Brief Report
Motivation and engagement in diverse performance settings: Testing their generality across school, university/college, work, sport, music, and daily life

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.05.003Get rights and content

Abstract

In the light of recent calls for more integrative approaches to theorizing and measurement in motivation and engagement research, the present study assesses the generality of key motivation and engagement constructs across seven performance domains: elementary school (N = 624), high school (N = 21,579), university/college (N = 420), work (N = 637), music (N = 224), sport (N = 204), and daily life (N = 249). Based on domain specific adaptations of the Motivation and Engagement Scale, multi-group confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) tested invariance across the seven domains. First and higher order multi-group CFAs demonstrated broad invariance in factor loadings (in particular), factor correlations/variances, and uniquenesses across performance domains. Taken together, the present data support the hypothesized generality of key motivation and engagement constructs. Findings hold implications for pragmatic, statistical, substantive, and intervention considerations in motivation and engagement research and also for research into cognate constructs in personality psychology more generally.

Section snippets

The Importance of integrative approaches to motivation and engagement

Motivation and engagement can be respectively conceptualized as individuals’ energy and drive to achieve to their potential and the behaviors that follow from this energy and drive (Martin, 2007a). Critical reviews of motivation and engagement research point to the fact that such research is fragmented. As a result, there have been calls for more integrative approaches to its research and theorizing (Murphy and Alexander, 2000, Pintrich, 2003). There are various means by which integrative

The Motivation and Engagement Wheel

There are significant commonalities across theories and models of human behavior, affect, and cognition and which provide direction as to fundamental dimensions of motivation and engagement. It is in this context that the Motivation and Engagement Wheel (Fig. 1; Martin, 2002, Martin, 2003, Martin, 2007a) was developed drawing on seminal motivation theorizing (e.g., goal theory, self-worth motivation theory, expectancy-value theory—see Martin, 2007a, Martin, in press, for full discussion of the

Multi-group CFA and tests of invariance

Although most research assesses mean-level differences, relatively less attention is given to sample differences in the factor structure of motivation and engagement and the question, for example, of whether a given instrument measures the same components of motivation and engagement with equal validity for one sample more or less than another. Also as discussed at the outset, invariance holds pragmatic, statistical, substantive, and intervention implications. Such concerns about factor

Samples

The high school sample is drawn from a series of studies that pioneered the early work on the Motivation and Engagement Wheel (e.g., Martin, 2003, Martin, 2007a, Martin, 2007b). The elementary school and university/college samples were the focus of prior work into developmental perspectives on motivation and engagement (Martin, submitted for publication). The workplace sample is drawn from prior work into engagement in the workplace (Martin, 2006). The music and sport samples are drawn from

Confirmatory factor analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed using LISREL 8.80 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2006). Maximum Likelihood Estimation was used to estimate the model. Fit indices were the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), and non-normed fit index (NNFI). For RMSEA, values at or less than .08 are taken to reflect a close and reasonable fit while values under .05 are considered to be an excellent fit (see McDonald & Marsh, 1990). The NNFI and CFI varied along a

Results

Findings for respective invariance tests based on z-scored items and original metric items are presented in Table 1. Findings indicate that when successive elements of the factor structure are held invariant across groups, the fit indices are predominantly comparable from: (a) the first order model with all parameters free to vary, (standardized items/unstandardized items) CFI = .98/.98 (NNFI = .98/.98, RMSEA = .04/.04) to the most restrictive first order model, CFI = .98/.97 (NNFI = .98/.97, RMSEA = 

Discussion and conclusion

The present study has extended previous research by demonstrating broad generality of motivation and engagement constructs across school, university/college, work, music, and sport. The present study is also unique in that it introduces motivation and engagement in daily life and demonstrates its psychometric strength. As Martin (in press) has argued, there are many conceptual congruencies in motivation and engagement theory across diverse performance domains. He has proposed that constructs

References (22)

  • A.J. Martin

    The role of positive psychology in enhancing satisfaction, motivation, and productivity in the workplace

    Journal of Organizational Behavior Management

    (2005)
  • Cited by (25)

    • Evaluating student motivation and engagement in the Chinese EFL writing context

      2019, Studies in Educational Evaluation
      Citation Excerpt :

      The limited body of research on student motivation and engagement has predominately focused on students’ various motivation and engagement at the average level using variable-centered approaches (i.e., examining the variables at the entire sample level rather than further classify the entire sample into subgroups) (e.g., Sasaki, 2011; Tran, 2007; Zhang, 2017; Zhang & Hyland, 2018). However, as various motivation and engagement components are interrelated (Martin, 2001, 2003b, 2007, 2008b), they may be configured within students in meaningful ways (i.e., the patterning). Also, the configuration typology of different motivation and engagement may hold unique implications for students’ academic achievement that cannot be accounted for by any single dimension of motivation and engagement.

    • Adaptive and maladaptive work-related motivation among teachers: A person-centered examination and links with well-being

      2017, Teaching and Teacher Education
      Citation Excerpt :

      Participants completed the questionnaire in meetings or professional development sessions and response rates were close to 100% for most schools. The data in this study are shared with other variable-centered studies focusing on psychometric properties of the scales (Martin, 2008, 2009; Martin & Marsh, 2008). Importantly, the current study is the first to examine the data with a person-centered approach.

    • Teachers' workplace well-being: Exploring a process model of goal orientation, coping behavior, engagement, and burnout

      2012, Teaching and Teacher Education
      Citation Excerpt :

      Mastery orientation, failure avoidance and problem- and emotion-focused coping were assessed using subscales from the Motivation and Engagement Scale-Work (MES-W), a measure of motivation relevant constructs which has shown strong construct validity in teaching populations (Martin, 2008, 2009; Parker & Martin, 2009). The MES-W is a 44-item scale designed to measure factors identified as important cognitions and behaviors in performance domains from a variety of psycho-educational perspectives (Martin, 2008). This instrument was particularly useful for this research as it includes scales on goal orientation (e.g., mastery and failure avoidance) and various adaptive and maladaptive behaviors that represent the typical strategies individuals use to cope with workplace challenges.

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    This article was in part prepared while the author was Visiting Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Education at the University of Oxford.

    View full text