Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F): Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses at item level

  • Published:
European Journal of Psychology of Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The underlying structure of the Revised Two factor version of the Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F), a 20-item instrument for the evaluation of students’ approaches to learning (SAL), was examined at item level using two independent groups of undergraduate students enrolled in the first (n=314) and last (n=522) years of their studies. The methods used were (a) Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) assisted by rigorous procedures such as Velicer’s MAP test, parallel analysis and the Schmid Leiman solution with the first sample; and (b) confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with the second sample. The results of EFA indicated that the latent structure of the R-SPQ-2F is best described by two factors and the results of CFA suggested that out of four a priori structural models, the best fit was achieved by a simple first-order two-factor model. Taken together, these results seemed to converge, suggesting (a) that SAL might be defined as a co-variation between a motive and its intended strategy, these not necessarily being divided into separate first-order factors (subscales), and (b) that the underlying structure of the R-SPQ-2F is apparently non-hierarchical, being best described by a parsimonious first-order two-factor model in which Deep and Surface learning approaches are each measured by their ten corresponding items.

Résumé

La structure sous-jacente de la versión révisée de deux facteurs du Questionnaire de Processus de l’Étude (R-SPQ-2F), un instrument comprenant 20 items pour l’évaluation des approches d’apprentissage des étudiants (SAL), a été examinée en se basant sur les ítems et en utilisant deux échantillons indépendants d’étudiants qui faisaient leur première (n=314) et leur dernière (n=522) année d’études. Les méthodes utilisées ont été (a) l’analyse factorielle exploratoire (AFE) à l’aide de procedés rigoureux tels que le test MAP de Velicer, l’analyse parallèle et la solution de Schmid-Leiman avec le premier échantillonnage; et (b) l’analyse factorielle confirmative (AFC) avec le deuxième échantillonnage. Les résultats de l’AFE ont montré que la meilleure structure latente du R-SPQ-2F fut celle décrite par deux facteurs, et les résultats de l’AFC ont suggéré que des quatre modèles structuraux proposés, le meilleur ajustage a été réussi à partir d’un simple modèle de deux facteurs de premier ordre. Pris dans l’ensemble, ces résultats semblaient converger en suggérant (a) que les SAL peuvent être définis comme une covariation entre un motif et sa stratégie correspondante, pas nécessairement divisés en facteurs de premier ordre (sous-échelles) indépendants, et (b) que la structure sous-jacente de l’R-SPQ-2F n’est apparement pas hiérarchique, sa meilleur description étant un modèle de deux facteurs de premier ordre où les approches Profonde et Superficielle sont mésurées à partir des 10 items correspondants.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Biggs, J. (1978). Individual and group differences in study process.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 48, 266–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. (1987a).Student Approaches to Learning and Studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. (1987b).Study Process Questionnaire: Manual. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. (1987c).Learning Process Questionnaire: Manual. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. (1993). What do inventories of students’ learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarification.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. (2001). Enhancing learning: A matter of style or approach? In R.J. Sternberg & L.F. Zhang (Eds.),Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 73–102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung (2001). The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K.A. (1989).Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnet, P.C., & Dart, B.C. (2000). The Study Process Questionnaire: A construct validation study.Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25, 93–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cano, F. (2005). Consonance and dissonance in students’ learning experience.Learning and Instruction, 15, 201–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C.A., Massey, D.R., & Isaacs, P.J. (1991). Cognitive strategies and study habits: An analysis of the measurement of tertiary students’ learning.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 290–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N., & McCune, V. (2004). The conceptual basis of study strategy inventories.Educational Psychology Review, 16, 325–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N., Tait, H., & McCune, V. (2000). Patterns of response to an approaches to studying inventory across contrasting groups and contexts.European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15(1), 33–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flora, D.B., Finkel, E.J., & Foshee, V.A. (2003). Higher order factor structure of a self-control test: Evidence from confirmatory factor analysis with polychoric correlations.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 112–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, R.A., McManus, I.C., & Winder, B.C. (2001). The shortened Study Process Questionnaire: An investigation of its structure and longitudinal stability using confirmatory factor analysis.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 511–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorsuch, R.L. (1983).Factor analysis (2nd ed.) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Watkins, D. (1981). Australian and Filipino investigations of the internal structure of Biggs’ new Study Process Questionnaire.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 241–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henson, R.K., & Roberts, J.K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research. Common errors and some comment on improved practice.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 393–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn, J.L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis.Psychometrika, 30, 179–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K.G. (1994). On the estimation of polychoric correlations and their asymptotic covariance matrix.Psychometrika, 59, 381–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1996a).LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1996b).PRELIS 2: User’s reference guide. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, H.F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelloway, K. (1998).Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A researchers’ guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kember, D., & Gow, L. (1990). Cultural specificity of approaches to study.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 356–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kember, D., & Leung, D.Y.P. (1998). The dimensionality of approaches to learning: An investigation with confirmatory factor analysis on the structure of the SPQ and the LPQ.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 395–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kember, D., Wong, A., & Leung, D.Y.P. (1999). Reconsidering the dimensions of approaches to learning.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 323–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R.B. (1998).Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning. I — Outcome and process.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976b). On qualitative differences in learning. I — Outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the task.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J.H.F., & Eley, M.G. (2006). The Approaches to Teaching Inventory: A critique of its development and aplicability.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 633–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J.H.F., & Parsons, P. (1989). Approaches to studying and course perceptions using the Lancaster Inventory-a comparative study.Studies in Higher Education, 14, 137–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, B. (2000) SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 32, 396–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neil, M.J., & Child, D. (1984). Biggs’ SPQ: A British study of its internal structure.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 228–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., Hazel, E., & Waterhouse, F. (2000). Students’ experiences of studying physics concepts: The effects of disintegrated perceptions and approaches.European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15(1), 61–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez, L., & Cano, F. (2006). The epistemological beliefs, learning approaches and study orchestrations of university students.Studies in Higher Education, 31, 617–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J.T.E. (2000).Researching student learning Approaches to studying in campus-based and distance education. Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J.T.E. (2004). Methodological issues in questionnaire-based research on student learning in higher education.Educational Psychology Review, 16, 347–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rindskopf, D., & Rose, T. (1988). Some theory and applications of confirmatory second-order factor analysis.Multivariate Behavioural Research, 23, 51–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, D.W. (2002). In search of underlying dimensions: The use (and abuse) of factor analysis in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2, 1629–1646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sach, J., & Gao, L. (2000). Item-level and subscale level factoring of Biggs’ Learning Process Questionnaire (LPQ) in a mainland Chinese sample.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 405–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, J., & Leiman, J. N. (1957). The development of hierarchical factor solutions.Psychometrika, 22, 53–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001).Using multivariate statistics (3rd). New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, B., & Daniel, L.G. (1996). Factor analytic evidence for the construct validity of scores: A historical overview and some guidelines.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 197–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velicer, W.F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations.Psychometrika, 41, 321–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volet, S.E., Renshaw, P.D., & Tietzel, K. (1994). A short-term longitudinal investigation of cross-cultural differences in study approaches to learning using Biggs’ SPQ questionnaire.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 302–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, H.G., & Preising, K. (2005). Exploring item and higher order factor structure with the Schmid-Leiman solution: Syntax codes for SPSS and SAS.Behavior Research Methods, 37, 48–58.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Granada, Spain

    Fernando Justicia (Director), M. Carmen Pichardo, Francisco Cano & A. B. G. Berbén

  2. University of Almería, Spain

    Jesús De la Fuente

  3. Faculty of Psychology, Department of Educational and Development Psychology, Carretera de Sacramento s/n, La Cañada de San Urbano, 04120, Almería, Spain

    Jesús De la Fuente

Authors
  1. Fernando Justicia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Carmen Pichardo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francisco Cano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. B. G. Berbén
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jesús De la Fuente
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fernando Justicia.

Additional information

This project was supported by the Dirección Generale de Investigacióne del MCYT (Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologia) (Ref. BSO 2003-06493).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Justicia, F., Pichardo, M.C., Cano, F. et al. The Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F): Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses at item level. Eur J Psychol Educ 23, 355–372 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173004

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173004

Key words

Search

Navigation