A Mediation Analysis of Achievement Motives, Goals, Learning Strategies, and Academic Achievement

Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
671
The
British
Psychological
British Journal of Educational Psychology (2010), 80, 671–687
q 2010 The British Psychological Society
Society
www.bpsjournals.co.uk
A mediation analysis of achievement motives,

goals, learning strategies, and academic
achievement
Åge Diseth* and Therese Kobbeltvedt

University of Bergen, Norway
Background. Previous research is inconclusive regarding antecedents and

consequences of achievement goals, and there is a need for more research in order
to examine the joint effects of different types of motives and learning strategies as
predictors of academic achievement.
Aims. To investigate the relationship between achievement motives, achievement
goals, learning strategies (deep, surface, and strategic), and academic achievement in a
hierarchical model.
Sample. Participants were 229 undergraduate students (mean age: 21.2 years) of
psychology and economics at the University of Bergen, Norway.
Methods. Variables were measured by means of items from the Achievement
Motives Scale (AMS), the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students, and an
achievement goal scale.
Results. Correlation analysis showed that academic achievement (examination
grade) was positively correlated with performance-approach goal, mastery goal, and
strategic learning strategies, and negatively correlated with performance-avoidance goal
and surface learning strategy. A path analysis (structural equation model) showed that
achievement goals were mediators between achievement motives and learning
strategies, and that strategic learning strategies mediated the relationship between
achievement goals and academic achievement.
Conclusions. This study integrated previous findings from several studies and
provided new evidence on the direct and indirect effects of different types of motives
and learning strategies as predictors of academic achievement.
Achievement goals are related to dispositional achievement motives (Elliot & Church,
1997), and they are also predictors of cognitive outcomes in terms of learning strategies
(Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999) and academic achievement as indicated by
examination grade (Church, Elliot, & Gable, 2001). Hence, achievement goals have
* Correspondence should be addressed to Dr Åge Diseth, Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen, Christiesgate 12, N-5015
Bergen, Norway (e-mail: aage.diseth@psysp.uib.no).
DOI:10.1348/000709910X492432
672 Åge Diseth and Therese Kobbeltvedt
been linked with a number of motivational, cognitive, and achievement-related

outcomes in academic contexts. However, the exact relationship between these
variables is debated (cf. Pintrich & Schunck, 2002), and more research is needed to
compare different motivational constructs with both cognitive and academic outcomes.
By means of a multivariate approach, it is possible to simultaneously investigate
achievement goals as mediators between motive dispositions and cognitive strategies,
and to examine cognitive strategies as mediators between achievement goals and
academic achievement. Thus, the purpose of the current study is to investigate the
relationship between achievement motives, achievement goals, learning strategies, and
academic achievement in order to integrate different classes of motives and
cognitive/academic outcomes in a hierarchical model. This investigation will extend
previous research by testing a model that integrates several aspects of motivation,
learning strategies, and academic achievement. These topics have often been
investigated separately in previous research.
Achievement goals, achievement motives, and learning strategies

Achievement goals are concrete cognitive representations that direct individuals
towards specific end states (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). These goals are defined by how
individuals evaluate their competence (Elliot & Church, 1997) in terms of two critical
components: ‘standard of excellence’ and ‘valence’. Standard of excellence may be
identified as absolute task requirements, intra-personal attainment (past or potential), or
normative comparison with others’ performance. Valence is defined in terms of success
associated with approach behaviour, or failure associated with avoidance behaviour
(Elliot & McGregor, 2001). In accordance with these general principles, it is common to
differentiate between performance (approach–avoidance) and mastery achievement
goals. Students with a performance-approach goal will attempt to obtain favourable
judgment of competence by achieving the best result possible and outperform other
students. Students with a performance-avoidance goal, on the other hand, will try to
avoid unfavourable judgment of competence by attempting to avoid poor performance.
In contrast to these performance goals, a mastery goal involves the learning of the
subject contents by acquiring competence and mastery of tasks (Elliot & Church, 1997),
which leads to increased effort and involvement with the subject.
Mastery goals are generally considered to be more adaptive than performance goals
(Kaplan & Middleton, 2002), but previous research has shown mixed results regarding
the prediction of academic achievement. For example, Phillips and Gully (1997) found a
positive relationship between learning (mastery) goals and classroom exam scores.
Furthermore, Button, Mathieu, and Zajac (1996) found a positive relationship between
learning (mastery) goals and grade point average. However, mastery goals may
sometimes be unrelated to academic performance (Elliot & Murayama, 2008; Elliot et al.,
1999), while performance-approach goals may be positively related to academic
performance (Harackiewicz, Barron, & Elliot, 1998). A review performed by
Linnenbrink-Garcia, Tyson, and Patall (2008) of more than 90 studies on the relation
between achievement goals and academic achievement showed a positive relation
between mastery goals and achievement in about 40% of the effects reported, and a
negative relation between mastery goals and academic achievement in less than 5% of
the effects reported. The pattern was similar for the relation between performance
approach and academic achievement, with about 40% of the effects reported as positive
Motives, strategies, and achievement 673
and about 5% reported as negative. However, Pekrun, Elliot, and Maier (2009)
concluded that mastery goals are often unrelated (or less strongly related) to
performance when all goals are examined together as simultaneous predictors.
While achievement goals in educational contexts are usually measured by asking the
students what their goals are when studying a particular subject (e.g., Elliot et al., 1999),
achievement motives are considered to be relatively stable motive dispositions rooted in
personality (Diseth & Martinsen, 2003). It is common to distinguish between motive for
success (MS) and motive to avoid failure (MAF), as described by McClelland, Atkinson,
Clark, and Lowell (1953), and later investigated by several researchers (Atkinson, 1966;
Gjesme, 1983; Heckhausen, 1986; Nygård, 1977). These achievement motives refer to
the latent capacity to anticipate affect in situations in which performance is evaluated
either by the agent or by an observer (Christophersen & Rand, 1982), and they are
related to other measures of affective based temperament (Bjørnebekk, 2009). The
motive for success (MS) refers to positive affect and increased engagement in
achievement situations, whereas the motive to avoid failure (MAF) refers to negative
affect and decreased engagement (Atkinson, 1966). These achievement motives acquire
particular strength in situations of moderate difficulty in which the outcome of one’s
own effort is uncertain (Weiner, 1992).
When given moderately difficult tasks, individuals who are highly achievement
motivated (MS . MAF) generally outperform those who have a low degree of
achievement motivation (MS , MAF) (Raynor & Entin, 1982). This is probably due to
more positive affect and increased engagement in achievement situations among the
MS . MAF individuals (Atkinson, 1966). Accordingly, it has been claimed that MS
facilitates acquisition of knowledge while Mf hampers it (Diseth & Martinsen, 2003).
However, these motives do not necessarily predict academic achievement. For example,
Diseth and Martinsen (2003) found no direct relationship between achievement motives
as measured by the Achievement Motives Scale (AMS; Nygård & Gjesme, 1973) and
academic achievement in terms of examination grade. Similarly, Elliot and Church (1997)
did not find any relation between achievement motives and academic achievement. They
utilized the achievement motives subscales in Jackson’s (1974) Personality Research
Form as predictors of final course grades based on participants’ total scores from course
examinations. Also, Elliot and McGregor (2001) found that neither achievement
motivation, as measured by Spence and Helmreich’s (1983) Work and Family Orientation
Scale, nor fear of failure, as measured by means of the motive to avoid failure (MAF)
subscale of the Achievement Motivation Scale (AMS) (Hagtvet & Benson, 1997; Nygård &
Gjesme, 1973), predicted academic achievement in terms of Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT)
scores. Finally, Elliot and Murayama (2008) reported no relation between academic
achievement and achievement motivation. They measured achievement motivation by
means of the Achievement Motive subscale of Jackson’s (1974) Personality Research
Form as an indicator of the need for achievement, and a short form of Conroy’s (2001)
Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory to measure fear of failure.
However, Busato, Prins, Elshout, and Hamaker (2000) found a small, but significant,
correlation between examination grade and achievement motivation, measured by
means of the Prestatie-Motivatie-Test, developed by Hermans (1976) and described by
Busato, Prins, Elshout, and Hamaker (1999). This scale comprises items that refer to
feelings of thrill when a person is challenged (achievement motivation and fear of failure
positive) and habitual feelings of worry (fear of failure negative). Hence, there is in this
study some evidence to support achievement motives as predictors of academic
achievement, but other studies show no such relation.
The predictive validity of achievement motives is also dependent upon whether they
are measured by means of projective methods (implicit achievement motives) or by
means of self-report in surveys (self-attributed achievement motives). McClelland,
Koestner, and Weinberger (1989) summarized this distinction as follows: implicit
motives represent a more primitive motivational system which combines with activity
incentives to affect behaviour and sustain spontaneous behavioural trends over time,
while self-attributed motives are more cognitively elaborated and predict immediate
response to structured situations. For example, Raynor and Entin (1982) showed that
students with a strong implicit need for achievement performed better only if they saw
doing well as instrumental to reaching a long-term achievement goal.
While the distinction between implicit and self-attributed achievement motives
is relevant, the current study utilizes AMS (Nygård & Gjesme, 1973) as a measure
of self-attributed motives, and AMS is constructed to measure general personality
dispositions in motivation without any reference to contextual cues. In line with
previous findings by Diseth and Martinsen (2003), a direct relationship between
MS/MAF and academic achievement may not be expected. However, there may be an
indirect prediction of achievement, via more context-specific learning goals, as
described below. Because achievement motives reflect general personality dispositions
rather than context-specific goals, they may have a more distal than proximal effect on
academic achievement, via achievement goal motives and learning strategies.
Achievement motives are embedded in a general theory of social needs (Reeve,
2005), whereas goals serve an energizing and directional function (Pintrich & Schunck,
2002). Despite the theoretical differences between achievement goals and achievement
motives, there are reasons to assume a relationship between these variables. For
example, Elliot and Church (1997) developed a hierarchical approach in which
achievement motivation (comparable to MS) predicted both a mastery goal and a
performance-approach goal. Furthermore, competence expectancy (comparable to self-
efficacy) predicted all of the three achievement goals: competence expectancy was
positively related to mastery and performance approach, but negatively related to
performance avoidance. Finally, fear of failure (comparable to MAF) was positively
related to both performance-approach and -avoidance goals. The same model showed
that performance approach was positively related, and performance avoidance was
negatively related, to examination grade. This hierarchical approach is consistent
with the view that items describing cognitively represented aims (goals) should be
separated from reasons (motives) why the aim is pursued, as described by Elliot and
Murayama (2008).
Elliot et al. (1999) investigated cognitive outcomes of achievement goals in terms of
deep, surface, and disorganized learning strategies. These learning strategies derive from
research on students’ approaches to learning – SAL (e.g., Entwistle & Smith, 2002). In
this research, deep learning strategies involve relating ideas by connecting related units
of knowledge to previous knowledge, and using evidence to check how empirical facts
may support theoretical assumptions. In other words, students who apply deep
strategies engage in relating ideas to evidence. In contrast, students who apply a surface
approach engage in unrelated memorizing by treating new learning material as bits
and pieces of information unrelated to existing knowledge. These students acquire
just enough knowledge to pass the exam. Research on SAL has also identified a strategic
approach that includes specific learning strategies such as organized studying and
time management. These strategies may be labelled ‘strategic learning strategies’.
All of these learning strategies have corresponding learning intentions and motives
(i.e., deep – interest, surface – fear of failure, strategic – achievement) which ultimately
constitute deep, surface, and strategic approaches to learning. However, it is interesting
to investigate how the learning strategies in this SAL tradition are related to motiva-
tional constructs from other research traditions. The aim is to produce theoretical
integration and to further investigate the motivational basis of learning strategies, in
accordance with the general assumption that learning strategies are motivated (Pintrich
& De Groot, 1990).
In the study by Elliot et al. (1999), the authors found that the learning strategy of
disorganization (failure to plan/organize one’s own study activities) mediated the
relationship between performance-avoidance goals and examination grade. Disorgan-
ization corresponds negatively with a strategic learning strategy in contemporary
theories on SAL, as mentioned above. However, the Elliot et al. (1999) study did not
indicate the same mediator effects for deep and surface learning strategies.
Additionally, Greene, Miller, Crowson, Duke, and Akey (2004) found that cognitive
strategies used in studying mediated the relationship between mastery goals and
academic achievement in a model which also included perceptions of class structures
and other motivational constructs. Finally, Fenollar, Román, and Cuestas (2007)
observed that deep learning strategies mediated the relationship between mastery goals
and academic performance, also when controlling for the effects of additional motives
and learning strategies.
These learning strategies are particularly interesting because they constitute
important cognitive processes that are embedded in the learning context. For example,
Fenollar et al. (2007) argued that learning strategies are probably more strongly affected
by the learning environment than motives are. Furthermore, Pintrich and De
Groot (1990) argued that students probably have to be motivated in order to adopt
particular learning strategies. Thus, on the basis of theoretical assumptions and
previous research, it is reasonable to assume a hierarchical model (e.g., Elliot & Church,
1997) in which motives influence strategies, which in turn affect academic
achievement.
Hypotheses
The current investigation is an attempt both to replicate and to extend the
abovementioned findings by including achievement motives, achievement goals,
learning strategies, and academic achievement in a hierarchical model in order to
investigate mediator effects and the relative predictive impact of each construct. The
following hypotheses are proposed:
(1) Mastery/performance-approach goals and strategic/deep learning strategies

predict academic achievement (positive relation).
(2) performance-avoidance achievement goal and surface learning strategies predict
academic achievement (negative relation).
(3) Achievement motives (MS/MAF) predict both achievement goals and learning
strategies, but not academic achievement.
(4) Achievement goals mediate the relationship between MS/MAF and learning
strategies.
(5) Learning strategies mediate the relationship between achievement goals and
academic achievement.
Method
Participants and context
The participants were 229 students (76 male and 153 female) with a mean age of 21.2
years (range 18–47 years, SD 3.07). There were 91 economics students (ECON100) and
138 psychology (PSYK102) students. The PSYK102 course comprises the topics of
personality psychology, social psychology, and research methods in psychology. It is an
introductory course in psychology for undergraduate students. The ECON100 course is
an introductory course for undergraduate students in economics comprising basic
issues in the subject. Hence, these groups of students are more or less at the same
academic level.
Measures
Examination grade
The psychology students (PSYK102) sat a 6-h exam during which they had to answer 3
out of 6 essay-like questions and a 90-item multiple choice (MC) test. The exam was
assessed by a committee, and the essays constituted 2/3 and the MC 1/3 of the total
grade. The economics students (ECON100) sat a 4-h exam during which they were
given three assignments to complete. One of the assignments was weighted 50% and the
other two 25% each to form a single total grade. Both the PSYK102 and the ECON100
students were only given a total grade score, ranging from A (excellent) to F (fail). These
scores were converted to numbers for data analytic purposes, so that higher numbers
reflected better grades (A ¼ 6, B ¼ 5, … , F ¼ 1). Hence, the exams of both student
groups were assessed by means of comparable criteria and an equal grading system.
Achievement motives
The Achievement Motives Scale (AMS; Nygård & Gjesme, 1973) consists of 30 items
that indicate perceived affect in achievement situations. These items are accounted for
by two factors, reflecting the motive for success (MS) and the motive to avoid failure
(MAF). Each item refers to positive or negative affect, and they focus on situations that
are supposed to evoke a similar uncertainty of success or failure among individuals.
Examples of items (translated from Norwegian) from the MAF category include ‘I dislike
working on tasks when I am not sure about the outcome’ and ‘I become anxious when I
face a problem I do not immediately understand’. Example items from the MS category
are ‘I enjoy challenging situations’ and ‘I take pleasure in working on tasks that I find
fairly difficult’. Subjects reply by means of a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4
(strongly agree). The participants were instructed to disregard any negative experiences
with achievement situations when rating the MS items, and to disregard any positive
experiences with achievement situations when responding to the MAF items. While the
original scale consists of 30 items, previous research has shown that 12 of the items have
weak or inappropriate factor loadings, and should be excluded in order to produce a
satisfactory factor solution (Diseth & Martinsen, 2009). Hence, the final scale consisted
of 18 items. This item reduction is also comparable to Hagtvet and Benson’s (1997)
factor analysis of the MAF, in which they only retained 6 of the original 15 items in this
scale. In fact, 5 of these 6 items (item 19, 21, 24, 25, and 30) were also retained in the
present study. A principal component analysis (oblique rotation) of the 18 items
included in the present study produced the two MS/MAF factors (9 items for each factor)
based on the eigenvalue . 1 criterion which accounted for 57.18% of the variance.
Achievement goals
In order to produce an Approach and Avoidance Achievement Goal Questionnaire,
items were adapted from an inventory developed by Elliot and Church (1997). The
original inventory consists of 18 items that measure performance-approach, mastery,
and performance-avoidance goal orientations (6 items for each factor). In the present
study, 12 of the items (4 items for each factor) that had the strongest factor loadings in
Elliot and Church’s original research were selected in order to facilitate data collection,
and because these items were considered to adequately reflect the theoretical construct.
The items were as follows: performance approach (‘It is important to me to do better
than the other students’, ‘My goal in this class is to get a better grade than most of the
students’, ‘I am striving to demonstrate my ability relative to others in this class’),
mastery (‘I want to learn as much as possible from this class’, ‘It is important for me to
understand the content of this course as thoroughly as possible’, ‘I hope to have gained a
broader and deeper knowledge of psychology when I am done with this class’), and
performance avoidance (‘I worry about the possibility of getting a bad grade in this
class’, ‘My fear of performing poorly in this class is often what motivates me’, ‘I just want
to avoid doing poorly in this class’). The participants indicated their relative agreement
or disagreement with the statements on a five-point scale (5 – ‘agree’, 1 – ‘disagree’). A
principal component analysis (oblique rotation) produced the expected three factors
with 4 items in each factor (performance-approach, mastery, performance avoidance)
based on the eigenvalue . 1 criterion, accounting for 69.4% of the variance.
Learning strategies
Students’ learning strategies were measured by means of items from an abbreviated
Norwegian version (Diseth, 2001) of the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for
Students (ASSIST; Entwistle, 1997). The ASSIST is originally divided into subscales, and
in the present study only the learning strategy subscales for deep approach (seeking
meaning and use of evidence), surface approach (unrelated memorizing and syllabus
boundness), and strategic approach (time management and organized studying) were
utilized. Furthermore, the number of items was reduced in order to facilitate the data
collection. The selection of items was based on a previous study using the same
instrument (Diseth, 2007a). Similar abbreviated versions of instruments measuring SAL
have also been utilized in previous research (Kember & Leung, 1998). Hence, deep,
strategic, and surface strategies were measured by means of four items each. The
participants were instructed to reply according to how they actually study at present,
and they indicated their relative agreement or disagreement with the statements on a
five-point scale (5 – ‘agree’, 1 – ‘disagree’). The participants were instructed to try to
avoid marking no. 3 (‘unsure’) except if the item did not apply to their learning situation,
in accordance with the original instructions (Entwistle, 1997). A principal component
analysis (oblique rotation) produced the expected factors of deep, surface, and strategic
learning strategies (four items in each factor) based on the eigenvalue . 1 criterion,
which accounted for 56.53% of the variance.
Procedure
The students responded to an inventory, as described above, during a single lesson in
their respective classes. Participation was voluntary. The students provided their social
security number and agreed that this information could be utilized to obtain their
subsequent examination grade from the central student administration office. They
were informed that data would be stored anonymously after the examination grade had
been obtained.
Statistical analyses
Exploratory factor analysis was utilized to investigate the factor structure of the
constructs, as described above, and correlation analysis was utilized to explore the
bivariate relations.
Next, structural equation modelling (SEM) was utilized in order to perform a path
analysis in accordance with the abovementioned hierarchical model with reference to
Elliot and Church (1997) and Elliot et al. (1999). The AMOS 16.0 program (Arbuckle,
2007) offers several goodness-of-fit-indices, including the comparative fit index (CFI),
which evaluates the difference between an independent model and a specified model.
Further, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) estimates how well the
model would fit the sample if optimal parameters were available. These indices are
considered to be highly relevant when evaluating model fit (Byrne, 2001). For example,
the CFI should be an index of choice because it does not underestimate model fit in
small samples (Bentler, 1990), as opposed to, e.g., the normed fit index.
Finally, separate mediational analyses were performed according to guidelines by
Baron and Kenny (1986), as described below. This combination of path and mediator
analyses has been utilized in previous research (e.g., Elliot et al., 1999).
Results
The descriptive statistics in Table 1 show that the data were normally distributed, with
acceptable skewness and kurtosis values. An independent sample t test showed no
significant mean level differences between the PSYK102 and the ECON100 students.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics including min.–max., mean, standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis, and
Cronbach’s alpha
Min.–max. Mean SD skew. kurt. a
MS 1.00–4.00 3.21 0.52 21.07 2.09 .83

MAF 1.00–4.00 2.55 0.65 0.09 2 0.61 .86
Performance app. 1.00–5.00 2.71 1.01 20.05 2 0.90 .84
Mastery 2.00–5.00 4.48 0.55 1.13 1.53 .79
Performance avoid. 1.00–5.00 2.97 0.87 20.12 2 0.59 .69
Deep 1.25–5.00 3.80 0.69 20.58 0.35 .67
Surface 1.00–4.50 2.52 0.82 0.23 2 0.51 .80
Strategic 1.00–5.00 3.10 0.96 20.25 2 0.69 .70
Examination grade 1.00–6.00 3.69 1.35 20.50 2 0.27
The correlation analysis (Table 2) shows that examination grade was positively
related to performance-approach (r ¼ :15, p , :05), mastery achievement goal (r ¼ :22,
p , :01), and strategic learning strategies (r ¼ :31, p , :01), but negatively related to
performance-avoidance (r ¼ 2:32, p , :01) and surface learning strategies (r ¼ 2:16,
p , :05). Furthermore, most of the motivation and learning strategies scales were
meaningfully correlated. More specifically, MS was correlated with performance
Table 2. Correlations between achievement motives, goal orientations, learning strategies, and
examination grade (*p , :05; **p , :01)
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. MS 2.33** .22** .18** 2 .17** .36** 2.16* .16* 2 .02

2. MAF 2 .33** 2 .02 .45** 2.17* .35** 2.16* .03
3. Performance app. .27** .04 .29** 2.15* .31** .15*
4. Mastery 2 .07 .27** 2.23** .31** .22**
5. Performance avoid. 2.16* .36** 2.14* 2 .23**
6. Deep 2.33** .10 .04
7. Surface 2.28** 2 .16*
8. Strategic .31**
9. Examination grade 1.00
approach (r ¼ :22, p , :01), mastery (r ¼ :18, p , :01), and with deep (r ¼ :36,
p , :01), surface (r ¼ 2:16, p , :05), and strategic learning strategies (r ¼ :16, p , :05).
Furthermore, MAF was correlated with performance-approach (r ¼ :27, p , :01),
performance-avoidance (r ¼ :45, p , :01), and with deep (r ¼ 2:17, p , :05), surface
(r ¼ :35, p , :01), and strategic learning strategies (r ¼ 2:16, p , :05).
Finally, performance approach was correlated with deep (r ¼ :29, p , :01), surface
(r ¼ 2:15, p , :05), and strategic learning strategies (r ¼ :31, p , :01); mastery was
correlated with deep (r ¼ :27, p , :01), surface (r ¼ 2:23, p , :01), and strategic
learning strategies (r ¼ :31, p , :01); and performance avoidance was correlated
with deep (r ¼ :16, p , :05), surface (r ¼ :36, p , :01), and strategic learning
strategies(r ¼ 2:14, p , :05). Separate correlation analyses were performed on each of
the subsamples of students (PSYK102 and ECON110). While the correlations in these
subsamples showed a high degree of similarity, some of the correlations in the ECON100
subsample were not significant, probably due to the small size of this subsample.
A path analysis was performed by means of SEM in order to test a hierarchical model
in accordance with previous research by Elliot and Church (1997) and Elliot et al.
(1999). Due to the similarity between the subsamples, as shown above, and relatively
small sample sizes, all of the students were included in the same model. As shown in
Figure 1, the first level of the hierarchy showed that MS predicted performance
approach, mastery and deep strategy, while MAF predicted surface strategy and
performance avoidance. At the second level, the three achievement goals predicted
deep, surface, and strategic learning strategies. Finally, strategic learning strategies
predicted academic achievement (examination grade), while deep and surface learning
strategies were not significant predictors.
This model had good fit indices (chi-square ½x2 ¼ 25:47, degrees of freedom
½df ¼ 15, p , :05, x2/df ratio ¼ 1:70, RMSEA ¼ :06, and CFI ¼ 0:96) according to
recommended cut-off values (Byrne, 2001). Browne and Cudeck (1993) suggest that an
RMSEA below .05 indicates good fit, but values as high as .08 may be acceptable.
However, the x2/df ratio was in accordance with a recommended cut-off value , 2
(Byrne, 2001), and the CFI was close to .95, which indicates good fit (Hu & Bentler,
1995). Finally, 13% of the variance in examination grade was accounted for by the
predictor variables.
The correlations between achievement motives, achievement goals, and learning
strategies on the one hand, and between achievement goals, learning strategies, and
.16
Perform. Deep
.22
approach
–.02 (n.s.)
.29 .18
MS
.18 .23
–.22 –.03 (n.s.) Exam.
Mastery Surface
–.33 grade
.21 .19
MAF .24
.23 .27
.45 Perform.
avoidance Strategic
–.13
Figure 1. SEM of achievement motives, goal orientations, learning strategies, and examination grade
(all paths p , :01 unless indicated ‘not significant – ns’).
examination grades on the other, constitute sufficient justification for an investigation

into mediator effects (cf. Baron & Kenny, 1986). In order to test mediator effects in this
model, a series of regression analyses were performed. According to Baron and Kenny
(1986), three conditions must be met: first, a relationship between the predictor variable
and the dependent variable must be established. Second, the independent variable must
affect the mediator; and third, the mediator must affect the dependent variable. Mediation
occurs when a previously significant relation between the independent and the
dependent variables is no longer significant when controlling for the effect of
the mediator. Partial mediation occurs when the relationship between the predictor and
the dependent variable is reduced.
Sobel tests were performed in order to investigate whether the mediator variable
significantly carried the influence of the independent variable to the dependent variable
(Sobel, 1982). These tests were performed by calculating the regression weights and
standard errors of the path between the independent variable (predictor) and the
mediator, and between the mediator and the dependent variable (outcome). Some of the
variables in the path analysis appeared to have both direct and indirect (mediator)
effects. In order to test the significance of the mediator effects, Sobel tests were
performed for the following parameters:
. Performance avoidance ! strategic learning strategy ! academic achievement

showed a significant mediator effect ( p , :01) indicating partial mediation (due
to significant path between performance avoidance and academic achievement).
. MS ! performance approach ! deep strategy showed a significant mediator effect
( p , :01), indicating partial mediation (due to the significant path between MS and
deep strategy).
. MS ! mastery ! deep strategy showed a significant mediator effect ( p , :05),
indicating partial mediation (due to the significant path between MS and deep
strategy).
. MAF ! performance avoidance ! surface strategy showed a significant mediator
effect ( p , :01), indicating partial mediation (due to the significant path between
MAF and deep/surface strategy).
Taken together, the regression analyses and the Sobel tests support the direct and
indirect (mediator) effects shown in the path analysis (Figure 1). However, there was no
reason to test deep and surface learning strategies as mediators between goals and
achievement, as these learning strategies did not predict academic achievement in the
path analysis.
Given the lack of initial correlations between achievement motives (MS/MAF)
and examination grade, there is no evidence to support the idea that achievement goals
and learning strategies mediate the relationship between achievement motives and
examination grade (cf. Baron & Kenny, 1986). Achievement motives may rather be
considered as general motivating factors that are partly projected via achievement goals
to produce learning strategies and academic achievement.
Discussion
The main purpose of the present study was to investigate how the relationship between
achievement motives, achievement goals, learning strategies, and academic achieve-
ment may be accounted for by a hierarchical model that also gave the possibility to test
mediator effects. In general, the results reflect the theoretical assumptions and previous
findings described in the introduction.
More specifically, the initial hypotheses specified a number of expected predictors of
academic achievement. The correlation analysis showed that academic achievement
was positively related to both mastery/performance-approach goals and strategic
learning strategies, and that surface strategies and performance-avoidance goals were
negatively related to academic achievement. Hence, all the achievement goal variables
predicted academic achievement, as hypothesized. However, there was no relation
between deep strategies and academic achievement, contrary to the hypotheses. Finally,
the negative effect of surface strategies was not confirmed in the path analysis.
While previous research findings typically show that deep and strategic approaches
to learning are positively related to examination grade, and surface approaches are
negatively related to examination grade, some studies suggest that a deep approach does
not necessarily predict exam success (Diseth, 2007b; Diseth & Martinsen, 2003;
Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Entwistle, Tait, & McCune, 2000). For example, Busato,
Prins, Elshout, and Hamaker (1998) did not find the meaning directed learning style
(comparable to deep approach) to be a significant predictor of academic success in a
cross-sectional study of psychology students. The lack of a relationship between the
deep approach and academic achievement in the present study is in line with findings
by Newble and Hejka (1991), who found that the strategic approach predicted academic
achievement, but the deep approach did not. These findings were attributed to the
learning environment, characterized by an overload of the curriculum, which forces
students to adopt short-term learning strategies. These strategies focus on the rote
learning of material required to pass the next examination, and on examination
procedures that ‘require little more than the reproduction of factual material rather than
requiring the student to demonstrate a deeper understanding of the subject material’
(Newble & Hejka, 1991, p. 341).
The present results support the assumption that achievement motives (MS/MAF) are
not related to academic achievement. This finding is in accordance with a number of
previous studies (Diseth & Martinsen, 2003; Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Murayama,
2008; Elliot & McGregor, 2001), but contrary to the findings by Busato et al. (2000).
However, this lack of a direct relationship between achievement motives and

examination grade seems logical, as these motives are general dispositions that do not
specify contextual aims, and as such differ from achievement goals.
With regards to the hypothesized mediator effects, the results showed that
achievement goals mediated the relationship between achievement motives and
learning strategies, as previously described by Elliot and Church (1997). However, some
important differences should be noted. The current results did not show a link between
the motive to avoid failure (corresponding to fear of failure) and performance approach,
in contrast to Elliot and Church’s (1997) study in which a positive relationship between
these variables was demonstrated. And although Elliot and Church (1997) found no
relationship between mastery goal and examination grade, the current study did find
such a relationship: the path analysis showed that mastery had an indirect effect on
examination grade via strategic learning strategies, also when controlling for the effect
of performance-approach goals. Hence, the present findings support a positive effect of
mastery goal on academic achievement, which is absent in many other studies (Pintrich
& Schunck, 2002). The current findings also show that learning strategies mediated the
relationship between achievement goals and examination grade, as shown by Elliot et al.
(1999), Fenollar et al. (2007), and Greene et al. (2004). Consequently, some major
findings in the Elliot and Church (1997) and the Elliot et al. (1999) studies were
integrated and supported by the present study. Additionally, a positive effect of mastery
goal on examination grade was demonstrated. However, while Fenollar et al. (2007)
found that deep strategies mediated the relationship between achievement goals and
academic achievement, the present study found that only the strategic learning
strategies mediated this relationship. This is similar to the study by Elliot et al. (1999) in
which disorganization (corresponding negatively to strategic learning strategies in the
present study) remained the only predictor of examination grade in a path analysis,
although the correlation analysis in this study also showed a significant negative relation
between surface learning strategies and examination grade.
Theoretical implications
The present study supports the idea that academic achievement is more dependent on
context-specific motives and learning strategies than on individual differences in
motivational dispositions. This may be compared with Biggs’ (2001) 3p model, in which
presage factors (such as motivational dispositions) affect process factors (motives and
learning strategies), which in turn affect product factors (examination grade).
The relative importance of different achievement goals as predictors of academic
achievement has been debated. Kaplan and Middleton (2002) and Midgley, Kaplan, and
Middleton (2001) argued that although performance approach is sometimes associated
with adaptive patterns of learning, this relationship is highly dependent on specific
circumstances such as age, gender, and degree of competitiveness in the learning
environment. They also stated that performance-approach goals include a cost in terms
of the use of avoidance strategies. In contrast, Harackiewicz, Barron, Pintrich, Elliot, and
Thrash (2002) argued for a multi-dimensional theory of achievement goals, rather than a
dichotomous (mastery vs. performance) theory, so as to distinguish the explanatory
power of the theory from a value-laden interpretation of it. They emphasized the need to
investigate how approach goals (performance and mastery) work together to produce
adaptive learning, in contrast to avoidance goals (performance and mastery). With
respect to the present findings, both of the approach goals (mastery and performance
approach) were positively correlated with achievement, while the avoidance goal
(performance avoidance) was negatively correlated with achievement. In addition,
there was no indication of performance approach leading to avoidance strategies, in
contrast to previous findings (Elliot et al., 1999) and to the conclusion made by Midgley
et al. (2001). On the contrary, performance approach positively predicted a strategic
learning strategy. Furthermore, all the achievement goals were independent predictors
of strategic learning strategies, which in turn predicted academic achievement. Hence,
the present study provides some support for the view that several goals work together to
predict academic achievement (cf. Harackiewicz et al., 2002).
Practical implications
As regards practical consequences, the current results show that there are reasons to
encourage both performance-approach and mastery goals, and to discourage
performance-avoidance goals, among the students. This can be done by increasing
the students’ competence expectancies by means of mastery experiences, by fostering
the students’ intrinsic interest in the subject, and by avoiding excessive workload.
However, students with a higher level of MS appear to have an advantage because they
may more easily adopt performance-approach and mastery goals, whereas students with
a strong MAF have a disadvantage because they are prone to adopt performance-
avoidance goals. Achievement motivated students (MS . MAF) are generally interested
in optimal challenges, responsibility for outcomes, and possibilities for feedback
(Pintrich & Schunck, 2002), and it is important to design a learning environment that
creates these opportunities.
Limitations and suggestions for future research

The current study is based on self-reported data and correlations. It is therefore limited
by the lack of experimental control when assuming causal directions. However, the
dependent variable (examination grade) was not self-reported. Hence, the predictive
validity of the self-reported independent variables was clearly demonstrated in
accordance with the hypotheses.
In the present study, academic achievement is not predicted by achievement motives
(MS/MAF); and while this is consistent with some previous research (Diseth &
Martinsen, 2003; Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Murayama, 2008) it is contradictory to
other studies (Busato et al., 2000), and may be considered as a limitation. Although this
finding does not permit a full mediation model, it is still consistent with a hierarchical
analysis that includes achievement motives as antecedents of achievement goals and
learning strategies (cf. Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Murayama, 2008).
The lack of differences between the two subgroups of students may potentially be a
limitation insofar as it does not say anything about the differences between these
courses. However, the similar scores may also indicate a cross-sample stability, which
may add to the validity of the present model. Alternatively, the present findings may
indicate a similarity between these courses.
Future research should aim to include perceptions of the learning environment as
predictors of achievement goals, similar to the Greene et al. (2004) study. This is
particularly relevant given the social cognitive basis of achievement goal theory. Also,
experimental control and alternative methods of data collection may be considered.
For example, implicit achievement motives measured by means of projective techniques
may be related to achievement goals and learning strategies in a different way than are
self-attributed motives. These types of achievement motives are not necessarily
correlated (McClelland et al., 1953), although research has shown that implicit motives
and self-attributed motives predict achievement goals in a similar manner (Thrash &
Elliot, 2002).
Finally, the achievement goal framework in the present study (mastery, performance
approach, and performance avoidance) may be extended by applying a 2 £ 2
framework. This latter framework includes the approach–avoidance distinction for
both mastery and performance (Elliot & Murayama, 2008), which would allow for an
investigation of mastery-avoidance in addition to the three goals in the present study.
Conclusion
In conclusion, a hierarchical model of achievement motives, achievement goals,
learning strategies, and examination grade was clearly supported by this study. As Elliot
and Thrash (2001) remarked: ‘In the hierarchical model, achievement goals are viewed
as the concrete aims through which individuals pursue their more abstract desires,
concerns, needs, and motives (i.e., reasons)’ (p. 147). The current study also showed
that both learning strategies and academic achievement may be considered the ultimate
outcomes of these motivational processes, and it has added to the cumulative
knowledge of the antecedents and consequences of achievement goals.
Acknowledgements
We thank Henriette Birkeland, Sigve Garsjø, and Arne Kristian Kalleberg for their assistance with
data collection.
References
Arbuckle (2007). AMOS 16.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS Corporation.
Atkinson, J. W. (1966). Motivational determinants of risk taking behaviour. In J. W. Atkinson &
N. T. Feather (Eds.), A theory of achievement motivation (pp. 11–31). New York: Wiley.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107,
238–246.
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). London:
Erlbaum.
Bjørnebekk, G. (2009). Psychometric properties of the scores on the behavioral inhibition and
activation scales in a sample of Norwegian children. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 69, 636–654.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen &
J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 445–455). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Busato, V. V., Prins, F. J., Elshout, J. J., & Hamaker, C. (1998). Learning styles: A cross-sectional and
longitudinal study in higher education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68,
427–441.
Busato, V. V., Prins, F. J., Elshout, J. J., & Hamaker, C. (1999). The relation between learning styles,
the Big Five personality traits and achievement motivation in higher education. Personality
and Individual Differences, 26, 129–140.
Busato, V. V., Prins, F. J., Elshout, J. J., & Hamaker, C. (2000). Intellectual ability, learning style,
personality, achievement motivation and academic success of psychology students in higher
education. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 1057–1068.
Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational research:
A conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 67, 26–48.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modelling with AMOS. Basic concepts, applications,
and programming. London: Erlbaum.
Christophersen, K. A., & Rand, P. (1982). Factor structure of the Achievement Motives Scale
(AMS): Two factors – two samples. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 26,
13–28.
Church, M. A., Elliot, A. J., & Gable, S. L. (2001). Perceptions of classroom environment,
achievement goals, and achievement outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93,
43–54.
Conroy, D. E. (2001). Progress in the development of a multidimensional measure of fear of
failure: The Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory (PFAI). Anxiety, Stress, and Coping:
An International Journal, 14, 431–452.
Diseth, Å. (2001). Validation of a Norwegian version of the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory
for Students (ASSIST): Application of structural equation modelling. Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, 45, 381–394.
Diseth, Å. (2007a). Approaches to learning, course experience and examination grade among
undergraduate psychology students: Testing of mediator effects and construct validity. Studies
in Higher Education, 32, 373–388.
Diseth, Å. (2007b). Students’ evaluation of teaching, approaches to learning, and academic
achievement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 51, 185–204.
Diseth, Å., & Martinsen, Ø. (2003). Approaches to learning, cognitive style and academic
achievement. Educational Psychology, 23, 195–207.
Diseth, Å., & Martinsen, Ø. (2009). Personality traits and achievement motives: Theoretical and
empirical relations between the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised and the Achievement
Motives Scale. Psychological Reports, 104, 579–592.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement
motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218–232.
Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique,
illustration, and application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 613–628.
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2001). Achievement goals and the hierarchical model of achievement
motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 139–156.
Elliot, E. S., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 £ 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501–519.
Elliot, E. S., McGregor, H. A., & Gable, S. L. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies, and exam
performance: A mediational analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 549–563.
Entwistle, N. (1997). The Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST).
Edinburgh: Centre for Research on Learning and Instruction, University of Edinburgh.
Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.
Entwistle, N., & Smith, C. (2002). Personal understanding and target understanding: Mapping
influences on the outcomes of learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72,
321–342. doi:10.1348/000709902320634528
Entwistle, N., Tait, H., & McCune, V. (2000). Patterns of response to an approach to studying
inventory across contrasting groups and contexts. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 15, 33–48.
Fenollar, P., Román, S., & Cuestas, P. J. (2007). University students’ academic performance: An
integrative conceptual framework and empirical analysis. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 77, 873–891. doi:10.1348/000709907x189118
Gjesme, T. (1983). Motivation to approach success (Ts) and motivation to avoid failure (Tf) at
school. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 27, 145–164.
Greene, B. A., Miller, R. B., Crowson, H. M., Duke, B. L., & Akey, K. L. (2004). Predicting high
school students’ cognitive engagement and achievement: Contributions of classroom
perceptions and motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 462–482.
Hagtvet, K. A., & Benson, J. (1997). The motive to avoid failure and test anxiety responses:
Empirical support for integration of two research traditions. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 10,
35–57.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Rethinking achievement goals: When are
they adaptive for college students and why? Educational Psychologist, 33, 1–21.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Pintrich, P. R., Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Revision of
achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational Psychology,
94(3), 638–645.
Heckhausen, H. (1986). Why some time out may benefit achievement motivation research.
In J. H. L. Van den Bercken, E. E. J. De Bruyn, & Th. C. M. Bergen (Eds.), Achievement and task
motivation (pp. 7–41). Lisse: Zwets & Zeitlinger.
Hermans, H. (1976). PMT prestatie motivatie test, handleiding [PMT achievement motivation
test, manual]. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation
modelling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76–99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jackson, D. N. (1974). Manual for the personality research form. Port Huron, MI: Research
Psychologists Press.
Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2002). Should childhood be a journey or a race? Response to
Harackiewicz et al. (2002). Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 646–648.
Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (1998). Influences upon students’ perceptions of workload.
Educational Psychology, 18, 293–307.
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Tyson, D. F., & Patall, E. A. (2008). When are achievement goal orientations
beneficial for academic achievement? A closer look at main effects and moderating factors.
International Review of Social Psychology, 21, 19–70.
McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953). The achievement motive.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-attributed and implicit
motives differ? Psychological Review, 96, 690–702.
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for
whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93,
77–86.
Newble, D., & Hejka, E. J. (1991). Approaches to learning of medical students and practicing
physicians: Some empirical evidence and its implications for medical education. Educational
Psychology, 11, 333–342.
Nygård, R. (1977). Personality, situation and persistence: A study with emphasis on
achievement motivation. Oslo: Norwegian University Press.
Nygård, R., & Gjesme, T. (1973). Assessment of achievement motives. Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, 17, 39–46.
Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2009). Achievement goals and achievement emotions:
Testing a model of their joint relations with academic performance. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 101, 115–135.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of
classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 549–563.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunck, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-
Prentice Hall.
Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (1997). Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, and
locus of control in the self-efficacy and goal-setting process. Journal of Applied Psychology,
82, 792–802.
Raynor, J. Q., & Entin, E. E. (1982). Motivation, career striving, and aging. New York:
Hemisphere.
Reeve, J. (2005). Understanding motivation and emotion. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equations
models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290–312). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Spence, J., & Helmreich, R. (1983). Achievement-related motives and behaviors. In J. Spence (Ed.),
Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches
(pp. 10–74). San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
Thrash, T. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Implicit and self-attributed achievement motives: Concordance
and predictive validity. Journal of Personality, 70, 729–755.
Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation: Metaphors, theories and research. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Received 28 April 2008; revised version received 14 January 2010

A Mediation Analysis of Achievement Motives, Goals, Learning Strategies, and Academic Achievement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Mediation Analysis of Achievement Motives, Goals, Learning Strategies, and Academic Achievement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Copyright © The British Psychological Society

A mediation analysis of achievement motives,

Åge Diseth* and Therese Kobbeltvedt

Background. Previous research is inconclusive regarding antecedents and

672 Åge Diseth and Therese Kobbeltvedt

been linked with a number of motivational, cognitive, and achievement-related

Achievement goals, achievement motives, and learning strategies

Motives, strategies, and achievement 673

674 Åge Diseth and Therese Kobbeltvedt

Motives, strategies, and achievement 675

(1) Mastery/performance-approach goals and strategic/deep learning strategies

676 Åge Diseth and Therese Kobbeltvedt

Motives, strategies, and achievement 677

678 Åge Diseth and Therese Kobbeltvedt

Min.–max. Mean SD skew. kurt. a

MS 1.00–4.00 3.21 0.52 21.07 2.09 .83

Motives, strategies, and achievement 679

1. MS 2.33** .22** .18** 2 .17** .36** 2.16* .16* 2 .02

680 Åge Diseth and Therese Kobbeltvedt

examination grades on the other, constitute sufficient justification for an investigation

. Performance avoidance ! strategic learning strategy ! academic achievement

Motives, strategies, and achievement 681

682 Åge Diseth and Therese Kobbeltvedt

However, this lack of a direct relationship between achievement motives and

Motives, strategies, and achievement 683

Limitations and suggestions for future research

684 Åge Diseth and Therese Kobbeltvedt

Motives, strategies, and achievement 685

686 Åge Diseth and Therese Kobbeltvedt

Motives, strategies, and achievement 687

Received 28 April 2008; revised version received 14 January 2010

You might also like

1. MS 2.33 .22 .18 2 .17 .36** 2.16* .16* 2 .02