A study of the factorial invariance of the Student Engagement Instrument (SEI): Results from middle and high school students

School Psychology Quarterly

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 84-93

  Betts, Joseph E ^a   Appleton, James J ^b   Reschly, Amy L ^c   Christenson, Sandra L ^d   Huebner, E Scott ^e  

^a Center for Cultural Diversity and Minority Education   (United States)

^b Department of Research and Evaluation ^*  (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Affective engagement; Cognitive engagement; Construct validity; Measurement invariance

Indexed keywords

EID: 77955253946     PISSN: 10453830     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0020259     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Standards for educational and psychological measurement 1999, American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education, American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
2. Appleton J., Christenson S., Kim D., Reschly A. Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of School Psychology 2006, 44:427-445.
3. Bartholomew D., Knott M. Latent variable models and factor analysis 1999, Oxford University Press, New York. 2nd ed.
4. Barton P.E. One-third of a nation: Rising dropout rates and declining opportunities 2005, Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ.
5. Bentler P. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin 1990, 88:588-606.
6. Bollen K. Structural equations with latent variables 1989, Wiley, New York.
7. Browne M. Asymptotically distribution-free methods for the analysis of covariance structures. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 1984, 37:62-83.
8. Browne M., Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Testing structural equation models 1993, 132-162. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. K. Bollen, J. Long (Eds.).
9. Byrne B. Structural equation modeling with AMOS 2001, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
10. Cheung G., Rensvold R. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling 2002, 9:233-255.
11. Christenson S.L. Engaging students with school: The essential dimension of dropout prevention programs 2008, January, Web seminar presentation for the National Dropout Prevention Center for Students With Disabilities.
12. Christenson S.L., Sinclair M.F., Lehr C.A., Hurley C.M. Promoting successful school completion. Preventing school-Promoting school success 2000, 211-257. National Association of School Psychologists, Bethesda, MD. K.M. Minke, G.C. Bear (Eds.).
13. Christenson S.L., Thurlow M.L. School dropouts: Prevention considerations, interventions, and challenges. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2004, 13:36-39.
14. Connell J.P., Wellborn J.G. Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. Self-processes and development 1991, 23:43-78. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. M.R. Gunnar, L.A. Sroufe (Eds.).
15. Fan X., Thompson B., Wang L. Effects of sample size, estimation method, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes. Structural Equation Modeling 1999, 6:56-83.
16. Finn J.D. Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research 1989, 59:117-142.
17. Finn J.D. School engagement and students at risk 1993, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC.
18. Finn J.D., Rock D.A. Academic success among students at risk for school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology 1997, 82:221-234.
19. Fredricks J.A., Blumenfeld P.C., Paris A.H. School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research 2004, 74:59-109.
20. Grigg W., Donahue P., Dion G. The nation's report card: 12th-grade reading and mathematics 2005 (NCES 2007-468). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics 2007, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
21. Hoyle R., Duvall J. Determining the number of factors in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The Sage handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences 2004, 301-315. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. D. Kaplan (Ed.).
22. Jimerson S.R., Campos E., Greif J.L. Toward an understanding of definitions and measures of school engagement and related terms. The California School Psychologist 2003, 8:7-27.
23. Jöreskog K. Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests. Psychometrika 1971, 36:109-133.
24. Jöreskog K. Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika 1971, 36:409-426.
25. Jöreskog K. A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis with addendum. Advances in factor analysis and structural equation models 1979, 21-43. Abt Books, Cambridge, MA. J. Magidson (Ed.).
26. Luce R., Krantz D., Suppes P., Tversky A. Foundations of measurement: Vol. III. Representation, axiomatization, and invariance 1990, Dover Publications, Mineola, NY.
27. Marks H.M. Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal 2000, 37:153-184.
28. McPartland J.M. Dropout prevention in theory and practice. Schools and students at risk: Context and framework for positive change 1994, 255-276. Teachers College Press, New York. R.J. Rossi (Ed.).
29. Meredith W. Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika 1993, 58:525-543.
30. Mulaik S., Millsap R. Doing the four-step right. Structural Equation Modeling 2000, 7:36-73.
31. Muthén L.K., Muthén B.O. Mplus user's guide 1998-2005, Author, Los Angeles. 3rd ed.
32. A nation at risk: The full account 1984, National Commission on Excellence in Education, USA Research, Portland, OR.
33. Engaging schools: Fostering high school students' motivation to learn 2004, National Research Council & the Institute of Medicine, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
34. Neild R.C., Balfanz R. An extreme degree of difficulty: The educational demographics of urban neighborhood high schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 2006, 11:131-141.
35. PISA 2006 science competencies for tomorrow's world: Vols. I and II 2006, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/document/2/0,3343,en_32252351_32236191_39718850_1_1_1_1,00.html.
36. Raykov T. Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement 1997, 21:173-184.
37. Schumacker R., Lomax R. A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling 1996, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
38. Schwarz G. Estimating the dimensions of a model. Annals of Statistics 1978, 6:461-464.
39. Sinclair M.F., Christenson S.L., Evelo D.L., Hurley C.M. Dropout prevention for youth with disabilities: Efficacy of a sustained school engagement procedure. Exceptional Children 1998, 65:7-24.
40. Sinclair M.F., Christenson S.L., Thurlow M.L. Promoting school completion of urban secondary youth with emotional or behavioral disabilities. Exceptional Children 2005, 71:465-482.
41. Spanjers, D. (2007). Cognitive engagement as a predictor of achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities.