Skip to main content

3x2 Achievement Goal Questionnaire

OVERVIEW
Overview
Listed below is general information about the instrument.
Summary
Original author(s)

  • Elliot, A.J., Murayama, K., & Pekrun, R.
Original publication

  • Elliot, A.J., Murayama, K., & Pekrun, R. (2011). A 3 × 2 achievement goal model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 632-648.
Year original instrument was published 2011
Inventory
Number of items 18
Number of versions/translations 1
Cited implementations 2
Language
  • English
Country United States
Format
  • Response Scale
Intended population(s)
  • Students
  • Undergraduate
Domain
  • Affective
Topic
  • General (Affective)
Evidence
The CHIRAL team carefully combs through every reference that cites this instrument and pulls all evidence that relates to the instruments’ validity and reliability. These data are presented in the following table that simply notes the presence or absence of evidence related to that concept, but does not indicate the quality of that evidence. Similarly, if evidence is lacking, that does not necessarily mean the instrument is “less valid,” just that it wasn’t presented in literature. Learn more about this process by viewing the CHIRAL Process and consult the instrument’s Review (next tab), if available, for better insights into the usability of this instrument.

Information in the table is given in four different categories:
  1. General - information about how each article used the instrument:
    • Original development paper - indicates whether in which paper(s) the instrument was developed initially
    • Uses the instrument in data collection - indicates whether an article administered the instrument and collected responses
    • Modified version of existing instrument - indicates whether an article has modified a prior version of this instrument
    • Evaluation of existing instrument - indicates whether an article explicitly provides evidence that attempt to evaluate the performance of the instrument; lack of a checkmark here implies an article that administered the instrument but did not evaluate the instrument itself
  2. Reliability - information about the evidence presented to establish reliability of data generated by the instrument; please see the Glossary for term definitions
  3. Validity - information about the evidence presented to establish reliability of data generated by the instrument; please see the Glossary for term definitions
  4. Other Information - information that may or may not directly relate to the evidence for validity and reliability, but are commonly reported when evaluating instruments; please see the Glossary for term definitions
Publications: 1 2

General
Original development paper ✔
Uses the instrument in data collection ✔ ✔
Modified version of existing instrument ✔
Evaluation of existing instrument ✔ ✔

Reliability
Test-retest reliability
Internal consistency
Coefficient (Cronbach's) alpha ✔ ✔
McDonald's Omega
Inter-rater reliability
Person separation
Generalizability coefficients
Other reliability evidence

Validity
Expert judgment
Response process
Factor analysis, IRT, Rasch analysis ✔ ✔
Differential item function
Evidence based on relationships to other variables ✔ ✔
Evidence based on consequences of testing ✔
Other validity evidence

Other information
Difficulty
Discrimination
Evidence based on fairness
Other general evidence
Review
DISCLAIMER: The evidence supporting the validity and reliability of the data summarized below is for use of this assessment instrument within the reported settings and populations. The continued collection and evaluation of validity and reliability evidence, in both similar and dissimilar contexts, is encouraged and will support the chemistry education community’s ongoing understanding of this instrument and its limitations.
This review was generated by a CHIRAL review panel. Each CHIRAL review panel consists of multiple experts who first individually review the citations of the assessment instrument listed on this page for evidence in support of the validity and reliability of the data generated by the instrument. Panels then meet to discuss the evidence and summarize their opinions in the review posted in this tab. These reviews summarize only the evidence that was discussed during the panel which may not represent all evidence available in the published literature or that which appears on the Evidence tab.
If you feel that evidence is missing from this review, or that something was documented in error, please use the CHIRAL Feedback page.

Panel Review: 3x2 Achievement Goal Questionnaire (3x2 AGQ)

(Post last updated 20 December 2024)

Review panel summary   
The 3x2 Achievement Goal Questionnaire (3x2 AGQ) is a set of 18 items on a 7-point scale and was developed to assess the types of goals students possess in the classroom. This instrument differs from the 2x2 AGQ [1] as it was developed based on the 3x2 model of goal orientations which suggest that there are three types of goals that can be focused towards the self, others, or the task at hand. Furthermore, the three goals can each be bifurcated based on how a student displays their goals as either approaching or avoiding a goal. In the first study, 445 undergraduate psychology students in Germany and the United States were administered the instrument in German and English, respectively. The second study occurred in the United States and they surveyed 1596 students taking general chemistry I and II.

The results were mixed for the evidence of the internal structure of the data, two studies provided moderate support for the 6-factor structure and one study (with a substantially larger population of chemistry students) suggesting that a 3-factor model fit the data better [2, 3]. The single administration reliability was acceptable for each subscale in the 6-factor and each subscale in the 3-factor models [2, 3]. The goal orientations were related to other variables, such as temperament which acted as predictors of goal orientations [2]. The 3-factor goal orientations were related to exam performance when accounting for SAT Math score [3]. Support for strict invariance between the German and American populations was found, which indicates that the two populations could be compared based on their responses to the 3x2 AGQ [2].

Recommendations for use   
As the factor structure of the data was inconsistent across the studies, additional work is needed to produce sufficient internal structure evidence to support the use of the 6-factor or the 3-factor models with future populations. Currently no evidence based on response process has been published.

Details from panel review   
Some evidence based on test content in an unpublished pilot study laid the groundwork for the instrument development [2]. The instrument was translated and back-translated from German to English [2]. The authors suggest that the subscales can be used independently of each other; they provided the results from a correlated model confirmatory factor analysis, which estimates error terms, factor loadings, and correlations based on the complete set of items [2]. However, to support the use of these subscales independently, a factor analysis on the desired subscales would be required to determine if the items function as a unidimensional set, providing further evidence of the internal structure in support of their claim [2]. The second study was conducted within a course utilizing a peer-led team learning (PLTL) pedagogy, and they discuss the possible effects PLTL had in reinforcing task-based goals [3].

References

[1] Elliot, A.J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2x2 Achievement Goal Framework. J. of Pers. and Soc. Psych., 80(3), 501-519.

[2] Elliot, A. J., Murayama, K., & Pekrun, R. (2011). A 3 × 2 achievement goal model. J. of Educ. Psych., 103(3), 632–648.

[3] Lewis, S. E. (2018). Goal orientations of general chemistry students via the achievement goal framework. Chem. Educ. Res. and Pract., 19, 199–212.

Versions
This instrument has not been modified nor was it created based on an existing instrument.
Citations
Listed below are all literature that develop, implement, modify, or reference the instrument.

  1. Elliot, A.J., Murayama, K., & Pekrun, R. (2011). A 3 × 2 achievement goal model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 632-648.

  2. Lewis, S.E. (2018). Goal orientations of general chemistry students via the achievement goal framework. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(1), 199-212.