Search

The Study Demands and Resources Scale (SDRS) has shown promise as a valid and reliable measure for measuring students’ specific study demands and -resources. However, there is no evidence as to its psychometric properties outside of the original context in which it was developed. This study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of the SDRS in a cross-national student population through examining its longitudinal factorial validity, internal consistency, and temporal invariance as well as criterion validity through its association with study engagement and task performance over time. Results showed that a Bifactor Exploratory Structural Equation Model (ESEM) with one general factor (overall study characteristics) and five specific factors (workload, growth opportunities, lecturer support, peer support, information availability) fitted the data, showed strong measurement invariance over time, and was reliable at different time points. The study further established criterion validity for the overall study characteristics factor through its concurrent and predictive associations with study engagement and task performance. However, the specific factors’ concurrent and predictive capacity could only partially be established when controlling for the general study characteristics factor. These findings suggest that study characteristics should be measured as a dynamic interaction between study demands and resources, rather than a hierarchical model.

Academic task performance (TP) refers to the proficiency with which students perform in academic tasks through making the right choices and completing core tasks central to their academic studies, on time and to specification. We adapted Koopmans et al.’s task performance scale (TPS) for use within tertiary education and investigated its psychometric properties, internal consistency and measurement invariance across age, gender and national groups in university students (n = 3,265). The results showed that a hierarchical ESEM model with one higher-order task performance factor consisting of time management and task efficiency fitted the data best. The TPS exhibited full measurement invariance across gender and age groups, implying that the latent mean scores can be used to determine differences. However, invariance could only partially be established for national cohorts, implying that cross-national comparisons may not be possible. These findings offer preliminary support for the TPS as a valid instrument for gauging students’ academic task performance.

Despite its popularity in practice, the Grit-O Scale has shown inconsistent factorial structures and differing levels of internal consistency in samples outside the USA. The validity of the Grit-O Scale in different contexts is, therefore, questionable. As such, the purpose of this paper was to determine whether the Grit-O Scale could be used as a valid and reliable measure to compare grit across different nations. Specifically, the aim was to investigate the factorial validity, reliability, and concurrent validity of the Grit-O Scale and to investigate measurement invariance across three national cohorts (Europe, the USA, and Hong Kong). Data were gathered from 1888 respondents stemming from one USA- (n = 471), two Hong Kong- (n = 361) and four European (n = 1056) universities. A series of traditional CFA and less restrictive ESEM models were estimated and systematically compared to determine the best factorial form of the Grit-O Scale. The results showed that a bifactor ESEM model, with one general factor of overall grit and two specific factors (consistency of interest and perseverance of effort), fitted the data best, showed strong measurement invariance across the three samples, and showed itself to be a reliable measure. Furthermore, concurrent validity was established by showing that the three grit factors were directly and positively related to task performance. Meaningful latent comparisons between the three cultural cohorts could therefore be made. The results imply that cross-national comparisons of grit may only be problematic when traditional CFA approaches are favoured. In contrast, ESEM modelling approaches may compensate for cross-national differences in understanding grit and control for differences in the interpretation of the scale’s items. Therefore, the bifactor ESEM approach may be more appropriate for cross-cultural and cross-national comparison studies, as it allows for these differences to be meaningfully captured, modelled, and controlled f

Strengths use is an essential personal resource to consider when designing higher-educational programs and interventions. Strengths use is associated with positive outcomes for both the student (e.g., study engagement) and the university (e.g., academic throughput/performance). The Strengths Use Scale (SUS) has become a popular psychometric instrument to measure strengths use in educational settings, yet its use has been subjected to limited psychometric scrutiny outside of the U.S. Further, its longitudinal stability has not yet been established. Given the wide use of this instrument, the goals of this study were to investigate (a) longitudinal factorial validity and the internal consistency of the scale, (b) its equivalence over time, and (c) criterion validity through its relationship with study engagement over time. Data were gathered at two-time points, 3 months apart, from a sample of students in the Netherlands ( n = 360). Longitudinal confirmatory factor analyses showed support for a two-factor model for overall strengths use, comprised of Affinity for Strengths and Strengths Use Behaviors. The SUS demonstrated high levels of internal consistency at both the lower- and upper bound limits at both time points. Further, strict longitudinal measurement invariance was established, which confirmed the instrument's temporal stability. Finally, criterion validity was established through relating strengths use to study engagement at different time stamps. These findings support the use of the SUS in practice to measure strengths use and to track the effectiveness of strengths use interventions within the higher education sector.

Strengths use is an essential personal resource to consider when designing higher-educational programs and interventions. Strengths use is associated with positive outcomes for both the student (e.g., study engagement) and the university (e.g., academic throughput/performance). The Strengths Use Scale (SUS) has become a popular psychometric instrument to measure strengths use in educational settings, yet its use has been subjected to limited psychometric scrutiny outside of the U.S. Further, its longitudinal stability has not yet been established. Given the wide use of this instrument, the goals of this study were to investigate (a) longitudinal factorial validity and the internal consistency of the scale, (b) its equivalence over time, and (c) criterion validity through its relationship with study engagement over time. Data were gathered at two-time points, 3 months apart, from a sample of students in the Netherlands (n = 360). Longitudinal confirmatory factor analyses showed support for a two-factor model for overall strengths use, comprised of Affinity for Strengths and Strengths Use Behaviors. The SUS demonstrated high levels of internal consistency at both the lower- and upper bound limits at both time points. Further, strict longitudinal measurement invariance was established, which confirmed the instrument's temporal stability. Finally, criterion validity was established through relating strengths use to study engagement at different time stamps. These findings support the use of the SUS in practice to measure strengths use and to track the effectiveness of strengths use interventions within the higher education sector.