56

The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

Validating the Academic Self-regulated Learning Scale with the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) and Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI) Carlo Magno

De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines
Abstract
The present study further established the construct validity of the Academic Self-regulated Learning Scale (A-SRL-S, Magno, 2010) through its functional correlation with the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) and Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI). The three questionnaires were administered to 755 college students from different universities in the National Capital Region in the Philippines. All subscales of the three instruments had significant intercorrelations ( p<.001). Three measurement models, using Confirmatory Factor Analysis were tested to determine which best explains the construction of the A-SRL-S. A two factor model where the A-SRL-S was combined with MLSQ with LASSI on a separate factor turned to have a bad fit ( =2648.02, df=89, RMSEA=.26, SRMR=.20, AIC=3.39, SBC=3.78, BCCVI=3.60). Another two-factor model where A-SRL-S was combined with LASSI with MSLQ this time on a separate factor improved its fit as compared to the first model ( =1052.99, df=89, RMSEA=.13, SRMR=.09, AIC=1.47, SBC=1.66, BCCVI=1.48). The last three-factor model where A-SRL-S, MSLQ, and LASSI are structured as separate correlated factors turned to have the best fit ( =473.47, df=87, RMSEA=.08, SRMR=.04, AIC=.71, SBC=.92, BCCVI=.71). Implications about the usefulness and validity of the A-SRL-S in research were discussed.
2 2 2

Keywords: self-regulation, Academic Self-regulated Learning Scale, Motivated Strategies for
Learning Questionnaire, Learning and Study Strategies Inventory

Introduction When self-regulation is measured in quantitative studies, it requires the use of a direct instrument that captures its conceptualizations, dispositions, and skills. Researchers find it important to assess self-regulation among learners because they are concerned at determining what thinking processes and strategies does students use when engaged in a cognitive task such as memorizing, problem solving, focusing one’s attention on a stimuli, and answering tests. Having determed the level of selfregulation of a learner allows researchers to predict how well students can succeed in a task or achieve in an academic pursuit. Learners and students who are academically self-regulated are independent in their studies, diligent in listening inside the classroom, focused on doing their task inside the classroom, gets high scores in tests, able to recall teacher’s instruction and facts lectured in class, and submits quality work (Magno, 2009). There are even several studies that established the successful outcomes and consequences of self-regulation (e. g., Blakey & Spencer, 1990; Collins, 1982; Corsale & Ornstein, 1980; Kluwe, 1982; Lopez, Little, Oettingen, Baltes, 1998; Rock, 2005; Schneider, 1985).

© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

57
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

There are several direct measures of self-regulation that were developed such as the use of the structured interviews like the Self-regualtion Interview Schedule (SRLIS), Questionnaires, teacher judgments, think aloud techniques, error detection tasks, trace methodologies, and observation of performance (see Winne & Perry, 2005; Zimmerman, 2008). One instrument that was recently developed to measure self-regulation in an academic context is the Academic Selfregulated Learning Scale (A-SRL-S, Magno, 2010). The A-SRL-S is a scale where items are classified under seven factors of self-regulation: Memory strategy, goal setting, self-evaluation, seeking assistance, environmental structuring, learning responsibility, and planning and organizing. These factors were first uncovered using principal components analysis that classified a seven factor solution. Then the factor solution was confirmed in another sample (n=309) by testing a seven factor model using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The CFA confirmed the seven factor model with adequate fit (χ2=332.07, df=1409, RMS=.07, RMSEA=.06, GFI=.91, and NFI=.89). Aside from these findings, the items showed high internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha. High Cronbach’s alpha values were still obtained even when the items were separated by factor. What is new in the analysis of the A-SRL-S is the precision determined using the Item Response Theory that cannot be determined using a Classical Test Theory Approach. Through the IRT, the item functioning of the A-SRL-S was further investigated. Specifically, a Graded Response Model (GRM) was used to test the calibration of the items with polychotomous responses. The GRM features estimation of an ogive curve for every category of the scale used for each item. In a regular IRT model for tests’ with right and wrong answer, the probability of answering an item correct given the ability of respondents is estimated with an ogive curve known as Item Characteristic Curve (ICC). In a GRM, the estimates of each items’ probability of response for each scale (like a Lickert scale) is represented by ogive curves. The results of the GRM analysis made by Magno (2010) showed that the step calibrations for each factor were adequate where values were monotonicall increasing from negative values to positive values. Lower scale categories generally had negative estimates while higher scale categories reached a positive value. All items also showed adequate fit where mean square values for each item ranged within 0.8 to 1.2. The Test Information Function (TIF) covers five standard deviations below and on top of the 0 which covers a large spectrum of behavior. This showed the tool’s precision in measuring self-regulation. Since the IRT features independent calibration for the items and ability, the obtained item and person reliability for each scale was also very high (see Magno, 2010). To further validate the construction of self-regulation, the A-SRL-S needs to be studied with other measures of self-regulation. The two most common measures of self-regulated learning in literature reviews within the field of education and psychology are the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ, Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991, 1993) and the Learning and Study trategies Inventory (LASSI, Weinstein, Palmer, & Schulte, 1987). These two instruments are commonly used in studies that involve the measurement selfregulation. The selection of the LASSI and MSLQ to validate self-regulation

© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

58
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

behavior is based on the classification of common scales for self-regulation by Olaussen and Braten (1999). The MSLQ was designed by Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, and McKeachie in 1991 to assess college students on two aspects: Their motivational orientation and use of different strategies. The motivational orientation consists of measurement for values, expectancies, and affective components. The values include intrinsic goal orientation, extrinsic goal orientation, and task value. The expectancies are composed of control of learning beliefs and self-efficacy for learning and performance. The affective is composed of test anxiety. The learning strategies include cognitive and metacognitive and resource management strategies. The cognitive and metacognitive strategies are composed of rehearsal, elaboration, organization, critical thinking, and metacognitive self-regulation. The resource management is composed of time and study environment, effort regulation, peer learning, and help seeking. The scale correlations were adequate and the factors were also confirmed with adequate fit (2/df=3.49, GFI=.77, RMR=.07) for the motivation part and use of strategies (2/df=2.26, GFI=.78, RMR=.08). There are also several studies that tested the reliability and validity of the MSLQ. There is strong evidence that the MSLQ measures self-regulation. There are numerous studies that use this instrument to assess self-regulation behaviors from domain-general to domain specific areas. Example of studies using the MSLQ for domain-specific subject areas are conducted by Malmivuori (2006) for mathematics, Lee, Lim, and Grabowski (2009) and Yoon (2009) for science, Joo, Bong, and Choi (2000) for web-based instruction, Chen (2002) for an information systems course, Moos and Azevedo (2006) for a hypermedia learning tasks, Yusri and Rahimi (2008) for language, and Mullen (2006) for a nursing program. The other studies used MSLQ to measure self-regulation as domain general skills such as Guvenc (2010), Sungur and Tekkaya (2006), Graner (2009), Eden (2009), Kesici and Erdogan (2009), Kitsantas, Winsler, and Huie (2008), Bembenutty (2007), Ertmer, Newby and MacDougal (1996), and Moos and Azevedo (2006). The LASSI was devised by Weinstein and Palmer in 1990 to assess students’ awareness about and use of learning and study strategies. These strategies are said to be related to skill, will and self-regulation components of strategic learning. The tool is intended to help students develop awareness of the strengths and weaknesses in studying. The LASSI measures general domains on study skill, will, and self-regulation. The three domains of study skills are information processing, selecting main ideas, and test strategies. The subscales of will are anxiety, attitude, and motivation. The self-regulation includes concentration, selftesting, study aids, and time management. Very high coefficient alphas were obtained for each of the scales. In the initial development of the LASSI, test-retest reliability with an interval of 3 to 4 weeks was conducted and obtained a coefficient of .88 for the whole scale (Weinstein & Palmer, 1990). Adequate scale correlations were also obtained. The LASSI scales were validated by comparing it with measures of similar learning behaviors and measures of ability (Eldrege, 1990; Schutz, 1997). There are also several studies that used the LASSI to measure selfregulation. Dembo (2001) recommends the use of the LASSI when structuring a
© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

59
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

course to develop self-regulation behaviors of students. Assessing self-regulation through the LASSI helps to teach students to become better learners. The LASSI was used to assess students’ self-regulation with learning disabilities (Abrue-Ellis, Ellis, & Hayes, 2009; Kirby, Silvestri, Allingham, Parilla, & La Fave, 2008). Other studies focused on determining self-regulatory outcomes (Downing, Chan, Downing, Kwong, & Lam, 2008; Hamman, 1998; Sizoo, Agusa, & Iskat, 2005; Wadsworth, Husman, Duggan, & Peninton, 2007). Given that the MSLQ and LASSI are strong indicators of self-regulatory functioning, the present study established the construct validity of the A-SRL-S with these two other measures. Construct validity can be established by correlating a new scale with similar earlier scales. The procedure approximates the validity of a new scale with the same general area of behavior as other tests are designed (Anastasi & Urbina, 2002). Construct validation of the A-SRL-S allows to generalize in a broader class of measures that legitimately employ the same construct such as the MSLQ and LASSI (Nunnaly & Bernstein, 1994). More specifically, the present study established a measurement model where the A-SRL-S together with the MSLQ and LASSI are structured as latent factors that are correlated (common factor model). The structured common factor model was assessed whether there are adequate fit and significant correlations to support for the construct validation of the A-SRL-S. Method Participants The participants in the study are 755 college students from different universities in the National Capital Region of the Philippines. These students were all enrolled in a degree course who is already taking up their major courses. In the Philippines major courses are taken from second year college until the last year. There is much evidence of self-regulation behavior because these students are already experienced several academic tasks and requirements in school. Instruments Academic Self-Regulated Learning Scale (A-SRL-S). The A-SRL-S was developed by Magno (2010) to measure self-regulation of college students that is within the context of their learning in higher education. Each item is responded by a four-point Lickert scale (Strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree). The scale is composed of seven factors: Memory strategy (14 items), goal-setting (5 items), self-evaluation (12 items), seeking assistance (8 items), environmental structuring (5 items), learning responsibility (5 items), and planning and organizing (5 items). The seven factors were uncovered using an initial principal components analysis with varimax rotation. Uisng another sample, the seven factor structure was confirmed using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and adequate fit was achieved (χ2=332.07, df=1409, RMS=.07, RMSEA=.06, GFI=.91, and NFI=.89). There is evidence of convergent validity where all seven factors were highly intercorrelated.
© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

60
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

High interbal consistencies were also attained for each factor (.73 to .87). Using an IRT Graded Response Model, the scale showed appropriate step calibration where the responses are monotonically increasing. The Test Information Function curve showed precision for the overall instrument. Almost all items showed to have good fit and the few items that did not fit the GRM were revised. Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire by Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, and McKeachie (1991) was used as another measure for self-regulation. The questionnaire is composed of two sections: The motivation and learning strategy section. The motivation assesses student values (intrinsic and extrinsic goal orientation and task value), expectancies (control of learning beliefs, self-efficacy for learning and performance), and affective beliefs (test anxiety). The learning strategies section assesses cognitive and metacognitive strategies (rehearsal, elaboration, organization, critical thinking, metacognitive, and self-regulation) and resource management strategies (time and study environment, effort regulation, peer and learning help seeking). All items are responded using a seven-point Likert scale (from 1 – Not at all true of me to 7 – Very true of me). In general, if students score above three on the questionnaire, then it means that they are using effective learning strategies. However, students who score below three mean that they are not using effective learning strategies (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991). The scale is valid having a significant relationship with all the factors being assessed. It was shown in the confirmatory factor analysis that the learning strategies are under one latent factor. Furthermore, the scale is reliable having a Cronbach's Alpha value ranging from .52 to .93. The Cronbach’s Alpha was recomputed from the scores of students in the sample. Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI). The short version of the LASSI (with a 5-point scale and 77 items) was used which is a prescriptive and diagnostic assessment of “student’s awareness” about the use of learning and study strategies. The three components cover: (1) Skill - learning strategies, skills and thought processes that help prepare and demonstrate new knowledge on tests or other evaluative procedures (subscales include information processing, selecting main ideas, and test strategies), (2) Will - worry to academic performance, receptivity to learning new information, attitudes and interest in college, diligence, self-discipline, and willingness to exert the effort necessary to successfully complete academic requirements (subscales include anxiety, attitude, and motivation), and (3) Self- Regulation - manage, or self-regulate and control, the whole learning process through time management, maintaining concentration, checking learning demands, and using study aids (subscales include concentration, self-testing, study aids, and time management) (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002). Participants answered the learning and study strategies inventory on how often they do the given case/scenario through the response format “not at all like me, not very much like me, somewhat like me, fairly much like me, and very much like me.” The reliability of LASSI indicates a Cronbach’s Alpha of .84, .89, and .80 for Information Processing, Selecting Main Ideas and Test Strategies scales for the “Skill” component respectively. For the
© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

61
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

scales of the “Will” component, Anxiety, Attitude and Motivation indicate a Cronbach’s Alpha score of .87, .77 and .84, respectively. The Cronbach’s alpha scores of Concentration, Self- Testing, Study Aids, and Time Management for the “Self- Regulation” component obtain .86, .84, .73, and .85 respectively. Also, a testretest correlation of .88 was computed for the total instrument. There were different approaches the author used to determine the validity of learning and study strategies inventory: (1) The scale scores were compared to other tests or subscales which are measuring related factors; (2) some scales were validated adjacent to performance measures; and (3) the learning and study strategies inventory had repeated tests of user validity (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002). Procedure All the participants were briefed about the guidelines in answering the questionnaires. They were asked if they are willing to participate in the study by answering a series of questionnaires. The participants were guided accordingly on how they answered the forms: (1) The researcher gave the rationale of the study, (2) read the questions carefully; (2) instructed that there are no right or wrong answers for the questionnaires. The researcher informed the participants that the study needs to get authentic answer for more accurate result. The participants were also made aware that their answers will not affect their class standing in school and failure to follow the guidelines will be forfeited on the participation in the study. The researchers administered to the participants all the questionnaires during their class time. The researchers then scored the questionnaires for each subscale. Each participant was assigned with a call number used for the purpose of identifying and recording all the instruments. Data Analysis Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to provide factor validity of the A-SRL-S with the MSLQ and LASSI. A measurement model was constructed composed of a three-factor model. There were seven indicators for the A-SRL-S (Memory strategy, goal setting, self-evaluation, seeking assistance, environmental structuring, learning responsibility, and planning and organizing), five indicators for the MLSQ (values, expectancies, affective, cognitive and metacognitive, and resource management), and three indicators for the LASSI (skill, will, and self-regulation). The three latent constructs were intercorrelated to establish factor convergence and construct validity. Significant parameter estimates should be produced to establish the relationship among the latent constructs. The components should have significant estimates as well in order to provide proofs of inclusion of for their respective latent constructs. The fit of the hypothesized four-factor model was assessed by examining several fit indices including three absolute and one incremental fit index. The minimum fit function chi-square, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) are absolute fit indices. The chi-square statistic (χ2) assesses the difference between the sample
© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

62
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

covariance matrix and the implied covariance matrix from the hypothesized model (Fan, Thompson, & Wang, 1999). A statistically non-significant χ2 indicates adequate model fit. Because the χ2 test is very sensitive to large sample sizes (Hu & Bentler, 1995), additional absolute fit indices were examined. The RMSEA is moderately sensitive to simple model misspecification and very sensitive to complex model misspecification (Hu & Bentler, 1998). Hu and Bentler (1999) suggest that values of .06 or less indicate a close fit. The SRMR is very sensitive to simple model misspecification and moderately sensitive to complex model misspecification (Hu & Bentler, 1998). Hu and Bentler (1998) suggest that adequate fit is represented by values of .08 or less. In addition, two incremental fit indices, the comparative fit index (CFI) and the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) were examined. The CFI and the TLI are moderately sensitive to simple model misspecification and very sensitive to complex model misspecification (Hu & Bentler, 1998). Hu and Bentler (1998) recommend a cutoff of .95 or greater for both the CFI and the TLI. Results The scores obtained from the three questionnaires were summarized according to their factors. The seven scores were obtained from the A-SRL-S, five scores for MSLQ, and three scores for the LASSI. Descriptive statistics were reported including their internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha. The mean scores for the A-SRL-S were still within the confidence interval level of the means in the previous study (see Magno, 2009). However, the standard deviations for this sample are lower than the previous study. The Cronbach’s alpha for the A-SRL-S are still within the same range (.70-.84). The reported means scores of the MSLQ and LASSI had higher means for this sample as compared with the previous samples in the study of Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, and McKeachie (1991) and Weinstein and Palmer (2002).

© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

63
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations, Confidence Intervals, and Internal Consistency
N
A-SRL-S Memory Strategy Goal-setting Self-evaluation Seeking Assistance Environmental Structuring Learning Responsibility Planning and Organizing MSLQ Values Expectancies Affective Cognitive and Metacognitive Resource Management LASSI Skill Will Self-regulation 755 755 755 3.13 3.12 3.14 3.09 3.08 3.10 3.18 3.17 3.18 0.65 0.64 0.59 .75 .74 .72 755 755 755 755 755 755 755 755 755 755 755 755 2.80 2.83 2.81 2.90 2.84 2.95 2.99 4.43 4.33 4.07 4.33 4.37 2.76 2.78 2.77 2.86 2.79 2.90 2.95 4.35 4.25 3.99 4.25 4.30 2.84 2.88 2.85 2.94 2.89 2.99 3.03 4.52 4.41 4.15 4.40 4.45 0.56 0.69 0.54 0.54 0.66 0.64 0.60 1.19 1.12 1.15 1.03 1.08 .84 .74 .82 .71 .70 .72 .71 .92 .90 .80 .95 .93

M

Confidence -95.00%

Confidence 95.00%

SD

Cronbach’s alpha

To further establish the convergence of the factors of the A-SRL-S with the MSLQ and the LASSI, Pearson correlation was conducted. The results of the correlation showed that all coefficients are significant below .001 alpha levels. The significant correlations indicate that convergence was attained among the factors of A-SRL-S, MSLQ, and LASSI. Three measurement models were constructed to determine which structure best explains the relationship of the A-SRL-S with the MSLQ and LASSI. The first measurement models include A-SRL-S combined with MSLQ factors and this is structured in a two factor model. A second measurement model consisting of a two-latent factor model where A-SRL-S was combined with LASSI factors structured with MSLQ. And lastly, a three-factor model was constructed where the A-SRL-S, MSLQ, and LASSI were placed as separate latent factors that are correlated.

© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

64
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

Table 2

Correlation Matrix for the A-SRL-S, MSLQ, and LASSI
(1) A-SRL-S (1) Memory Strategy (2) Goal-setting (3) Self-evaluation (4) Seeking assistance (5) Environmental (6) Structuring (7) Learning Responsibility (8) Planning and Organizing MSLQ (9) Values (10) Expectancies (11) Affective (12) Cognitive and Metacognitive (13) Resource Management LASSI (14) Skill (15) Will (16) Self-regulation .35 .29 .38 .25 .29 .27 .30 .24 .31 .28 .25 .31 .26 .26 .33 .31 .30 .35 .27 .29 .35 .31 .36 .35 .33 .37 .36 .23 .29 .26 .30 .34 .34 .27 .35 .32 -.51 .66 -.57 -.10 .15 .12 .17 .15 .17 .20 .23 .20 .20 .20 .21 .19 .23 .20 .24 .25 .23 .30 .29 .20 .20 .10 .21 .19 .30 .27 .20 .30 .30 .33 .30 .19 .33 .34 -.85 .57 .77 .77 -.63 .82 .80 -.64 .56 -.87 --.60 .57 .56 .51 .51 .46 -.57 .58 .43 .46 .45 -.66 .47 .53 .56 -.50 .58 .60 -.61 .51 -.60 -(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)

Note. All correlation coefficients are significant at p<.001
The results show that the three-factor model is best fitting model indicting further support for the convergence of A-SRL-S with the MSLQ and LASSI (2=473.97, df=87, RMSEA=.08, PGI=.93, GFI=.92, NFI=.94, CFI=.95, and TLI=.95). What is common in all the three models are the significant paths of all manifest variables and significant correlations among latent factors. However, in the model where A-SRL-S was combined with the two other measures, the model did not reach adequate fit. The second model where A-SRL-S was combined with the LASSI, the SRMR (.09) showed adequate fit. It was also observed that the path estimates of the factors of A-SRL-S increased when it was combined with the LASSI factors in one latent construct. The third model also showed that the relationship between A-SRL-S and LASSI is stronger (.47) than the relationship between A-SRL-S and MSLQ (.35). This indicates that the A-SRL-S has some degree of equivalence with the LASSI where both are strong indicators of learning strategies.

© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

65
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

Table 3

Comparison of Fit Indices
Model 2 Df RMSEA SRMR AIC SBC BCCVI A-SRL-S + MSLQ with LASSI (2 Factor Model) 2648.02 89 .26 .20 3.39 3.78 3.60 A-SRL-S + LASSI with MSLQ (2 Factor Model) 1052.99 89 .13 .09 1.47 1.66 1.48 3 Factor Model

473.97 87 .08 .04 .71 .92 .71

Discussion The present study established the construct validity of the A-SRL-S with the MSLQ and LASSI. This was done by first correlating the factors of the three scales in a zero order correlation. Three measurement models were tested to determine how the A-SRL-S is best related to MSLQ and LASSI. It was found in the study that all subscales of the A-SRL-S, MSLQ, and LASSI were significantly related. The low p values obtained in the correlation coefficients indicate that there is a small chance that the correlations are influenced with some random error. This further proved the relationship of each A-SRL-S subscale with the other established two measures. This initial analysis proved evidence about the similarity of the A-SRL-S with the two other established measures. In the zero order correlations, higher convergence is observed when the subscales of the A-SRL-S are intercorrelated among each other. There is also slightly higher correlation among the A-SRL-S subscales with the LASSI subscales as compared to the MSLQ subscales. This shows there is a closer similarity between A-SRL-S factors and LASSI factors. More specifically, the self-regulation component of the LASSI (concentration, self-testing, study aids, and time management) had stronger correlations with all factors of the A-SRL-S. The results of the zero order correlation was further strengthened by the results of the CFA. The CFA first showed that there was improvement in the fit of the model (using SRMR, AIC, SBC, and BCCVI) when the A-SRL-S factors were combined with the LASSI factors under one latent factor. Second, the path estimates of the factors of A-SRL-S increased when joined with the factors of LASSI under one latent variable. Third, the correlation of A-SRL-S and LASSI as latent constructs was stronger (.47) in the three-factor model. These results generally suggest that there is closer similarity and equivalence in the measurement of self-regulation between the A-SRL-S and the LASSI. The kind of self-regulation measured by the LASSI is approximated by the A-SRL-S.

© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

66
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

67
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

68
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

69
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

Both the A-SRL-S and LASSI are strong indicators of specific learning strategies. The A-SRL-S deals with six learning strategies that include memory strategy, goal-setting, self-evaluation, seeking assistance, environmental structuring, and planning and organizing. On the other hand, the LASSI’s skill and selfregulation aspects also specify specific strategies such as information processing, selecting main ideas, test strategies, concentration, self-testing, study aids, and time management. These strategies are commonly used by students when studying materials and preparing for exams. The manual of the LASSI even described explicitly that “The LASSI scales related to the self-regulation component of strategic learning are: Concentration, Self-Testing, Study Aids, and Time Management” (p. 5). This was further supported in the present study where A-SRLS is strongly related to the LASSI scales. The LASSI scales cover self-regulation of the “learning process by using time effectively, focusing attention and maintaining concentration over time, checking to see if learning demands are met for a class, an assignment or a test, and using study supports such as review sessions, tutors or special features of a textbook” (p. 5) that are similar with the contexts covered in the A-SRL-S. Examples of these scenarios in the A-SRL-S include taking notes, reading aloud, making schedules, asking for assistance and feedback, checking ones progress, avoiding distractions, and marking important concepts. The similarity between the as A-SRL-S and the LASSI as evidenced in the correlations and the CFA means that the A-SRL-S is a strong indicator of specific aspects of learning strategy measured by the LASSI. These aspects include measurement of how students study and learn and how they feel about studying and learning (see Eldrege, 1990). In the previous studies that developed the A-SRL-S, the validity of the tool is constructed using only the scale without other measures. The present study now used external and prior measures of self-regulation (such as the MSLQ and LASSI) that provide proof to its precision in measurement. This step in the development of the A-SRL-S is necessary to build evidence that the tool has some degree of similarity in the constructs measured by other scales (such as the MSLQ and LASSI). Since the construct validity of the A-SRL-S is now established with the LASSI and MSLQ, there is evidence about the precision of the A-SRL-S as a measure of self-regulation in general with specific learning strategies. The theoretical conception of self-regulation is clarified as a tool that covers aspects of learning strategies and study skills. It is safe to assume that the A-SRL-S covers specific learning strategies that help learners achieve specific learning goals. Given the established construct validity of the A-SRL-S, the tool is recommended to be used as alternative to the MSLQ and LASSI when academic self-regulation is needed to be measured. The tool can provide evidence about skills and characteristics of learners that will lead to better learning. The next step in establishing the tool is to provide a predictive validity to determine is consequences to learning that includes criterion such as students’ achievement and other learning strategies and metacognition.

© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

70
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

References Abreu-Ellis, C., Ellis, J., & Hayes, R. (2009). College preparedness and time of learning disability identification. Journal of Developmental Education, 32(3), 28-38. Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (2002). Psychological testing (7th ed.). NJ: Prentice Hall. Bembenutty, H. (2007). Self-regulated learning and academic delay of gratification: Gender and ethnic differences among college students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(4), 586-618. Blakey, E. & Spencer, S. (1990). Developing metacognition. ERIC Digest, ED327218. Chen, C. S. (2002). Self-regulated learning strategies and achievement in an introduction to information systems course. Information Technology, Learning and Performance Journal, 20(1), 11-29. Collins, J. L. (1982, March). Self-efficacy and ability in achievement behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. Corsale, K. & Ornstein, P. A. (1971). Developmental changes in children’s use of semantic information in recall. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 30, 231-245. Dembo, M. H. (2001). Learning to teach is not enough-future teachers also need to learn how to learn. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(4), 23-35. Downing, K., Chan, S., Downing, W., Kwon, T., & Lam, T. (2008). Measuring gender differences in cognitive functioning. Multicultural Education and Technology Journal, 2(1), 4-18. Edens, K. M. (2009). The interaction of pedagogical approach, gender, selfregulation, and goal orientation using student response system technology. Journal of Research in Technology Education, 41(2), 161-177. Eldrege, J. L. (1990). Learning and study strategies inventory--high school version (LASSI-HS). Journal of Reading, 34(2), 146-149. Ertmer, P. H., Newby, T. J., & MacDougal, M. (1996). Students responses and approaches to case-based instruction: The role of reflective self-regulation. American Educational Research Journal, 33(3), 719-752. Fan, X., Thompson, B., & Wang, L. (1999). Effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 56-83. Garner, J. K. (2009). Conceptualizing the relations between executive functions and self-regulated learning. The Journal of Psychology, 143(4), 405-426. Guvenc, H. (2010). The effects of cooperative learning and learning journals on teacher candidates’ self-regulated learning. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 10(3), 1477-1487. Hamman, D. (1998). Preservice teachers’ value for learning-strategy instruction. The Journal of Experimental Education, 66(3), 209-221. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 7699). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

71
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424-453. Joo, Y., Bong, M., & Choi, H. (2000). Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning, academic self-efficacy, and internet self-efficacy in web-based motivation. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 48(2), 5-17. Kesici, S., & Erdogan, A. (2009). Predicting college students’ mathematics anxiety by motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning strategies. College Student Journal, 43(2), 361-370. Kirby, J. R., Silvestri, R., Alklingham, B. H., Parrilla, R., & La Fave, C. B. (2008). Learning strategies and study approaches of postsecondary students with dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disability, 41(1), 85-96. Kitsantas, A., Winsler, A., & Hui, F. (2008). Self-regulation and ability predictions of academic success during college: A predictive validity study. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20(1), 42-68. Kluwe, R. H. (1982). Cognitive knowledge and execution control: Metacognition. In D. R. Griffin (Ed.), Animal mind – human mind (pp. 201-224). New York: Springer-Verlag. Lee, H. W., Lim, K. Y., & Grabowski, B. (2009). Generative learning strategies and metacognitive feedback to facilitate comprehension of computer science topics and self-regualtion. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 18(1), 5-25. Lopez, D.F., Little, T. D., Oettingen, G., & Baltes, P. B. (1998). Self-regulation and school performance: Is there optimal level of action-control?. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 70, 54-75. Malmivuori, M. (2006). Affect and self-regulation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63, 149-164. Magno, C. (2009). Assessing and developing self-regulated learning. The Assessment Handbook, 1, 24-26. Magno, C. (2010). Assessing academic self-regulated learning among Filipino college students: The factor structure and item fit. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 5(1), 61-78. Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2006). The role of goal structure in undergraduates’ use of self-regulatory process in two hypermedia learning tasks. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 15(1), 49-87. Mullen, P. A. (2006). Use of self-regulated learning strategies by students in the second and third trimesters of an accelerated second-degree baccalaureate nursing program. Journal of Nursing Education, 46(9), 406-412. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. NY: MacGraw Hill. Olaussen, B. D., & Braten, R. (1999), Students' use of strategies for self-regulated learning: Cross-cultural perspectives. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 43(4), 409-433. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. (1993). Reliability and validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801-813.
© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

72
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T. & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A Manual

for the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Michigan, WI: National Center for Research to Improve
Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. Rock, M. L. (2005). Use of strategic self-monitoring to enhance academic engagement, productivity, and accuracy of students with and without exceptionalities. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7, 3-18. Schneider, W. (1985). Developmental trends in the metamemory-memory behavior relationship: An integrative review. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. MacKinnon, & T. G. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition, Cognition, and Human Performance, Vol. 1 (pp. 57 – 109). New York: Academic. Schutz, P. A. L. (1997). Educational goals, strategies use and the academic performance of high school students. The High School Journal, 80(3), 193202. Sizoo, S. L., Agrusa, J. P., & Iskat, W. (2005). Measuring and developing the learning strategies of adult career and vocational education of students. Education, 125(4), 527-538. Sungur, S., & Tekkaya, C. (2006). Effects of problem-based learning and traditional instruction on self-regulated learning. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(5), 307-317. Wadsworth, L. M., Husman, J., Duggan, M., & Pennington, M. N. (2007). Online mathematics achievement : Effects of learning strategies and self-efficacy. Journal of Developmental Education, 30(3), 6-14. Weinstein, C. E., & Palmer, D. (1990). LASSI-HS user's manual. Clearwater, FL: H & H Publishing. Weinstein, C. E., Palmer, D. R., & Schulte, A. C. (1987). LASSI-Learning and Study Strategies Inventory. Clearwater, FL: H & H Publishing. Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2005). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Bokaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of Self-regulation (pp. 532-564). New York: Academic Press. Yoon, C. (2009). Self-regulated learning and instructional factors in the scientific inquiry of scientifically gifted Korean middle school students. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(3), 203-216. Yusri, G., & Rahimi, N. K. (2008). Self-regulated learning strategies among students of Arabic language course and intensive Arabic course in Mara University of Technology Malaysia, IJAES, 8(1), 57-67. Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166-183. DOI: 10.310/0002831207312909

© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

73
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

About the Author Dr. Carlo Magno is presently a faculty of the Counseling and Educational Psychology Department of De La Salle University, Manila. His research interest includes self-regulation, learning strategies, student achievement, metacognition, and language learning. Further correspondence can be addressed to him at carlo.magno@dlsu.edu.ph Special thanks to Ms. MR Aplaon for the help in gathering literature reviews and my educational psychology students for the assistance in the data gathering.

© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful