Suppr超能文献

学习动机策略问卷和教学材料动机调查的验证

Validation of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire and instructional materials motivation survey.

作者信息

Cook David A, Skrupky Lee P

机构信息

Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, and General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.

University of Wisconsin Health Center for Clinic Knowledge Management, Madison, WI.

出版信息

Med Teach. 2025 Apr;47(4):635-645. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2024.2357278. Epub 2024 May 28.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To validate the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ), which measures learner motivations; and the Instructional Materials Motivation Survey (IMMS), which measures the motivational properties of educational activities.

METHODS

Participants (333 pharmacists, physicians, and advanced practice providers) completed the MSLQ, IMMS, Congruence-Personalization Questionnaire (CPQ), and a knowledge test immediately following an online learning module (April 2021). We randomly divided data for split-sample analysis using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and the multitrait-multimethod matrix.

RESULTS

Cronbach alpha was ≥0.70 for most domains. CFA using sample 1 demonstrated suboptimal fit for both instruments, including 3 negatively-worded IMMS items with particularly low loadings. Revised IMMS (RIMMS) scores (which omit negatively-worded items) demonstrated better fit. Guided by EFA, we identified a novel 3-domain, 11-item 'MSLQ-Short Form-Revised' (MSLQ-SFR, with domains: Interest, Self-efficacy, and Attribution) and the 4-domain, 12-item RIMMS as the best models. CFA using sample 2 confirmed good fit. Correlations among MSLQ-SFR, RIMMS, and CPQ scores aligned with predictions; correlations with knowledge scores were small.

CONCLUSIONS

Original MSLQ and IMMS scores show poor model fit, with negatively-worded items notably divergent. Revised, shorter models-the MSLQ-SFR and RIMMS-show satisfactory model fit (internal structure) and relations with other variables.

摘要

目的

验证用于衡量学习者动机的学习动机策略问卷(MSLQ),以及用于衡量教育活动动机特性的教学材料动机调查(IMMS)。

方法

参与者(333名药剂师、医生和高级实践提供者)在一个在线学习模块结束后(2021年4月)立即完成了MSLQ、IMMS、一致性-个性化问卷(CPQ)和一项知识测试。我们使用验证性因素分析(CFA)、探索性因素分析(EFA)和多特质-多方法矩阵对数据进行随机划分以进行分样本分析。

结果

大多数领域的Cronbach α系数≥0.70。使用样本1进行的CFA显示这两种工具的拟合度欠佳,包括3个措辞为负面的IMMS项目,其负荷特别低。修订后的IMMS(RIMMS)分数(省略措辞为负面的项目)显示出更好的拟合度。在EFA的指导下,我们确定了一个新颖的3领域、11项的“MSLQ简版修订版”(MSLQ-SFR,领域包括:兴趣、自我效能感和归因)以及4领域、12项的RIMMS作为最佳模型。使用样本2进行的CFA证实拟合良好。MSLQ-SFR、RIMMS和CPQ分数之间的相关性与预测一致;与知识分数的相关性较小。

结论

原始的MSLQ和IMMS分数显示模型拟合度较差,表示措辞为负面的项目明显不同。修订后的较短模型——MSLQ-SFR和RIMMS——显示出令人满意的模型拟合度(内部结构)以及与其他变量的关系。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验