Professional Documents
Culture Documents
T
he ability to comprehend texts represents an indispensable pre-
requisite of academic success (e.g., Chapman, Tunmer, &
Prochnow, 2000). In particular, learning at school relies to a
large extent on written materials. For that reason, it becomes impor-
tant to study those factors that facilitate the development of reading
competence. In addition to cognitive factors, such as working mem-
ory capacity, reasoning ability, or prior knowledge (e.g., Alloway &
Gregory, 2013; Kendeou & van den Broek, 2007; Kintsch, 1998; Tighe
& Schatschneider, 2014), aspects of reading motivation have been
shown to be significantly associated with various indicators of read-
ing comprehension (e.g., Guthrie & Wigfield, 1999; Park, 2011; Unrau
& Schlackman, 2006). Despite this positive evidence, previous assess-
ments of reading motivation suffer from several shortcomings.
First, there is only partial agreement on the number and nature of
the primary factors of reading motivation. For example, the influen-
tial Motivations for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ; Wigfield &
Guthrie, 1997) consists of 11 dimensions, whereas other approaches
Reading Research Quarterly, 0(0)
pp. 117 | doi:10.1002/rrq.134
involve fewer dimensions of reading motivation (e.g., Greaney &
2016 International Literacy Association. Neuman, 1990; Sainsbury & Schagen, 2004; Schutte & Malouff, 2007;
1
Watkins & Coffey, 2004) or proposed one-dimensional et al., 1996; Nolen, 2007; Watkins & Coffey, 2004;
measures (e.g., McKenna, Kear, & Ellsworth, 1995). Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). These dimensions corre-
Second, researchers using multidimensional question- spond to different incentives of reading that may be
naires have created varying composite scores to capture subsumed under two higher order categories: intrinsic
intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation without pro- and extrinsic reading motivation (Schiefele etal., 2012;
viding empirical evidence for secondary factors (e.g., Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). Intrinsic reading motivation
Andreassen & Brten, 2010; Guthrie, Wigfield, Metsala, refers to the willingness to read because reading is satis-
& Cox, 1999; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). Third, fying or rewarding in its own right. According to a dis-
although measures of reading motivation have been tinction suggested by Schiefele (1999, 2009), there are
widely applied to female and male students, tests of two forms of intrinsic motivation to read. In the case of
measurement invariance across gender have not been object-oriented intrinsic motivation (labeled curiosity
conducted. This also applies to student groups with in the MRQ and RMQ), reading is motivated by the-
varying ages or developmental statuses, different levels matic interests. In the case of experience-oriented in-
of reading competence, and different socioeconomic trinsic motivation (labeled involvement in the MRQ
and ethnic affiliations. Fourth, qualitative studies on and RMQ), reading is motivated by positive experi-
reading motivation (e.g., Guthrie, Van Meter, McCann, ences, such as becoming absorbed by a story. In con-
& Wigfield, 1996; Nolen, 2007; Schiefele & Schaffner, trast, extrinsic reading motivation refers to reasons that
2013) have suggested dimensions of reading motivation are external to the activity of reading and the text con-
that have not been included in previous questionnaires. tent. The extrinsically motivated reader strives to attain
Among those dimensions, the motivations to use read- particular outcomes of reading, such as improving ones
ing as a means of coping with negative emotions and performance in school or being praised by ones parents
overcoming boredom appear to be of particular (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997).
importance. A further distinction refers to academic (or school-
For the purpose of overcoming the deficits of previ- related) and recreational reading motivation (De
ous research, we intended to develop a new multidi- Naeghel & Van Keer, 2013; De Naeghel, Van Keer,
mensional questionnaire of reading motivation in a Vansteenkiste, & Rosseel, 2012). Academic reading is
sample of sixth-grade students, analyze its structure of defined as reading at school and for homework, whereas
primary and secondary factors, provide tests of mea- recreational reading involves reading in ones leisure
surement invariance across gender and groups with low time. The RMQ is directed at recreational reading
versus high reading competence, and examine its rela- motivation for two reasons: First, it has been repeatedly
tions with various validation variables (e.g., reading found that out-of-school reading amount contributes
fluency). more strongly to the development of reading compe-
tence than school-related reading amount (cf. Schiefele
etal., 2012). Thus, the motivation to read in ones free
Dimensions of time appears to be more important for reading
comprehension than academic reading motivation.
ReadingMotivation This assumption was confirmed by De Naeghel et al.
Motivation to read can be conceptualized at the level of (2012), who reported significant effects on reading
current or habitual reading motivation (cf. Pekrun, comprehension only for recreational reading motiva-
1993; Schiefele, Schaffner, Mller, & Wigfield, 2012). tion, not academic. A second reason for focusing on
Current motivation to read refers to the strength of a recreational reading motivation refers to the overlap be-
persons intention to read a specific text in a given situ- tween motivation to learn and motivation to read at
ation. For example, someone very eager to read a par- school and for homework. School-related reading may
ticular book at home shows strong current reading often coincide with school-related learning, and thus,
motivation. In contrast, an individual who is repeatedly measures of academic reading motivation probably re-
motivated to read can be ascribed a certain amount of flect the more general motivations of students to learn
habitual reading motivation. Thus, habitual reading or to achieve in school (e.g., achievement goal orienta-
motivation denotes the relatively stable readiness of a tions; e.g., Elliot, 2005). Consequently, academic reading
person to initiate reading activities (Schiefele et al., motivation might be confounded with more general
2012). Reading motivation inventories, such as Wigfield motivational orientations pertaining to students
and Guthries (1997) MRQ and the present Reading school-related learning.
Motivation Questionnaire (RMQ), usually assess A wide variety of dimensions of reading motivation
habitual forms of motivation. have been suggested (cf. Schiefele etal., 2012). The most
Quantitative and qualitative studies suggest multi- comprehensive approach is represented by Wigfield and
ple dimensions of reading motivation (e.g., Guthrie Guthries (1997) MRQ with 11 dimensions: curiosity,
Factorial and Construct Validity of aNew Instrument for the Assessment of Reading Motivation | 3
establish measurement invariance across gender to be
The Current Study able to compare mean values or correlative associations
The main goal of the present study was to develop and between female and male students. In addition, there is
evaluate a multidimensional reading motivation ques- also a need to demonstrate measurement invariance
tionnaire that should be applicable to a wide range of across groups with varying reading competence be-
students starting at the upper elementary level (grade cause poor and good readers differ in their reading mo-
4). In our view, most students at that level should have tivations and the strengths of their relations among
developed basic reading and comprehension skills reading motivation, reading behavior, and reading
(Foorman & Connor, 2011) and the cognitive ability to comprehension (Lau & Chan, 2003; Logan, Medford, &
answer specific questions regarding their own motiva- Hughes, 2011).
tion (Kuhn & Franklin, 2006). In the present study, we For the purpose of providing empirical support for
chose a sample of sixth-grade students to examine the the validity of the RMQ scales, we included measures of
questionnaire. reading amount, reading fluency, and reading compre-
The selection of seven dimensions of the RMQ was hension. Positive relations with the validation variables
based on theoretical considerations and previous quali- were expected for the intrinsic dimensions (curiosity
tative and quantitative studies (see the preceding sec- and involvement) but not for the extrinsic dimensions
tion). The dimensions of curiosity, involvement, grades, (grades, competition, and recognition). In line with
competition, and social recognition correspond con- previous findings (e.g., Schaffner et al., 2013), we
ceptually to scales of the MRQ (Wigfield & Guthrie, hypothesized nonsignificant or negative relations be-
1997; see also Schaffner & Schiefele, 2007; Schaffner, tween the extrinsic dimensions and the validation
Schiefele, & Ulferts, 2013). As sources of items for these
variables. According to Schaffner et al., reading is
dimensions, we referred not only to the MRQ but also largely a leisure time activity and as such is more
to other instruments and results from qualitative stud- strongly controlled by intrinsic incentives. Extrinsically
ies (Becker et al., 2010; Greaney & Neuman, 1990; motivated readers may tend to read only when they
Guthrie et al., 1996; Mller & Bonerad, 2007; Nolen, have to (e.g., to better achieve in school, to please their
2007; Schiefele & Schaffner, 2013; Wigfield & Guthrie, parents), and thus, the amount of leisure time reading
1997). In addition to curiosity, involvement, grades, and the development of reading skills will not be en-
competition, and recognition, we included two new di- hanced or even reduced (Becker etal., 2010). Moreover,
mensions that have not been considered before as scales it is likely that extrinsically motivated readers are more
of reading motivation instruments and were derived strongly concerned with future outcomes of their read-
from qualitative studies (Greaney & Neuman, 1990; ing activities than with understanding a given text
Guthrie etal., 1996; Nolen, 2007; Schiefele & Schaffner, (Brophy, 2005; Hulleman, Durik, Schweigert, &
2013). The findings of these studies suggest that emo- Harackiewicz, 2008). Thus, extrinsic reading motiva-
tional regulation (reading to cope with negative emo- tion may interfere with the processes necessary for in-
tions) and relief from boredom (reading to overcome depth text comprehension, such as inference making
boredom and to fill in time because more preferred and identifying main ideas (Pintrich & Schrauben,
activities are not available) represent possibly relevant 1992; Wang & Guthrie, 2004).
dimensions of reading motivation. In our own research The status and role of emotional regulation and re-
(Schiefele & Schaffner, 2013), these dimensions were lief from boredom were more difficult to determine.
rather frequently mentioned by students when asking Because of their ambiguous nature, we did not catego-
them for their motivation to read in their free time. rize these dimensions as either intrinsic or extrinsic.
The analysis of the RMQ focused on three issues: Although they possess an instrumental aspect (e.g.,
the structure of primary and secondary factors, mea- reading as a means to overcome negative emotions),
surement invariance across gender and competence they seem also closely associated with the positive expe-
groups, and construct validity. In particular, the first rience involved in reading. Specifically, both dimen-
two issues have been neglected by previous research. sions presuppose that reading is intrinsically rewarding
Specifically, researchers applying the MRQ have used and, thus, facilitates positive emotional states or averts
varying composites for intrinsic and extrinsic reading boredom. Because of their assumed close relation with
motivation (for an overview, see Schiefele et al., 2012) intrinsic reading motivation, we anticipated positive
without providing evidence for second-order factors contributions of emotional regulation and relief from
that would justify the combination of particular dimen- boredom to the validation variables.
sions. Moreover, in light of the repeatedly found gender As additional support for the construct validity of
differences in reading motivation (Chiu & McBride- the RMQ, we analyzed gender differences in reading
Chang, 2006; Logan & Johnston, 2009, 2010; Mullis, motivation. Based on previous research, it was ex-
Martin, Kennedy, & Foy, 2007), it seems important to pected that girls tend to exhibit higher intrinsic
Factorial and Construct Validity of aNew Instrument for the Assessment of Reading Motivation | 5
TABLE1
Reading Motivation Questionnaire: Items and Factor Loadings Resulting From Confirmatory Factor Analyses
Factor loadings
Sample 1 Sample 2
Item (I read)
a
Version 1 Version 2 Version 2 Version 3
Curiosity (factor 1)
1. because I like to think about particular topics. 0.63 0.62 0.65 0.67
2. because texts or books on particular topics are exciting. 0.80 0.80 0.81
3. because I can deal with personally important topics. 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.76
4. because I can learn more about things of interest to me. 0.79 0.79 0.77 0.78
5. because I like to be involved with particular topics 0.81 0.81 0.80 0.81
Involvement (factor 2)
7. because I like to identify with the main character of a good story. 0.84 0.86 0.85 0.85
9. because I can experience real adventures in my mind. 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.84
10. because it allows me to imagine everything so well. 0.86 0.88 0.88 0.89
Grades (factor 3)
11. in order to get better grades in school. 0.79 0.79 0.82 0.83
12. because it helps me perform well in school. 0.82 0.82 0.86 0.86
13. because it is important for my achievement in some subjects. 0.82 0.81 0.84 0.84
14. because it helps me get better in school. 0.79 0.79 0.77 0.78
Competition (factor 4)
15. because it helps me perform better in school than my classmates. 0.77 0.78 0.75 0.75
16. because it is important to me to understand texts better than other 0.85 0.85 0.79 0.79
students.
17. because it is important to me to be among the best students. 0.76 0.76 0.77 0.77
18. because it is important to me to know more than other students. 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
19. because other people say it is important. 0.67 0.70 0.72 0.72
20. because I know that my friends also read a lot. 0.64 0.65 0.63 0.63
21. because one gets praise for frequent reading. 0.78 0.80 0.71 0.71
22. because I like it when other people think that I am a diligent reader. 0.77
23. because my parents think that it is important that I read a lot. 0.56 0.59 0.69 0.69
24. because I want my parents to be proud of me. 0.69 0.71 0.78 0.78
27. in order to cheer me up when I am in a bad mood. 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.89
28. in order to distract myself after a quarrel. 0.85 0.84 0.84 0.84
29. when I am furious and need to calm down. 0.88 0.88 0.83 0.83
(continued)
34. because it helps me pass the time. 0.84 0.86 0.84 0.84
Note. Version 1 = initial version, 34 items. Version 2 = adaptation of version 1, 30 items. Version 3 = adaptation of Version 2, 29 items.
a
These are translations of the German-language items. They aim to convey the content rather than serve as items for direct use in English.
4=often; 5=very often). Reading length was captured alternatives. After four minutes, the participants mark
by asking the respondents how long they usually read the point they were able to reach in the text.
every day (1 = not at all; 2 = less than 30 minutes; Reading fluency is captured by the number of
3=3060 minutes; 4=between 1 and 2 hours; 5=more words read, whereas reading comprehension is indi-
than 2 hours) and how long they usually read a book cated by the number of correctly selected words. The
without taking a break (1=5 minutes; 2=15 minutes; scoring of the word selection task is as follows: 2 points
3=30 minutes; 4=60 minutes; 5=more than 60 min- for each correctly selected word, 0 points for not
utes). The reading amount scale was highly consistent choosing a word, and 1 point for selecting the wrong
(Cronbachs =.86). word (as a means of correction for guessing). Schneider
In contrast to the Reading Activities Inventory et al. (2007) reported high testretest reliabilities for
(Guthrie, McGough, & Wigfield, 1994), our scale both tests (reading fluency: .84; reading comprehen-
involved not only the frequency but also the length of sion: .87).
reading. However, it did not differentiate between dif- It should be noted that the two indicators of
ferent themes. In addition, the present scale referred Schneider etal.s (2007) test may be alternatively inter-
only to leisure time reading (reading for enjoyment) be- preted as different aspects of decoding skills (or reading
cause this aspect of reading amount has been shown to fluency). Accordingly, the number of words read refers
be more strongly associated with reading motivation to the speed of decoding, whereas the number of cor-
and reading comprehension than school-related read- rectly selected words indicates the accuracy of decoding
ing (Cox & Guthrie, 2001; Wang & Guthrie, 2004). (cf. Rasinski, Reutzel, Chard, & Linan-Thompson, 2011;
Significant associations with aspects of the home liter- Roberts, Christo, & Shefelbine, 2011).
acy environment (e.g., number of books at home) and Individual scores for reading fluency and reading
intrinsic (but not extrinsic) reading motivation comprehension were determined by transforming the
(Schaffner etal., 2013) support the validity of the pres- obtained raw scores (number of words read and number
ent reading amount scale. of correctly selected words) into standardized values
(i.e., T-values; M=50, SD =10). In addition, individual
Reading Fluency and Comprehension T-values were linearly transformed by dividing the
scores by 10 to reduce their absolute size. Large differ-
These variables were assessed by means of a test devel-
ences between the sizes of values of different variables
oped by Schneider, Schlagmller, and Ennemoser
are likely to cause computational problems when apply-
(2007). This test is based on the maze technique that is
ing the statistical software Mplus that we used to con-
commonly used to measure reading fluency (Tich,
duct the present analyses.
Espin, & Wayman, 2009). Respondents are asked to
read a lengthy and highly coherent narrative text (1,727
words) as quickly as possible within four minutes. In Missing Values
addition, the text contains 23 blanks that have to be The initial sample comprised 892 students. Nine stu-
filled in by selecting the correct word out of three dents had large amounts of missing data (>30%) and
Factorial and Construct Validity of aNew Instrument for the Assessment of Reading Motivation | 7
were thus excluded from the analyses. Apart from this TLI=0.973, RMSEA=0.038. All factor loadings were
small group of students, we had only few missing data above 0.50 (see Table1, Sample 1/Version 2).
for all variables (<1.0%). Moreover, only 17.4% of the
participants showed missing values. In these cases, the CFA in Sample 2
percentage of missing values did not exceed 10%. For The good fit of the CFA model of the RMQ in sample 1
the purpose of descriptive analyses, missing values were was confirmed in sample 2, 2 = 619.31, df = 384,
replaced by expectationmaximization estimates p < .001, CFI = 0.973, TLI = 0.970, RMSEA = 0.037.
(generated by NORM 2.03; Schafer, 1997, 1999). When Inspection of modification indexes (>20) revealed one
conducting structural equation analyses with Mplus, problematic item from the curiosity factor (see Table1,
missing data were accounted for by maximum likeli- item number 2). This item showed a substantial loading
hood estimation (Asparouhov & Muthn, 2010; on the dimension of involvement and, therefore, was
Graham, 2009). excluded. The fit indexes of the modified RMQ scale
with 29 items were as follows: 2 = 552.67, df = 356,
Data Analysis p < .001, CFI = 0.977, TLI = 0.973, RMSEA = 0.035.
To examine the new version of the RMQ, we conducted Again, all factor loadings were above 0.50 (see Table1,
CFAs. Confirmatory instead of exploratory factor anal- Sample 2/Version 3).
ysis was chosen because the assumed factor structure of
the RMQ was theoretically and empirically well Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations
grounded (see also Baker & Wigfield, 1999). In the first Table 2 represents mean values, standard deviations,
step, CFA was applied to examine the RMQ in sample 1. reliabilities, and latent correlations for the final version
The results of these analyses were then validated in of the RMQ based on the total sample. For all subscales,
sample 2. All factor models were estimated by means of acceptable or high reliabilities (Cronbachs ) were
Mplus 7.3 (Muthn & Muthn, 19982014). In addition, obtained. In accordance with previous research, sub-
individual items were defined as ordered categorical stantial positive correlations among the dimensions of
variables instead of continuous variables (cf. Carifio & reading motivation were found (Schaffner et al., 2013;
Perla, 2007; Lubke & Muthn, 2004). Consequently, a Wang & Guthrie, 2004; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). Also
weighted least squares estimator (WLSMV) was used in line with previous research, gender was significantly
for these analyses (default option in Mplus). Moreover, related to reading amount. Accordingly, the girls in our
we accounted for the multilevel structure of our data sample tended to read more than boys (cf. Baker &
(the students in our sample were clustered in 48 class- Wigfield, 1999; Logan & Johnston, 2009, 2010). In con-
rooms) by using the TYPE = COMPLEX option in trast, the relations between gender and reading compe-
Mplus. tence were either nonsignificant (reading fluency) or
small (reading comprehension). These findings are not
unusual. Although higher scores for girls in reading
Results performance have often been found, these differences
tend to be rather small (for an overview, see Logan &
Factor Structure of the RMQ Johnston, 2009). In the case of the standardized test
CFA in Sample 1 used in our study, results based on large samples at dif-
The hypothesized seven-factor model of the RMQ in- ferent grade levels confirm negligible or small gender
volving 34 items showed a good fit with the data, differences (<1% explained variance) in reading fluency
2 = 879.97, df = 506, p < .001, comparative fit index and comprehension (see Schneider etal., 2007). This is
[CFI]=0.964, TuckerLewis Index [TLI]=0.960, root in line with findings pertaining to other German stan-
mean square error of approximation [RMSEA]=0.041. dardized tests of reading comprehension (cf. Lenhard,
To detect inappropriate items with substantial double 2013).
or multiple loadings, we consulted modification in-
dexes. For that purpose, only modification indexes>20 Measurement Invariance
were considered to be critical because of the good fit of Because differences in reading motivation due to gen-
the overall model and to reduce the risk of sample- der and reading competence have been consistently
dependent decisions. According to this criterion, four documented (e.g., Lau & Chan, 2003; Logan & Johnston,
items (cf. Table 1) were removed from the model in a 2010; Logan etal., 2011; Mullis etal., 2007), it seemed
stepwise procedure starting with the item that pro- necessary to provide evidence that our measure of read-
duced the highest modification index. As expected, the ing motivation applies equally to female and male as
adapted CFA model with 30 items exhibited a high level well as low-and high-competence students. To deter-
of fit, 2 = 622.15, df = 384, p < .001, CFI = 0.976, mine groups of students with low and high levels of
Reading motivation
2. Curiosity .16**
Validation variables
9. Reading amount .25*** .60*** .71*** .03 .13*** .10* .55*** .50***
Mean 2.88 3.03 2.69 2.07 2.19 2.34 2.57 3.06 4.69 4.81
Standard deviation 0.76 0.89 0.83 0.80 0.74 0.98 0.82 0.93 0.83 0.77
reading competence, we combined their scores in read- addition to the previous restrictions. If scalar invari-
ing fluency and reading comprehension and then cre- ance is established, the same observed score is trans-
ated two groups by means of a median split (low formed into the same factor score in different groups.
competence: n=417; high competence: n=466). This allows, for example, comparisons between latent
The confirmation of measurement invariance factor means across different groups. Finally, strict in-
across groups represents an important prerequisite for variance involves cross-group equality constraints on
conducting meaningful cross-group comparisons (e.g., the item residuals (error variances) that are unexplained
between mean values and structural path coefficients; by the latent factor. If strict measurement invariance
Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). Measurement invariance can be confirmed, the items of a factor model are
implies that the probability of attaining a specific equally reliable across different groups of respondents.
observed score given a particular level of the underlying Strict measurement invariance is only necessary when
disposition is independent of group membership (Yoon manifest means and correlations are to be compared
& Millsap, 2007). The assessment of measurement across groups.
invariance typically involves four hierarchical steps
Differences between nested models are usually de-
(e.g., Millsap, 2011; Vandenberg & Lance, 2000; Wu, Li, termined by means of changes in 2 (2). However, 2
& Zumbo, 2007). First, configural invariance represents is directly affected by sample size, and thus, for larger
the lowest level of invariance and refers to whether the samples, even trivial differences between models might
general factor structure (assignment of items to latent become significant. This problem applies in particular
factors) is the same across groups. Second, metric in- to the comparison among models representing different
variance involves all factor loadings being equal across levels of measurement invariance (Chen, 2007).
groups. As a consequence of metric invariance, the unit Therefore, it has been suggested that one should utilize
of measurement of the latent factor is the same for all CFI and RMSEA as the main criteria for evaluating
groups. Third, scalar invariance is tested by imposing differences between levels of measurement invariance
equality constraints on item intercepts or thresholds, in (cf. Chen, 2007; Cheung & Rensvold, 2002; Laverdire,
Factorial and Construct Validity of aNew Instrument for the Assessment of Reading Motivation | 9
Morin, & St-Hilaire, 2013). Accordingly, a higher level models in Table3 shows that the increasing amount of
of measurement invariance can be regarded as con- restrictions did not lead to a reduction of model fit as
firmed when the model specifying a higher level of indicated by CFI and RMSEA. Instead, the highest
measurement invariance does not substantially differ level of fit was observed for the strict invariance models.
from the model specifying a lower level of measurement This suggests that the latent factors of the RMQ are well
invariance with respect to values of CFI and RMSEA. specified and that their means and interrelations can be
Specifically, the decrease in fit from the lower to the directly compared between girls and boys and between
higher level of invariance should be less than 0.01 for low-and high-competence students.
CFI and less than 0.015 for RMSEA (cf. Chen, 2007).
As a precondition for testing measurement invari-
ance of the RMQ across different groups, it is necessary Second-Order Factors
to demonstrate adequate model fit separately for these The pattern of correlations among RMQ dimensions
groups (Wu etal., 2007). In the present case, the results suggests the existence of second-order factors. More
showed a good level of fit for the seven-factor CFA specifically, two alternative models of the RMQ with
model for girls, 2 = 578.56, df = 356, p < .001, second-order factors seem possible. The first model
CFI = 0.976, TLI = 0.972, RMSEA = 0.038; for boys, includes two second-order factors: One factor com-
2=543.20, df=356, p<.001, CFI=0.981, TLI=0.979, prises intrinsic reading motivation (curiosity and in-
RMSEA = 0.035; for students low in reading compe- volvement) and regulatory reading motivation
tence, 2 = 534.15, df = 356, p < .001, CFI = 0.979, (emotional regulation and relief from boredom), and
TLI=0.976, RMSEA=0.035; and for students high in the other factor represents extrinsic reading motiva-
reading competence, 2 = 584.24, df = 356, p < .001, tion (grades, competition, and social recognition).
CFI=0.980, TLI=0.977, RMSEA=0.037. Consequently, This hypothetical model corresponds closely to the
we proceeded to evaluate the four levels of measure- obtained correlation pattern (see Table 2). However,
ment invariance of the RMQ across gender and compe- from a theoretical point of view, intrinsic reading mo-
tence groups. The results (see Table3) revealed that all tivation should be distinguishable from motivation to
models specifying a particular level of measurement read to regulate ones feelings. Therefore, we also
invariance showed good fit indexes. In addition, the examined an alternative model with three second-
results confirmed the highest level of measurement
order factors: intrinsic (curiosity and involvement),
invariance (i.e., strict invariance) for the seven-factor extrinsic (grades, competition, and social recogni-
model of the RMQ across gender and across compe- tion), and regulatory reading motivation (emotional
tence groups. Interestingly, the comparison across regulation and relief from boredom).
TABLE3
Measurement Invariance of the Reading Motivation Questionnaire Across Gender and Competence Groups
Model fit
Measurement Comparison
invariance model 2
df CFI TLI RMSEA of models 2 (df)a CFIb RMSEAc
Measurement invariance across gender
Metric 1,134.43*** 734 0.979 0.977 0.035 Metric vs. configural 23.13 (22) 0.000 0.001
Scalar 1,192.53*** 785 0.978 0.978 0.034 Scalar vs. metric 91.37 (51)*** 0.001 0.001
Metric 1,127.64*** 734 0.980 0.978 0.035 Metric vs. configural 19.36 (22) 0.000 0.001
Scalar 1,173.06*** 785 0.980 0.979 0.033 Scalar vs. metric 65.27 (51) 0.000 0.002
TABLE4
Models of the Reading Motivation Questionnaire With Second-Order Factors
Tucker Root mean
Comparative Lewis square error of
Model 2 df fit index Index approximation Comparison 2 (df)a
Model 1: One 3,033.52*** 370 0.858 0.844 0.090
second-order factor
Model 2: Two 891.68*** 368 0.972 0.969 0.040 Model 1 vs. 362.92 (2)***
second-order factors model 2
Model 3: Three 835.46*** 367 0.975 0.972 0.038 Model 2 vs. 39.08 (1)***
second-order factors model 3
Note. Model 2: Second-order factors are intrinsic/regulatory reading motivation (curiosity, involvement, emotional regulation, and relief from
boredom) and extrinsic reading motivation (grades, competition, and social recognition). Model 3: Second-order factors are intrinsic (curiosity and
involvement), regulatory (emotional regulation and relief from boredom), and extrinsic reading motivation (see model 2).
a
For ordered categorical data, the 2 values of different models cannot be directly compared, and therefore, 2 was estimated by using the DIFFTEST
option in Mplus.
***p < .001.
Factorial and Construct Validity of aNew Instrument for the Assessment of Reading Motivation | 11
In the same vein, the hypothesized significant positive reading amount. Also noteworthy, the effects of gender
correlations between the validation variables and both on the validation variables were not significant. This
emotional regulation and relief from boredom are likely finding is in line with studies showing that gender dif-
to be explained by the rather high associations between ferences in reading behavior or comprehension disap-
the intrinsic and regulatory dimensions of reading pear when controlling for intrinsic reading motivation
motivation. (Artelt, Naumann, & Schneider, 2010).
To determine their unique contributions, we exam- Additional evidence for the construct validity of the
ined the RMQ dimensions simultaneously as predictors RMQ was provided by examining assumed gender dif-
of the validation variables. In this case, because of the ferences in the dimensions of reading motivation.
high correlations among the dimensions of reading Specifically, we expected that girls are higher in curios-
motivation and to avoid artifacts due to multicollinear- ity, involvement, and emotional regulation and lower in
ity, we used the second-order factors of the RMQ as pre- competition than boys. The remaining dimensions of
dictors. More specifically, a model was tested in which reading motivation should not be affected by gender.
the second-order factors served as predictors of reading The correlational findings in Table 2 were in accor-
amount, fluency, and comprehension. The second- dance with our assumptions and, thus, support the va-
order factors were indicated by their corresponding pri- lidity of the RMQ.
mary factors, which in turn were represented at the
item level. Reading amount was indicated by its corre-
sponding items, whereas reading fluency and compre-
hension were manifest variables. To control for gender Discussion
differences, we included direct paths from gender to all This study was designed to develop and evaluate the
variables in the model. multidimensional RMQ for students at the higher ele-
According to expectations, the results revealed sig- mentary and secondary school levels. Based on Wigfield
nificant and substantial associations between intrinsic and Guthries (1997) framework, previous research (e.g.,
reading motivation and the validation variables (see Greaney & Neuman, 1990; Schutte & Malouff, 2007;
Table5), whereas the contributions of extrinsic reading Watkins & Coffey, 2004), and theoretical consider-
motivation all became significantly negative. The latter ations, the following dimensions of reading motivation
finding is in line with previous studies showing that were proposed: curiosity, involvement, grades, competi-
extrinsic reading motivation contributes negatively to tion, social recognition, emotional regulation, and relief
reading amount and reading competence when control- from boredom. The factorial structure of the RMQ was
ling for intrinsic reading motivation (e.g., Schaffner examined by applying an item-level CFA. Also, in ex-
et al., 2013; Unrau & Schlackman, 2006; Wang & tending previous research, the present study (a) intro-
Guthrie, 2004). In contrast, the findings did not con- duced two new dimensions of reading motivation
firm unique contributions of regulatory reading moti- (reading to regulate negative emotions and to avoid
vation. There was, however, a marginal significant boredom), (b) tested the measurement invariance of the
association between regulatory reading motivation and proposed reading motivation instrument across gender
and across competence groups, and (c) analyzed the
second-order factor structure of the RMQ for the pur-
TABLE5
pose of providing an empirical basis for the use of com-
Prediction of the Validation Variables by Second-Order
Factors of Reading Motivation (RM)
posite scores (e.g., for intrinsic reading motivation).
First of all, the measurement model of the RMQ
Reading Reading Reading
Predictor amount fluency comprehension pertaining to the primary factors showed good fit in-
dexes and thus confirmed the proposed dimensions of
Gendera .02 .08 .07
reading motivation. In addition, strict measurement in-
Intrinsic RM .71*** .32*** .28*** variance for the RMQ across girls and boys and across
low-and high-competence students was established.
Extrinsic RM .22*** .13** .19***
This suggests that the latent factors of the RMQ are in-
Regulatory RM .16 .01 .04 variant across groups referring to their conceptual
R2 .62 .09 .09 meaning, the unit of measurement, the correspondence
between observed scores and factor scores, and the item
Note. The parameters (standardized path coefficients) were estimated
within a single model, 2 = 1,119.02, df = 604, p < .001, comparative fit residuals. Although strict measurement invariance is
index = 0.972, TuckerLewis Index = 0.969, root mean square error of not required when latent variables are analyzed, its con-
approximation = 0.031. All variables are latent except reading fluency firmation underlines the fact that the RMQ is equally
and reading comprehension.
a
Scoring of gender: 1 = male; 2 = female. applicable to female and male students and to students
**p < .01. ***p < .001. p = .052. who are low and high in reading competence.
Factorial and Construct Validity of aNew Instrument for the Assessment of Reading Motivation | 13
For example, regulatory use of reading could be stud- Among those is certainly the dimension of social
ied in greater depth as a mechanism of emotion regu- reading motivation or social reasons for reading.
lation, thereby focusing on its effectiveness and Although we have criticized the MRQ scale of social
relation to other forms of emotion regulation reasons, it seems quite meaningful, in accordance
(Holodynski, & Friedlmeier, 2006; Kopp, 1989; with research on social goals (e.g., Wentzel, 2000,
Mantzicopoulos, 1997). On the other hand, reading 2005), to suggest a form of reading motivation that is
for the purpose of regulating ones feelings may turn directed at social exchange or relatedness (e.g., talk-
out to be an effective means of increasing childrens ing about books with others, reading to others).
intrinsic reading motivation. However, in contrast to the MRQ, items measuring
social reading motivation should take the form of di-
rectly stating social reasons for reading (e.g., I read
because it allows me to talk about it with friends) in-
Limitations and Future Research stead of merely listing literacy-related activities (e.g.,
Although the present study provided evidence for the I visit the library often with my family; Wigfield &
multidimensional structure of the RMQ, its measure- Guthrie, 1997).
ment invariance across gender and across competence
groups, and the reliability and validity of the proposed NOTES
dimensions of reading motivation, a few limitations We wish to thank Katharina Kulisz for her contribution to the col-
have to be stated. First, it may be criticized that we de- lection of data.
cided to exclude those dimensions that are likely to be
1
In most states (Bundeslnder) in Germany, elementary schools
only include four grades, whereas in a few states, such as Berlin or
closely related to reading motivation but do not them- Brandenburg, elementary schools comprise grades 16.
selves represent forms of motivation. This refers in par-
ticular to work avoidance, challenge, importance, and REFERENCES
efficacy (cf. Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). We would like Alloway, T.P., & Gregory, D. (2013). The predictive ability of IQ and
to point out that we do not regard these dimensions as working memory scores in literacy in an adult population.
unimportant. To the contrary, these dimensions repre- International Journal of Educational Research, 57, 5156.
sent highly relevant antecedents and consequences of doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2012.10.004
Andreassen, R., & Brten, I. (2010). Examining the prediction of
reading motivation. Therefore, it is justified and useful reading comprehension on different multiple-choice tests. Journal
to include these dimensions in questionnaires on read- of Research in Reading, 33(3), 263283. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817
ing motivation such as the MRQ. In the case of our .2009.01413.x
questionnaire, however, we preferred to cover only Artelt, C., Naumann, J., & Schneider, W. (2010). Lesemotivation und
those dimensions that represent reading motivation in a Lernstrategien [Reading motivation and reading strategies]. In E.
Klieme, C. Artelt, J. Hartig, N. Jude, O. Kller, M. Prenzel, P.
more narrow sense. Stanat (Eds.), PISA 2009: Bilanz nach einem Jahrzehnt [PISA
Second, the present analyses were based on sixth- 2009: Balance after a decade] (pp. 73112). Mnster, Germany:
grade students only. Thus, it remains unclarified Waxmann.
whether the confirmed factor structure and measure- Asparouhov, T., & Muthn, B. (2010). Weighted least squares estimation
ment invariance also apply to fourth and fifth graders with missing data [Technical appendix]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthn &
Muthn. Retrieved from www.statmodel.com/techappen.shtml
and to students above sixth grade. As a consequence, Atkinson, J.W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ:
future research should test the RMQ in other age groups Van Nostrand.
or use longitudinal designs to examine the measure- Baker, L., & Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of childrens motiva-
ment invariance of the RMQ across time. tion for reading and their relations to reading activity and read-
Third, there are further important goals for future ing achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(4), 452477.
doi:10.1598/RRQ.34.4.4
research referring to the dimensions of reading motiva- Baumert, J., & Schmer, G. (2001). Schulformen als selektionsbed-
tion. On the one hand, it seems necessary to reconsider ingte Lernmilieus [School forms as selection-based learning con-
those dimensions that are strongly related to school texts]. In J. Baumert, E. Klieme, M. Neubrand, M. Prenzel, U.
(grades and competition). Although there is some evi- Schiefele, W. Schneider, M. Wei (Eds.), PISA 2000:
dence from qualitative research that students in fact use Basiskompetenzen von Schlerinnen und Schlern im internatio-
nalen Vergleich [PISA 2000: Basic competencies of students in an
their leisure time reading as a means to improve their international comparison] (pp. 454467). Opladen, Germany:
achievement in school and to outperform others, more Leske + Budrich.
evidence is needed to show that students in fact refer Becker, M., McElvany, N., & Kortenbruck, M. (2010). Intrinsic and
their ratings of the grades and competition scales to lei- extrinsic reading motivation as predictors of reading literacy: A
sure time reading and not to reading for school (e.g., longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4),
773785. doi:10.1037/a0020084
reading of school books). Brophy, J.E. (2005). Goal theorists should move on from perfor-
On the other hand, further relevant dimensions mance goals. Educational Psychologist, 40(3), 167176.
that are not represented by the RMQ might exist. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4003_3
Factorial and Construct Validity of aNew Instrument for the Assessment of Reading Motivation | 15
Mller, J., & Bonerad, E.-M. (2007). Fragebogen zur habituellen Klassenstufen 612 [Reading fluency and reading comprehension
Lesemotivation [Habitual reading motivation questionnaire]. test for grades 612]. Gttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 54(4), 259267. Schunk, D.H. (1991). Self- efficacy and academic motivation.
Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Kennedy, A.M., & Foy, P. (2007). PIRLS Educational Psychologist, 26(3/4), 207231.
2006 international report: IEAs Progress in International Reading Schutte, N.S., & Malouff, J.M. (2007). Dimensions of reading motiva-
Literacy Study in primary schools in 40 countries. Chestnut Hill, tion: Development of an adult reading motivation scale. Reading
MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School Psychology, 28(5), 469489. doi:10.1080/02702710701568991
of Education, Boston College. Stutz, F., Schaffner, E., & Schiefele, U. (2016). Relations among read-
Muthn, L.K., & Muthn, B.O. (19982014). Mplus users guide. Los ing motivation, reading amount, and reading comprehension in
Angeles, CA: Muthn & Muthn. the early elementary grades. Learning and Individual Differences,
Nolen, S.B. (2007). Young childrens motivation to read and write: 45, 101113. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.022
Development in social contexts. Cognition and Instruction, Tarelli, I., Schwippert, K., & Stubbe, T.C. (2012). Mathematische
25(2/3), 219270. doi:10.1080/07370000701301174 und naturwissenschaftliche Kompetenzen von Schlerinnen und
Park, Y. (2011). How motivational constructs interact to predict ele- Schlern mit Migrationshintergrund [Competencies of students
mentary students reading performance: Examples from attitudes with an immigration background in mathematics and science].
and self-concept in reading. Learning and Individual Differences, In W. Bos, H. Wendt, O. Kller, & C. Selter (Eds.), TIMSS 2011:
21(4), 347358. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.02.009 Mathematische und naturwissenschaftliche Kompetenzen von
Pekrun, R. (1993). Facets of adolescents academic motivation: A Grundschulkindern in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich
longitudinal expectancyvalue approach. In M.L. Maehr & P.R. [TIMSS 2011: Mathematical and scientific skills of primary
Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 8, school children in Germany in an international comparison]
pp. 139189). Greenwich, CT: JAI. (pp.247267). Mnster, Germany: Waxmann.
Pintrich, P.R., & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students motivational beliefs Tich, R., Espin, C.A., & Wayman, M.M. (2009). Reading progress
and their cognitive engagement in classroom academic tasks. In monitoring for secondary-school students: Reliability, validity,
D.H. Schunk & J.L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the class- and sensitivity to growth of reading-a loud and maze-selection
room (pp. 149183). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. measures. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(3), 132
Rasinski, T.V., Reutzel, D.R., Chard, D., & Linan-Thompson, S. 142. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00287.x
(2011). Reading fluency. In M.L. Kamil, P.D. Pearson, E.B. Moje, Tighe, E.L., & Schatschneider, C. (2014). A dominance analysis ap-
& P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. proach to determining predictor importance in third, seventh,
286319). New York, NY: Routledge. and tenth grade reading comprehension skills. Reading and
Roberts, T.A., Christo, C., & Shefelbine, J.A. (2011). Word recogni- Writing, 27(1), 101127. doi:10.1007/s11145-013-9435-6
tion. In M.L. Kamil, P.D. Pearson, E.B. Moje, & P. Afflerbach Unrau, N., & Schlackman, J. (2006). Motivation and its relationship
(Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 229258). New with reading achievement in an urban middle school. The Journal of
York, NY: Routledge. Educational Research, 100(2), 81101. doi:10.3200/JOER.100.2.81-101
Sainsbury, S., & Schagen, I. (2004). Attitudes to reading at ages nine Vandenberg, R.J., & Lance, C.E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the
and eleven. Journal of Research in Reading, 27(4), 373386. measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2004.00240.x recommendations for organizational research. Organizational
Schafer, J.L. (1997). Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. New Research Methods, 3(1), 470. doi:10.1177/109442810031002
York, NY: Chapman & Hall. Wang, J.H., & Guthrie, J.T. (2004). Modeling the effects of intrinsic
Schafer, J.L. (1999). NORM 2.03 for Windows 95/98/NT [Computer motivation, extrinsic motivation, amount of reading, and past
software]. University Park: Department of Statistics, reading achievement on text comprehension between U.S. and
Pennsylvania State University. Chinese students. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 162186.
Schaffner, E., & Schiefele, U. (2007). Auswirkungen habitueller doi:10.1598/RRQ.39.2.2
Lesemotivation auf die situative Textreprsentation [Effects of Watkins, M.W., & Coffey, D.Y. (2004). Reading motivation:
habitual reading motivation on the situational representation Multidimensional and indeterminate. Journal of Educational
of text]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 54(4), Psychology, 96(1), 110118. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.110
268286. Weiner, B. (1989). Human motivation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schaffner, E., Schiefele, U., & Ulferts, H. (2013). Reading amount as Wentzel, K.R. (2000). What is it that Im trying to achieve? Classroom
a mediator of the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic reading moti- goals from a content perspective Contemporary Educational
vation on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, Psychology, 25(1), 105115. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1021
48(4), 369385. doi:10.1002/rrq.52 Wentzel, K.R. (2005). Peer relationships, motivation, and academic
Schiefele, U. (1999). Interest and learning from text. Scientific performance at school. In A.J. Elliot & C.S. Dweck (Eds.),
Studies of Reading, 3(3), 257279. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0303_4 Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 279296). New
Schiefele, U. (2009). Situational and individual interest. In K.R. York, NY: Guilford.
Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J.S. (2000). Expectancyvalue theory of
(pp. 197222). New York, NY: Routledge. achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
Schiefele, U., & Schaffner, E. (2013). Die Lesemotivation von 25(1), 6881. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
Grundschlerinnen und - schlern der sechsten Klassenstufe: Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J.T. (1997). Relations of childrens motiva-
Ergebnisse einer Interviewstudie [Reading motivation of elemen- tion for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading.
tary school students: Results from an interview study]. Psychologie Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 420432. doi:10.1037/
in Erziehung und Unterricht, 60(3), 214233. 0022-0663.89.3.420
Schiefele, U., Schaffner, E., Mller, J., & Wigfield, A. (2012). Wu, A.D., Li, Z., & Zumbo, B.D. (2007). Decoding the meaning of
Dimensions of reading motivation and their relation to reading factorial invariance and updating the practice of multi-group
behavior and competence. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), confirmatory factor analysis: A demonstration with TIMSS data.
427463. doi:10.1002/RRQ.030 Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12(3), 126.
Schneider, W., Schlagmller, M., & Ennemoser, M. (2007). LGVT Yoon, M., & Millsap, R.E. (2007). Detecting violations of factorial
612: Lesegeschwindigkeits- und -verstndnistest fr die invariance using data- based specification searches: A Monte
Factorial and Construct Validity of aNew Instrument for the Assessment of Reading Motivation | 17