Causal attribution

Despite the evidence that causal attributions are important determinants of motivation and achievement, relatively little attention has been paid to the reliability and validity of different methods for assessing attributions. As discussed in Chapter 4, section 4.4. 1 , it was considered important to measure causal attributional dimensions directly so as to avoid the "fundamental attribution researcher error". Thus, in the present study attributional dimensions were measured directly using the Causal Dimension Scale (Russell, 1 982). This measure was designed to assess how the student perceives the cause of the reading outcome in terms of the locus of causality, stability, and controllability dimensions described by Weiner (1979, 1 985a). The measure consisted of nine semantic differential scales, with three of the scales assessing each causal dimension (see Appendix B, section B. 1). Students were asked to think of two to three main reasons why they succeeded or failed in reading and to rate the extent to which these causes, in general, fell on the Causal Dimension Scale (CDS). Scores for the locus of causality, stability, and controllability dimensions were created by summing student' s ratings of the attributions on each of the three semantic differential scales representing that dimension. These total scores ranged from 3 to 21 for both the success and failure conditions. A number of studies have provided support for the high reliability and validity of the CDS (e.g., Wilson & Linville, 1 985).

The current study provides additional evidence on the CDS's reliability and validity. Fa

�

tor analyses revealed that the attribution items formed separate factors from that of efficacy, metacognitive knowledge, and strategy use. Reliability estimates computed for the six

subscales in the present study indicated high internal consistency for the whole sample (N = 407) with alpha coefficients ranging from .85 to .95 for success subscales and .79 to .93 for failure subscales, thus supporting the formation of the six subscales.

The latent construct of adaptive attributional style for reading was hypothesized to be reflected

in six manifest variables of success and failure on the following three dimensions of

attributions: locus of causality, controllability, and stability. For reading success, these scales were scored so that higher values reflected increased adaptive attributions of locus of causality (internality), controllability, and stability. However, for reading failure, these scales were scored so that higher values reflected increased attributions of intemality, controllability, and instability to represent adaptive attributions.

8.3.5 Self-efficacy

Two measures were devised by the author to represent the latent construct of self-efficacy. One of the measures was consistent with Bandura's (1 977) original definition, "the conviction that one can successfully execute the behaviour required to produce particular outcomes" (p. 1 93). The other conformed to more recent definitions which emphasize that "self-efficacy is concerned with generative capabilities, and not with component acts" (Bandura, 1 986, p. 397). Thus, the first indicator measured students' confidence about outcomes in relation to specific tasks in reading and the second measured students' aggregated reading self-efficacy.

The first measure, called the Task Specific Reading Self-efficacy (TRSE) scale, followed Bandura's original methodology and was more specific in terms of reading tasks. The 6-item scale measured individuals' generalized expectancies concerning their efficacy in performing a variety of reading tasks. Students' self-efficacy for reading different materials (e.g., an encyclopedia, a 1 50 page novel) was measured on a scale that ranged from 0 to 1 00 in 1 0-unit intervals from high uncertainty to complete certainty. Psychometric data for this scale are provided by Pereira-Laird and Deane (1 995) (see Appendix C). High reliability and validity was demonstrated for this measure.

The second measure was called the General Reading Self-efficacy (GRSE) scale. In this measure, students were required to respond to 7 items on reading self-efficacy using a 7-point Likert scale. The scale ranged from 1 to 7 with the following verbal descriptors: 1 - never,

154

2 - almost never, 3 - seldom, 4 - sometimes, 5 - often, 6 - almost always, and 7 - always.

Items were adapted from the self-efficacy subscale devised by Pintrich and De Groot (1 990). The items were modified to make it reading specific. An attempt was made to incorporate many aspects of reading, for example, doing well in reading, ability to understand the material, and so forth. The items had the following stems "I am certain", "I am sure", and "I am confident". Items which indicated comparison to other students were excluded as it was believed that they measured perceived competence rather than self-efficacy. Scores for the seven items were added and then divided by seven to produce a mean score ranging from 1 to 7. Scoring was reversed on the items that were negatively worded, so that for all items a high score indicated high self-efficacy (see Appendix C for psychometric data). The GRSE scale is reported to have good reliability and validity (Pereira-Laird & Deane, 1 995). In the present study, factor analyses of the items from the GRSE and TRSE scales revealed that the items loaded on separate factors. However, in comparison to the single factor structure for NA readers, the TRSE scale items formed two factors for RD readers. Items 1 and 2 loaded on one factor while items 3 through 6 loaded on a second factor. Examination of the two factor structure of the task-specific items suggested that the responses of RD

readers could be differentiated for easy and difficult reading tasks. In order to make the scales comparable across groups, items 1 and 2 were deleted from the TRSE scale. A task specific self-efficacy score was computed by calculating the mean for the remaining 4 items in the self-efficacy scale.

In the present study, assessment of reliability, suggested that both measures had satisfactory internal consistency as measured by Cronbach' s alpha. Internal consistency for the GRSE measure varied from .64 to .87 for the RD and NA students, respectively; the TRSE measure had Cronbach alphas of .89 and .83 for NA and RD groups, respectively.

In document Causal metacognitive motivational models of reading comprehension in reading disabled and normal achieving readers : a thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology (Page 169-171)