learn: The way forward in curriculum development. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Printer.
Duncan, T. G., & McKeachie, W. J. (2005). The making of the motivated strategies for learning
questionnaire. Educational Psychologist, 40, 117128.
Education Commission. (2000). Reform proposal for the education system in Hong Kong. Hong Kong:
Hong Kong Government Printer.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement
motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218232.
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologist. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Flowers, C. P., Oshima, T. C., & Raju, N. S. (1999). A description and demonstration of the polytomousDFIT framework. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 309326.
Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). Assessing students motivation and learning strategies in the
classroom context: The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. In M. Birenbaum & F.
J. R. C. Dochy (Eds.), Alternatives in assessment of achievements, learning processes and prior
knowledge (pp. 319339). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 16:16 16 October 2014

162

LEE ET AL.

Greene, B. A., Miller, R. B., Crowson, H. M., Duke, B. L., & Akey, K. L. (2004). Predicting high
school students cognitive engagement and achievement: Contributions of classroom perceptions of
motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 462482.
Hanrahan, M. (1998). The effect of learning environment factors on students motivation and learning.
International Journal of Science Education, 20, 737753.
Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel
procedure. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 129145). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Husman, J., & Lens, W. (1999). The role of the future in student motivation. Educational Psychologist,
34, 113125.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1998). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS
command language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
Kim, S.-H., & Cohen, A. S. (1998). Detection of differential item functioning under the graded response
model with the likelihood ratio test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 34555.
Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2004). Test equating, linking, and scaling: Methods and practices (2nd
ed.). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Lau, K. L., & Lee, J. C. K. (2008). Examining Hong Kong students achievement goals and their
relations with students perceived classroom environment and strategy use. Educational Psychology,
28, 357372.
Lee, W. O. (1996). The context for Chinese learners: Conceptions of learning in the Confucian tradition.
In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learners: Cultural, psychological and contextual
influences (pp. 2541). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre and the Australian
Council for Educational Research.
Mok, Y. F., Fan, R. M.-T., & Pang, N. S.-K. (2007). Developmental patterns of school students
motivational- and cognitive- metacognitive competencies. Educational Studies, 33, 8198.
Muraki, E., & Bock, R. D. (1997). PARSCALE: IRT based test scoring and item analysis for graded,
open-ended exercises and performance tasks [Computer software]. Chicago: Scientific Software
International.
Oshima, T. C., Raju, N. S., & Nanda, A. O. (2006). A new method for assessing the statistical significance in the differential functioning of items and tests (DFIT) framework. Journal of Educational
Measurement, 43, 117.
Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in
college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 385407.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of
classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 3340.
Pintrich, P. R., Roeser, R. W., & De Groot, E. A. M. (1994). Classroom and individual differences
in early adolescents motivation and self-regulated learning. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14,
139161.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity
of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 53, 801813.
Raju, N. S., Fortmann-Johnson, K. A., Kim, W., Morris, S. B., Nering, M. L., & Oshima, T. C.
(2009).The item parameter replication method for detecting differential functioning in the polytomous DFIT framework. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33, 133147.
Raju, N. S., Oshima, T. C., & Wolach, A. H. (2009). DFIT8: Differential functioning for items and
tests [Computer software]. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Rao, N., Moely, B. E., & Sachs, J. (2000). Motivational beliefs, study strategies, and mathematics attainment in high- and low-achieving Chinese secondary school students. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 25, 287316.
Rao, N., & Sachs, J. (1999). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Chinese version of the motivated
strategies for learning questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 10161029.

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 16:16 16 October 2014

MSLQ-RCV

163

Rogers, H. J., & Swaminathan, H. (1993). A comparison of the logistic regression and Mantel-Haenszel
procedures for detecting differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17,
105116.
Sachs, J., Law, Y. K., & Chan, C. K. K. (2002). An analysis of the relationship between the motivated
strategies for learning questionnaire and the learning process questionnaire. Psychologia, 45, 193
203.
Sachs, J., Law, Y. K., Chan, C. K. K., & Rao, N. (2001). A nonparametric item analysis of the motivated
strategies for learning questionnaire Chinese version. Psychologia, 44, 197208.
Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response of graded scores. Pscychometrika
Monograph Supplement, 34, 100.
Schunk, D. H. (2005). Self-regulated learning: The educational legacy of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational
Psychologist, 40, 8594.
Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O., & Drasgow, F. (2006). Detecting differential item functioning with
confirmatory factor analysis and Item Response Theory: Toward a unified strategy. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91, 12921306.
Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 361370.
Wang, W. C., & Wilson, M. R. (2005). Assessment of differential item functioning in testlet-based
items using the Rasch testlet model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 549576.
Young, M. R. (2005). The motivational effects of the classroom environment in facilitating selfregulated learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 27, 2540.

APPENDIX
Items and subscales of the revised Chinese version of motivated strategies for
learning questionnaire (MSLQ-RCV).
Self-efficacy (7 items)
2. Compared to other students in this class I expected to do well.
6. I am certain that I can understand the ideas taught in my classes.
9. Compared with others in this class, I think I am a good student.
11. I am sure I can do an excellent job on the class assignments and homework.
13. I think I will receive good grades in my exams.
16. My study skills are excellent compared with others in this class.
19. I know that I will be able to learn the materials for the tests and exams.
Intrinsic value (9 items)
1. I prefer class work that is challenging so I can learn new things.
4. It is important for me to learn what is being taught in school.
5. I like what I am learning in school.
7. I think I will be able to use what I learn in one subject in another.
10. I often do more than is required of me for homework assignments.
14. Even when I do poorly on a test or exam I try to learn from my mistakes.
15. I think that what I am learning in school is useful for me to know.

164

LEE ET AL.

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 16:16 16 October 2014

17. I think that what we are learning in school is interesting.

21. Understanding the subject is important to me.
Extrinsic value (4 items)
45. Getting a good grade in this class is the most satisfying thing for me right now.
47. The most important thing for me right now is improving my average score in
exams, so my main concern in this class is getting a good grade.
51. If I can, I want to get better grades in this class than most of the other students.
53. I want to do well in this class because it is important to show my ability to my
family, friends, or other.
Test anxiety (4 items)
3. I have an uneasy, upset feeling when I take a test or exam.
12. I worry a great deal about tests and exams.
20. When I take a test I think about how poorly I am doing.
22. When I take tests, I think of the consequences of failing.
Strategy use (19 items)
23. When I study for a test, I try to put together the information from class and
from the text book.
24. When I do homework, I try to remember what the teacher said in class so I can
answer the question correctly.
25. I ask myself questions to make sure I know the material I have been studying.
26. It is not difficult for my to decide what the main ideas are when I study.
27. Although work is hard, I neither give up nor study the easy part.
28. When I study I put important ideas into my own words.
29. I always try to understand what the teacher is saying even if it doesnt make
sense.
30. When I study for a test I try to remember as many facts as I can.
33. Even when study materials are dull and uninteresting, I keep working until I
finish.
34. When I study for a test I practice saying the important facts over and over to
myself.
35. Before I begin studying I think about the things I will need to do to learn.
36. I use what I have learned from old homework assignments and the textbook to
do new assignments.
37. The materials I use for studying are not difficult to understand for me.
39. When I am studying a topic, I try to make everything fit together.
40. When I am studying I stop once in a while and go over what I have read.
41. When I read materials for my classes, I say the words over and over to myself
to help me remember.
42. I outline the chapters in my book to help me study.
43. I work hard to get a good grade even when I do not like a class.

MSLQ-RCV

165

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 16:16 16 October 2014

44. When I am studying I try to connect the things I am reading about with what
I already know.
Peer learning (7 items)
46. When I am reviewing the lessons, I often try to explain the material to a
classmate or friend.
48. I try to work with other students from this class to complete the assignments.
49. When I am reviewing the lessons, I often spare time to discuss with some
classmates.
50. In classroom discussion, I cooperate with other students to complete the
learning tasks.
52. I consult other students when I have problems in review.
54. I often work with other students to complete the tasks in project learning.
55. I usually ask classmates for help when I meet difficulties in quiz.