Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Psychometric properties of two major approaches to measure school engagement in university students

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Students’ engagement could be described as the holy grail of learning, due to its relationship with positive educational outcomes both inside and outside of school. Academic engagement is widely conceived as a multidimensional construct, however, there are many discrepancies regarding the number and nature of the dimensions which compose it. The aim of this research was to establish if two of the most widely adopted traditions of engagement (the American and the European model) converge, or differ, in their results and structure. To test this, nine structural equation models were estimated and tested in a sample composed by 870 university students from Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic). Fit indexes pointed out at model eight as the best fitting model, a Bifactor ESEM model in which items explained variance was divided between a general underlying factor and the dimensions to which they correspond. Factor structure of both scales was congruent with previous literature, as well as convergent and discriminant validity, and reliability. We can conclude that although dimensions of engagement are empirically distinguishable, there is a big portion of common variance, thus, regardless the variety of conceptualizations of school engagement, there is strong empirical evidence that, although manifestations of engagement are different, the underlying mechanism of feeling engaged is the same.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alrashidi, O., Phan, H. P., & Ngu, B. H. (2016). Academic engagement: An overview of its definitions, dimensions, and major conceptualizations. International Education Studies, 9(12), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n12p41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 397–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bae, Y., & Han, S. (2019). Academic engagement and learning outcomes of the student experience in the research university: Construct validation of the instrument. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 19(3), 49-64. Doi:https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2019.3.004.

  • Balducci, C., Fraccaroli, F., & Schaufeli, W. (2010). Psychometric properties of the Italian version of the Utrecht work engagement scale (UWES-9): A cross-cultural analysis. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26, 143–149. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, P., & Corbin, L. (2012). Student engagement: Rhetoric and reality. Higher Education Research & Development, 31, 759–772. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.655711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beasley, S. T. (2020). Student–faculty interactions and psychosociocultural influences as predictors of engagement among black college students. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000169

  • Bosselut, G., Castro, O., Chevalier, S., & Fouquereau, E. (2019, December 19). Does perceived cohesion mediate the student personality–engagement relationship in the university setting? Journal of Educational Psychology, doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000442

  • Brigman, G., Wells, C., Webb, L., Villares, E., Carey, J. C., & Harrington, K. (2015). Psychometric properties and confirmatory factor analysis of the student engagement in school success skills. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 48, 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175614544545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmona-Halty, M., Salanova, M., Llorens, S., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2019). Linking positive emotions and academic performance: The mediated role of academic psychological capital and academic engagement. Current Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00227-8.

  • Casuso-Holgado, M. J., Cuesta-Vargas, A. I., Moreno-Morales, N., Labajos-Manzanares, M. T., Barón-López, F. J., & Vega-Cuesta, M. (2013). The association between academic engagement and achievement in health sciences students. BMC Medical Education, 13(33), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-13-33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

  • Curran, T., Hill, A. P., Ntoumanis, N., Hall, H. K., & Jowett, G. E. (2016). A three-wave longitudinal test of self-determination theory’s mediation model of engagement and disaffection in youth sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 38, 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2015-0016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Beer, L.T., & Van Zyl, L.E. (2019). ESEM code generator for Mplus. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.8320250.

  • Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dueber, D. M. (2017). Bifactor Indices Calculator: A Microsoft Excel-based tool to calculate various indices relevant to bifactor CFA models. https://doi.org/10.13023/edp.tool.01 [Available at http://sites.education.uky.edu/apslab/resources/].

  • Elmore, G. M., & Huebner, E. S. (2010). Adolescents’ satisfaction with school experiences: Relationships with demographics, attachment relationships, and school engagement behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 525–537. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.204889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredricks, J. A., Filsecker, M., & Lawson, M. A. (2016). Student engagement, context, and adjustment: Addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological issues. Learning and Instruction, 43, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galiana, L., Gutiérrez, M., Sancho, P., Oliver, A., & Tomás, J. M. (2015). Propiedades psicométricas de la versión española de la Escala Temporal de Satisfacción con la Vida (Temporal Satisfaction With Life Scale, TSLS): Un estudio en mayores que acuden a programas universitarios. [Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Temporal Satisfaction with Life Scale (TSLS): A study on elderly attending to university programs] European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 5, 335–344. doi:https://doi.org/10.1989/ejihpe.v5i3.136

  • García-Ros, R., Pérez-González, F., Tomás, J. M., & Fernández, I. (2018). The schoolwork engagement inventory: Factorial structure, measurement invariance by gender and educational level, and convergent validity in secondary education (12-18 years). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 36, 588–603. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916689235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garn, A. C., Simonton, K., Dasingert, T., & Simonton, A. (2017). Predicting changes in student engagement in university physical education: Application of control-value theory of achievement emotions. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 29, 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.12.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gehrke, S., & Kezar, A. (2019). Perceived outcomes associated with engagement in and design of faculty communities of practice focused on STEM reform. Research in Higher Education, 60, 844–869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-018-9534-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez, M., & Tomás, J. M. (2019). The role of perceived autonomy support in predicting university students’ academic success mediated by academic self-efficacy and school engagement. Educational Psychology, 39, 729–748. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1566519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez, M., Tomás, J. M., Romero, I., & Barrica, J. M. (2017). Perceived social support, school engagement and satisfaction with school. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 22, 111–117. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psicod.2017.01.001.

  • Gutiérrez, M., Tomás, J. M., & Alberola, S. (2018). Apoyo docente, compromiso académico y satisfacción del alumnado universitario. Estudios sobre Educación, 35, 521–541.

  • Hagel, P., Carr, R., & Devlin, M. (2012). Conceptualising and measuring student engagement through the Australasian survey of student engagement (AUSSE): A critique. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37, 475–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.545870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, G. R., & An, J. (2018). Digital items module 2: Scale reliability in structural equation modeling. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 37, 73–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, G. R., & Mueller, R. O. (2013). Structural equation modeling: A second course (2nd ed.) information age publishing. www.infoagepuv.com

  • Hart, S. R., Stewart, K., & Jimerson, S. R. (2011). The student engagement in schools questionnaire (SESQ) and the teacher engagement report form-new (TERF-N): Examining the preliminary evidence. Contemporary School Psychology, 15, 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03340964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazel, C. E., Vazirabadi, G. E., & Gallagher, J. (2013). Measuring aspirations, belonging, and productivity in secondary students: Validation of the student school engagement measure. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 689–704. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazel, C. E., Vazirabadi, G. E., Albanes, J., & Gallagher, J. (2014). Evidence of convergent and discriminant validity of the student school engagement measure. Psychological Assessment, 26, 806–814. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036277.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jang, H., Reeve, J., Ryan, R. M., & Kim, A. (2009). Can self-determination theory explain what underlies the productive, satisfying learning experiences of collectivistically oriented Korean students? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 644–661. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 588–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jang, H., Kim, E., & Reeve, J. (2012). Longitudinal test of self-determination theory’s motivation mediation model in a naturally occurring classroom context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 1175-1188. doi https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028089.

  • Jang, H., Kim, E. J., & Reeve, J. (2016). Why students become more engaged or more disengaged during the semester: A self-determination theory dual-process model. Learning and Instruction, 43, 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jelas, Z. M., Azman, N., Zulnaidi, H., & Ahmad, N. A. (2016). Learning support and academic achievement among Malaysian adolescents: The mediating role of student engagement. Learning Environment Research, 19, 221–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-015-9202-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38, 758–773. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.598505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, S. F., Jimerson, S., Wong, B. P., Kikas, E., Shin, H., Veiga, F., et al. (2014). Understanding and measuring student engagement in school: The results of an international study from 12 countries. School Psychology Quarterly, 9, 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loscalzo, Y., & Giannini, M. (2019). Study engagement in Italian university students: A confirmatory factor analysis of the Utrecht work engagement scale-student version. Social Indicators Research, 142, 845–854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-1943-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Morin, A. J., Parker, P. D., & Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 85–110. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez, I. M., Youssef-Morgan, C. M., Chambel, M. J., & Marques-Pinto, A. (2019). Antecedents of academic performance of university students: Academic engagement and psychological capital resources. Educational Psychology, 39, 1047–1067. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1623382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matos, L., Reeve, J., Herrera, D., & Claux, M. (2018). Students' agentic engagement predicts longitudinal increases in perceived autonomy-supportive teaching: The squeaky wheel gets the grease. The Journal of Experimental Education, 86, 579–596. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2018.1448746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Urdan, T. C., Hicks, L., Roeser, R. W., Anderman, E., & Maehr, M. L. (1998). Validation of a measure of students' achievement goal orientation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 113–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molinari, L., & Mameli, C. (2018). Basic psychological needs and school engagement: A focus on justice and agency. Social Psychology of Education, 21, 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9410-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2017). Mplus User’s Guide. Eighth Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

  • Nearchou, F. A., Stogiannidou, A., & Kiosseoglou, G. (2014). Adaptation and psychometric evaluation of a resilience measure in Greek elementary school students. Psychology in the Schools, 51, 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oriol-Granado, X., Mendoza-Lira, M., Covarrubias-Apablaza, C. G., & Molina-López, V. M. (2017). Positive emotions, autonomy support and academic performance of university students: The mediating role of academic engagement and self-efficacy. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 22, 45–53. doi:https://doi.org/10.1387/RevPsicodidact.14280.

  • Ouweneel, E., Le Blanc, P. M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2014). On being grateful and kind: Results of two randomized controlled trials on study-related emotions and academic engagement. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 148, 37–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2012.742854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parra, P., & Pérez, C. (2010). Propiedades psicométricas de la escala de compromiso académico, UWES-S (versión abreviada), en estudiantes de psicología. Revista Educación Ciencia y Salud, 7, 128–133.

  • Phan, H. P. (2014). An integrated framework involving enactive learning experiences, mastery goals, and academic engagement-disengagement. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 10, 41–66. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v10i1.680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phan, H. P., & Ngu, B. H. (2014a). Longitudinal examination of personal self-efficacy and engagement-related attributes: How do they relate. American Journal of Applied Psychology, 3(4), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajap.20140304.11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phan, H. P., & Ngu, B. H. (2014b). An empirical analysis of students’ learning and achievements: A motivational approach. Education Journal, 3, 203-216. Doi:https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20140304.11.

  • Portalanza-Chavarria, C. A., Grueso-Hinestroza, M. P., & Duque-Oliva, E. J. (2017). Propiedades de la Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-S 9): análisis exploratorio con estudiantes en Ecuador. Innovar, 27(64), 145-156. doi:https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v27n64.62374.

  • Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 579–595. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeve, J., & Tseng, C. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmela-Aro, K., & Upadyaya, K. (2012). The schoolwork engagement inventory: Energy, dedication, and absorption (EDA). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28, 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmela-Aro, K., & Upadyaya, K. (2014). School burnout and engagement in the context of demands-resources model. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaufeli, W., & Bakker, A. (2003). UWES. Utrecht work engagement scale. Utrecht: Utrecht University.

  • Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92. Doi:https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1015630930326.

  • Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement in science. Educational Psychologist, 50, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.1002924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In S. Christenson, A. L. Reschy, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 21–45). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children's behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 493–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164408323233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Souza, A., Santos, E. D., Cerentini, J., Simon, C., & Schaufeli, W. (2015). Adaptation and validation of the Brazilian version of the Utrecht work engagement scale. Psico-usf, Braganca Paulista, 20, 207–217. doi:https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-82712015200202.

  • Spontón, C., Medrano, L., Maffei, L., Spontón, M., & Castellano, E. (2012). Validación del cuestionario de engagement UWES a la población de trabajadores de Córdoba, Argentina. Liberabit, 18, 147–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka, J. S. (1993). Multifaceted conceptions of fit in structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

  • Tomás, J. M., Gutiérrez, M., Georgieva, S., & Hernández, M. (2020). The effects of self-efficacy, hope, and engagement on the academic achievement of secondary education in the Dominican Republic. Psychology in the Schools, 57, 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuominen-Soini, H., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2014). Schoolwork engagement and burnout among Finnish high school students and young adults: Profiles, progressions, and educational outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 50, 649–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033898.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tzé, V. M., Klassen, R. M., & Daniels, L. M. (2014). Patterns of boredom and its relationship with perceived autonomy support and engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39, 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.05.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Upadyaya, K., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2013). Engagement with studies and work: Trajectories from post-comprehensive school education to higher education and work. Emerging Adulthood, 1, 247–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696813484299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, C. O., Greene, B. A., & Mansell, R. A. (2006). Identification with academics, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive engagement. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2005.06.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M. T., & Fredricks, J. A. (2014). The reciprocal links between school engagement and youth problem behavior during adolescence. Child Development, 85, 722–737. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12138.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Z., Bergin, C., & Bergin, D. A. (2014). Measuring engagement in fourth to twelfth grade classrooms: The classroom engagement inventory. School Psychology Quarterly, 29, 517–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000050.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M. T., Fredricks, J., Ye, F., Hofkens, T., & Linn, J. S. (2019). Conceptualization and assessment of adolescents’ engagement and disengagement in school: A multidimensional school engagement scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 35, 592–606. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 767–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. (2018). Making measurement important for education: The crucial role of classroom assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 37, 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhen, R., Liu, R. D., Ding, Y., Jiang, R., Jiang, S., & Hong, W. (2019). Gratitude and academic engagement among primary students: Examining a multiple mediating model. Current Psychology, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00202-3.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Valencia, Av. Blasco Ibáñez, 21, 46010, Valencia, Spain

    Jose Manuel Tomás, Melchor Gutiérrez, Salvador Alberola & Sylvia Georgieva

Authors
  1. Jose Manuel Tomás
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Melchor Gutiérrez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Salvador Alberola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sylvia Georgieva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sylvia Georgieva.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tomás, J.M., Gutiérrez, M., Alberola, S. et al. Psychometric properties of two major approaches to measure school engagement in university students. Curr Psychol 41, 2654–2667 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00769-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00769-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation