Advertisement

University student engagement inventory (USEI): Psychometric properties

  • Jorge Sinval
  • Joana R. Casanova
  • João MarôcoEmail author
  • Leandro S. Almeida
Article

Abstract

Academic engagement describes students’ investment in academic learning and achievement and is an important indicator of students’ adjustment to university life, particularly in the first year. A tridimensional conceptualization of academic engagement has been accepted (behavioral, emotional and cognitive dimensions). This paper tests the dimensionality, internal consistency reliability and invariance of the University Student Engagement Inventory (USEI) taking into consideration both gender and the scientific area of graduation. A sample of 908 Portuguese first-year university students was considered. Good evidence of reliability has been obtained with ordinal alpha and omega values. Confirmatory factor analysis substantiates the theoretical dimensionality proposed (second-order latent factor), internal consistency reliability evidence indicates good values and the results suggest measurement invariance across gender and the area of graduation. The present study enhances the role of the USEI regarding the lack of consensus on the dimensionality and constructs delimitation of academic engagement.

Keywords

Academic engagement Higher education First-year students Assessment Measurement invariance 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Jorge Sinval received funding from the William James Center for Research, Portuguese Science Foundation (FCT UID/PSI/04810/2013).

Leandro S. Almeida and Joana R. Casanova received funding from CIEd – Research Centre on Education, projects UID/CED/1661/2013 and UID/CED/1661/2016, Institute of Education, University of Minho, through national funds of FCT/MCTES-PT.

Joana R. Casanova received funding from the Portuguese Science Foundation (FCT) as a Doctoral Grant, under grant agreement number SFRH/BD/117902/2016.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

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

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institutional Ethics Research Committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Alrashidi, O., Phan, H. P., & Ngu, B. H. (2016). Academic engagement: An overview of its definitions, dimensions, and major conceptualisations. International Education Studies, 9(12), 41–52.  https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n12p41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington. In DC. USA: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  3. American Psychological Association. (1954). Technical recommendations for psychological tests and diagnostic techniques. Psychological Bulletin, 51(2), 201–238.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0053479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Antúnez, Á., Cervero, A., Solano, P., Bernardo, I., & Carbajal, R. (2017). Engagement: A new perspective for reducing dropout through self-regulation. In J. A. González-Pienda, A. Bernardo, J. C. Núñez, & C. Rodríguez (Eds.), Factors affecting academic performance (pp. 25–46). New York, NY, USA: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5), 427–445.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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(5), 369–386.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work and Stress, 22(3), 187–200.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370802393649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Banta, T. W., Pike, G. R., & Hansen, M. J. (2009). The use of engagement data in accreditation, planning, and assessment. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009(141), 21–34.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barkley, E. F. (2010). Student engagement techniques: A handbook for college faculty. San Francisco. CA, USA: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  10. Bernardo, A., Cervero, A., Esteban, M., Tuero, E., Casanova, J. R., & Almeida, L. S. (2017). Freshmen program withdrawal: Types and recommendations. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–11.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY, USA: Wiley.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118619179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bologna Declaration. (1999) The European higher education area. Joint declaration of the European ministers of education, June 19, Bologna. https://www.eurashe.eu/library/bologna_1999_bologna-declaration-pdf/
  13. Bresó, E., Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2011). Can a self-efficacy-based intervention decrease burnout, increase engagement, and enhance performance? A quasi-experimental study. Higher Education, 61(4), 339–355.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9334-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New York, NY, USA: The Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  15. Carter, C. P., Reschly, A. L., Lovelace, M. D., Appleton, J. J., & Thompson, D. (2012). Measuring student engagement among elementary students: Pilot of the student engagement instrument— Elementary version. School Psychology Quarterly, 27(2), 61–73.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029229.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Chapman, C., Laird, J., Ifill, N., & KewalRamani, A. (2011). Trends in high school dropout and completion rates in the United States: 1972–2009 (No. compendium report 2012–006). National Center for Education Statistics http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch
  17. Chen, F. F., Sousa, K. H., & West, S. G. (2005). Teacher’s corner: Testing measurement invariance of second-order factor models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 12(3), 471–492.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1203_7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233–255.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Christensen, M. (2017). Work engagement and job crafting. In M. Christensen, P. Ø. Saksvik, & M. Karanika-Murray (Eds.), The positive side of occupational health psychology (pp. 79–90). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66781-2_7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Christenson, S. L., & Reschly, A. L. (2010). Check & connect: Enhancing school completion through student engagement. In B. Doll, W. Pfohl, & J. Yoon (Eds.), Handbook of youth prevention science (pp. 327–334). New York, NY, USA: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement. New York, NY, USA: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Coates, H. (2005). The value of student engagement for higher education quality assurance. Quality in Higher Education, 11(1), 25–36.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13538320500074915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Coetzee, M., & Oosthuizen, R. M. (2012). Students’ sense of coherence, study engagement and self-efficacy in relation to their study and employability satisfaction. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 22(3), 315–322.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2012.10820536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Costa, A. R., & Marôco, J. (2017). Inventário de envolvimento académico dos estudantes do Ensino Superior (USEI). In L. S. Almeida, M. R. Simões, & M. M. Gonçalves (Eds.), Adaptação, desenvolvimento e sucesso académico dos estudantes do ensino superior: Instrumentos de avaliação (pp. 33–44). Braga, Portugal: ADIPSIEDUC.Google Scholar
  25. Costa, A. R., Araújo, A. M., & Almeida, L. S. (2014). Envolvimento académico de estudantes de engenharia: Contributos para a validação interna e externa de uma escala de avaliação. Revista Eletrónica de Psicologia, Educação e Saúde, 4(1), 142–155 http://www.revistaepsi.com.Google Scholar
  26. Crutzen, R., & Peters, G.-J. Y. (2017). Scale quality: Alpha is an inadequate estimate and factor-analytic evidence is needed first of all. Health Psychology Review, 11(3), 242–247.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2015.1124240.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Davidov, E., Meuleman, B., Cieciuch, J., Schmidt, P., & Billiet, J. (2014). Measurement equivalence in cross-national research. Annual Review of Sociology, 40(1), 55–75.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dılekmen, M. (2007). Orientation program and adaptation of university students. Psychological Reports, 101(7), 1141–1144.  https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.101.7.1141-1144.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Eccles, J., & Wang, M.-T. (2012). So what is student engagement anyway? In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 133–145). Boston, MA. USA: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Edwards, M. C., Houts, C. R., & Wirth, R. J. (2017). Measurement invariance, the lack thereof, and modeling change. Quality of Life Research, 27, 1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1673-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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(6), 525–537.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 97–131). Boston, MA. USA: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Finney, S. J., & DiStefano, C. (2013). Non-normal and categorical data in Structural Equation Modeling In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural Equation Modeling: A second course (2nd ed., pp. 439–492). Charlotte, NC, USA: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fredricks, J. A. (2015). Academic engagement. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 31–36). San Diego, CA, USA: Elsevier.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.26085-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fredricks, J. A., & McColskey, W. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 763–782). Boston, MA, USA: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_37 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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(1), 59–109.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Fredricks, J. A., McColskey, W., Meli, J., Mordica, J., Montrosse, B., & Mooney, K. (2011). Measuring student engagement in upper elementary through high school: A description of 21 instruments (No. Issues & Answers report, REL 2011–No. 098). Washington, DC, USA: Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gilardi, S., & Guglielmetti, C. (2011). University life of non-traditional students: Engagement styles and impact on attrition engagement styles and impact on attrition. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(1), 33–53.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2011.11779084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Green, S. B., & Yang, Y. (2009). Reliability of summed item scores using structural equation modeling: An alternative to coefficient alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), 155–167.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9099-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Handelsman, M. M., Briggs, W. L., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. (2005). A measure of college student course engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 184–192.  https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.98.3.184-192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hirschi, A. (2012). Callings and work engagement: Moderated mediation model of work meaningfulness, occupational identity, and occupational self-efficacy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(3), 479–485.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028949.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Hodson, P., & Thomas, H. (2003). Quality assurance in higher education: Fit for the new millennium or simply year 2000 compliant? Higher Education, 45(3), 375–387.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022665818216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jorgensen, T. D., Pornprasertmanit, S., Schoemann, A. M., & Rosseel, Y. (2018). semTools: Useful tools for Structural Equation Modeling (R package version 0.4–15.930) [Computer Software]. https://cran.r-project.org/package=semTools
  48. Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 758–773.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.598505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2013). Psychological testing: Principles, applications & issues (8th ed.). Belmont. CA, USA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  50. Kelley, K., & Pornprasertmanit, S. (2016). Confidence intervals for population reliability coefficients: Evaluation of methods, recommendations, and software for composite measures. Psychological Methods, 21(1), 69–92.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040086.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2009). Development of a questionnaire for assessing students’ perceptions of the teaching and learning environment and its use in quality assurance. Learning Environments Research, 12(1), 15–29.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-008-9050-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262–273.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb08283.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York, NY, USA: The Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  54. Kong, Q., Wong, N.-Y., & Lam, C.-C. (2003). Student engagement in mathematics: Development of instrument and validation of construct. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15(1), 4–21.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Krause, K.-L., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first-year university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 493–505.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701698892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the National Survey of student engagement. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 33(3), 10–17.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380109601795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kuh, G. D. (2005). Student engagement in the first year of college. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, & B. O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college (pp. 86–107). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  58. Kuh, G. D. (2009). The National Survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009(141), 5–20.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lee, J.-S. (2014). The relationship between student engagement and academic performance: Is it a myth or reality? The Journal of Educational Research, 107(3), 177–185.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.807491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lin, S.-H., & Huang, Y.-C. (2018). Assessing college student engagement: Development and validation of the student course engagement scale. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 36(7), 694–708.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282917697618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mandernach, B. J. (2015). Assessment of student engagement in higher education: A synthesis of literature and assessment tools. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 12(2), 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.94.17.9499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mardia, K. V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57(3), 519–530.  https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/57.3.519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Marôco, J. (2014). Análise de equações estruturais: Fundamentos teóricos, software & aplicações (2nd ed.). Pêro Pinheiro, Portugal: ReportNumber.Google Scholar
  64. Maroco, J., Maroco, A. L., & Campos, J. A. D. B. (2014). Student’s academic efficacy or inefficacy? An example on how to evaluate the psychometric properties of a measuring instrument and evaluate the effects of item wording. Open Journal of Statistics, 04(06), 484–493.  https://doi.org/10.4236/ojs.2014.46046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Marôco, J., Marôco, A. L., Campos, J. A. D. B., & Fredricks, J. A. (2016). University student’s engagement: Development of the university student engagement inventory (USEI). Psicologia: Reflexão e. Crítica, 29(21), 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-016-0042-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Muthén, B. O., Asparouhov, T., Morin, A. J. S., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2010). A new look at the big five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22(3), 471–491.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019227.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. McCoach, D. B., Gable, R. K., & Madura, J. P. (Eds.). (2013). Evidence based on relations to other variables: Bolstering the empirical validity arguments for constructs. In Instrument development in the affective domain (3rd ed., pp. 209–248). New York, NY, USA: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7135-6_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Routledge.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410601087.Google Scholar
  69. Millsap, R. E., & Yun-Tein, J. (2004). Assessing factorial invariance in ordered-categorical measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(3), 479–515.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3903_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. National Research Council, & Institute of Medicine. (2004). Engaging schools: Fostering school students’ motivation to learn. Washington. In DC. USA: National Academies Press.  https://doi.org/10.17226/10421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). San Francisco. CA, USA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  72. R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (version 3.5.1) [computer software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing https://www.r-project.org/.Google Scholar
  73. R Studio Team. (2018). RStudio: Integrated development for R (version 1.1.456) [Computer Software]. Boston: RStudio, Inc. http://www.rstudio.com/.
  74. Raykov, T. (2001). Estimation of congeneric scale reliability using covariance structure analysis with nonlinear constraints. The British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 54, 315–323.  https://doi.org/10.1348/000711001159582.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Reis, D., Xanthopoulou, D., & Tsaousis, I. (2015). Measuring job and academic burnout with the Oldenburg burnout inventory (OLBI): Factorial invariance across samples and countries. Burnout Research, 2(1), 8–18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burn.2014.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 3–19). Boston, MA, USA: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Revelle, W. (2018). Psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research (R package version 1.8.4) [Computer software]. Evanston: Northwestern University. https://cran.r-project.org/package=psych.
  78. Revelle, W., & Zinbarg, R. E. (2009). Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the glb: Comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74(1), 145–154.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9102-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Rios, J., & Wells, C. (2014). Validity evidence based on internal structure. Psicothema, 26(1), 108–116.  https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2013.260.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016). Applying bifactor statistical indices in the evaluation of psychological measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(3), 223–237.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1089249.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–21.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. McNamara, A., Arino de la Rubia, E., Zhu, H., Ellis, S., & Quinn, M. (2018). skimr: Compact and flexible summaries of data (R package version 1.0.3) [Computer software]. https://cran.r-project.org/package=skimr
  83. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), 507–514.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Defining and measuring work engagement: Bringing clarity to the concept. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 10–24). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  85. Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I. M., Marques-Pinto, A., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(5), 464–481.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022102033005003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Senior, C., & Howard, C. (2015). Editorial: The state of the art in student engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–2.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Sheppard, S. L. (2011). School engagement: A ‘danse macabre’? Journal of Philosophy of Education, 45(1), 111–123.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.2010.00782.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sinval, J., Marques-Pinto, A., Queirós, C., & Marôco, J. (2018). Work engagement among rescue workers: Psychometric properties of the Portuguese UWES. Frontiers in Psychology, 8.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02229.
  89. Sireci, S. G., & Padilla, J.-L. (2014). Validating assessments: Introduction to the special section. Psicothema, 26(1), 97–99.  https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2013.255.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 99–103.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. van de Schoot, R., Lugtig, P., & Hox, J. J. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(4), 486–492.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.686740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. van de Schoot, R., Schmidt, P., & De Beuckelaer, A. (Eds.). (2015). Measurement invariance. Lausanne, Switzerland: Frontiers Media  https://doi.org/10.3389/978-2-88919-650-0 Google Scholar
  93. Vasalampi, K., Salmela-Aro, K., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2009). Adolescents’ self-concordance, school engagement, and burnout predict their educational trajectories. European Psychologist, 14(4), 332–341.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.14.4.332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wierstra, R. F. A., Kanselaar, G., van der Linden, J. L., Lodewijks, H. G. L. C., & Vermunt, J. D. (2003). The impact of the university context on European students’ learning approaches and learning environment preferences. Higher Education, 45(4), 503–523.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023981025796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Klauda, S. L., McRae, A., & Barbosa, P. (2008). Role of reading engagement in mediating effects of reading comprehension instruction on reading outcomes. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 432–445.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Wolf-Wendel, L., Ward, K., & Kinzie, J. (2009). A tangled web of terms: The overlap and unique contribution of involvement, engagement, and integration to understanding college student success. Journal of College Student Development, 50(4), 407–428.  https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Wonglorsaichon, B., Wongwanich, S., & Wiratchai, N. (2014). The influence of students school engagement on learning achievement: A structural equation modeling analysis. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 1748–1755.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Zinbarg, R. E., Revelle, W., Yovel, I., & Li, W. (2005). Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and Mcdonald’s ω H: Their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika, 70(1), 123–133.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-003-0974-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Zinbarg, R. E., Revelle, W., & Yovel, I. (2007). Estimating ω h for structures containing two group factors: Perils and prospects. Applied Psychological Measurement, 31(2), 135–157.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621606291558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Zumbo, B. D., Gadermann, A. M., & Zeisser, C. (2007). Ordinal versions of coefficients alpha and Theta for likert rating scales. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 6(1), 21–29.  https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1177992180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jorge Sinval
    • 1
  • Joana R. Casanova
    • 2
  • João Marôco
    • 1
    Email author
  • Leandro S. Almeida
    • 2
  1. 1.William James Center for ResearchISPA – Instituto UniversitárioLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Research Centre on Education (CIEd), Institute of EducationUniversity of MinhoBragaPortugal

Personalised recommendations