A Revised 10-Item Version of The Achievement Motives Scale: Psychometric Properties in German-Speaking Samples

EuropeanJ.W.B .
Lang
Journal & S. Fries: Revised
of Psychological © 2006Achievement
Assessment
Hogrefe
2006; Vol. Motives
& Huber Scale
22(3):216–224
Publishers
A Revised 10-Item Version of the

${protocol}://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1015-5759.22.3.216 - Sunday, July 08, 2018 6:07:26 AM - Technische Universität München IP Address:129.187.254.46
Achievement Motives Scale

Psychometric Properties in German-Speaking Samples
Jonas W.B. Lang1 and Stefan Fries2
1
RWTH Aachen University, 2University of Mannheim, both Germany
Abstract. The Achievement Motives Scale (AMS) is a well-established and frequently used scale to assess hope of success and fear of
failure. In three studies with German-speaking samples (N = 3523, N = 132, N = 126), the authors developed a revised form of the AMS
using confirmatory factor analysis. As found in previous research, the original 30-item set of the AMS did not provide an acceptable fit
to a two-factor model. In contrast, a revised 10-item version (AMS-R) provided an adequate fit to the theoretically intended two-factor
model. The adequate fit could be validated in cross-validation procedures. Furthermore, the revised scales provided adequate reliability,
lower interscale correlations, and criterion-related validity with respect to typical criteria of achievement-related behavior.
Keywords: Achievement Motives Scale, motive measurement, self-attributed motive
Past researchers have developed a variety of measures to problem of past revised AMS versions is that a validation
assess the achievement motive. One of the best established with respect to typical criteria of achievement motivation
and most frequently used questionnaire measures in is missing for the scales. Recently, Smith, McCarthy, and
achievement motivation research is the Achievement Mo- Anderson (2000) claimed that the literature on the devel-
tives Scale (AMS; Gjesme & Nygard, 1970). The AMS opment of shortened scales is characterized by overly op-
contains 30 items to measure hope of success and fear of timistic views. Often, developers of shortened scales sim-
failure. Previous research generally found supporting evi- ply assume that the validity of an original measure trans-
dence for the reliability and predictive validity of the AMS mits to a shortened instrument. Smith et al. point out that
(e.g., Dahme, Jungnickel, & Rathje, 1993; Gjesme, 1971; this assumption is not justified on psychometric principles.
Rand, 1978). However, studies investigating the factor Simply, one can think of a short form as an alternate form
structure using exploratory factor analyses (EFA) did not of a measure with reduced coverage of the target domain.
clearly support the theoretically intended structure of the Thus, Smith et al. advise developers of shortened scales to
measure (Christophersen & Rand, 1982; Dahme et al., conduct a thorough examination of the new form’s reliabil-
1993; Hagtvet & Zuo, 2000; Man, Nygard, & Gjesme, ity and validity in independent samples. Given the variabil-
1994). In order to account for the unsatisfying approxima- ity of the proposals for revised AMS-forms and the fre-
tion of the theoretically assumed two-factor structure and quently missing evidence for the validity of the revised
also to simply increase the economy of the scales, various scales, the aim of the present studies was to develop a well-
authors have developed shortened versions of the AMS validated revised AMS version.
(Baumert, Gruehn, Heyn, Köller, & Schnabel, 1997; Enge-
ser, in preparation, cited after Rheinberg, 2004; Hagtvet &
Zuo, 2000; Halvari & Kjormo, 1999) by trying to eliminate Theoretical Background: The Achievement
nonfitting items. The composition of these scales differs Motive
considerably because of differences in the psychometric
goals and methodological procedures considered by the re- Human beings sometimes engage in activities just for the
spective authors. sake of finding out whether or not they are capable of per-
What may be problematic for the quality of many re- forming an activity successfully. Such achievement-moti-
vised AMS versions is that their factor structure was not vated behavior can be characterized by a concern with a
cross-validated with independent samples. Cross-valida- standard of excellence that is important to the individual
tion procedures of factor structures are crucial for scale de- (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953). The un-
velopment based on empirical criteria to ensure that the derlying achievement motive is understood as a general-
developed scale is not a result of singular characteristics of ized evaluative and behavioral tendency in situations in
the respective sample (Floyd & Widaman, 1995). Another which a standard of excellence can be applied.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2006; Vol. 22(3):216–224 © 2006 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
DOI 10.1027/1015-5759.22.3.216
J.W.B. Lang & S. Fries: Revised Achievement Motives Scale 217
Scales to measure the achievement motive are common- Dahme et al., 1993; Göttert & Kuhl, 1980; Hagtvet & Zuo,
ly separated according to two distinctions. First, there is a 2000; Man et al., 1994). As outlined, empirical investiga-
consensus in the literature that the achievement motive tions using EFAs did not clearly support the factor structure
splits into an approach and an avoidance tendency (e.g., of the AMS (Christophersen & Rand, 1982; Dahme et al.,
Atkinson, 1957; Heckhausen, 1963, 1991). Typically, the 1993; Hagtvet & Zuo, 2000; Man et al., 1994). In almost
approach tendency is labeled hope of success (HS) and the every factor analysis of the AMS, several items showed
avoidance tendency is called fear of failure (FF). The ap- only small loadings on the intended factor or high loadings
proach/avoidance-distinction has its roots in experimental on the other factor of the two-factor solution. Furthermore,
studies, which suggested that individuals do not only differ in some investigations, the scree and Kaiser criterion did
in their tendency to pursue success but also can be separat- not suggest the extraction of two factors. Concerning the
ed by their tendency to avoid a possible failure (Heckhau- reliability of the scales, it is typically found that the two
sen, 1991). Furthermore, the distinction was popularized as scales for HS and FF show acceptable internal consisten-
it is a key assumption of the prominent risk-taking model cies (Cronbach’s α: .71 to .83 for HS and .81 to .89 for FF;
(Atkinson, 1957) – a theoretical model that was very fruit- Christophersen & Rand, 1982; Dahme et al., 1993). Previ-
ful for achievement motivation research. ous studies found moderate correlations between the two
Second, researchers separate implicit and self-attributed scales ranging from –.17 to –.36 in samples of adolescents
achievement motives (McClelland, Koestner, & Weinber- (Christophersen & Rand, 1982; Dahme et al., 1993; Man
ger, 1989; Spangler, 1992). Implicit and self-attributed mo- et al., 1994; Rand, 1978) and students (Hagtvet & Zuo,
tives are only slightly correlated (Spangler, 1992, found r = 2000). The validity of the AMS is confirmed for a wide
.09 in 36 meta-analyzed studies), relate to different impor- range of criteria. For example, the AMS predicts adoles-
tant classes of behavior, and are activated by different types cents’ participation in a school research contest (Dahme et
of incentives. Both types of motives are related to a specific al., 1993), school grades (Gjesme, 1971), and achievement
method of motive measurement. Chiefly, implicit motives in verbal as well as numerical tasks (Rand, 1978).
predict spontaneous behavioral trends over time and they
are activated by so-called activity incentives. Typically, ac-
tivity incentives are an inherent feature of a task and they Present Studies
are experienced through the task itself. Implicit motives are
typically assessed through fantasy-based measures like the- The objectives of the present studies were threefold. Our
matic apperception tests (TAT). Self-attributed motives first objective was to conduct a confirmatory factor analy-
predict immediate specific responses to specific situations sis (CFA) on the complete item set of the German AMS.
or choice behavior. They are primarily facilitated by social To the authors’ knowledge, there is no study that examined
incentives like rewards, expectations, demands, and norms CFAs on the complete item set of the AMS. Hagtvet and
that come from outside the task. A typical example of a Zuo (2000) performed separate CFAs on reduced item sets
social incentive is an achievement-oriented instruction be- of each AMS subscale to further investigate factor struc-
fore the start of an experiment. Self-attributed motives are tures they found in EFAs. However, they did not conduct
assessed using questionnaires like the AMS (see Heckhau- CFAs on the full AMS. Since previous studies relied on
sen, 1991; Rheinberg, 2004, for overviews). EFAs, the present study also includes EFAs for compara-
bility reasons.
The second objective was to compose a revised AMS
Psychometric Properties of the Original AMS (AMS-R) with (1) an adequate fit to the theoretical two-
factor model of the AMS through CFAs and EFAs, (2) a
From a conceptual perspective, Heckhausen (1991) desig- low HS-FF correlation, (3) acceptable internal consisten-
nated the AMS as the best available questionnaire-measure cies, (4) a considerable smaller number of items in order to
of the achievement motive for two reasons. First, its items increase the economy of the measure, and (5) good stability
ask persons to rate their positive or negative affect toward in cross-validation procedures. Note that our goal was not
an achievement activity and, hence, reflect the description to create scales having a maximum overlap with the origi-
of achievement motivation given by McClelland et al. nal measures but instead to create revised scales with an
(1953). Second, the AMS replicates the theoretical struc- improved factor structure.
ture of the self-attributed achievement motive by distin- Finally, our third objective was to thoroughly validate
guishing two different dimensions. In contrast, many other the newly developed AMS-R with respect to typical criteria
questionnaires assess only one dimension or split HS and of achievement motivated behavior. In line with achieve-
FF into further dimensions without an explicit theoretical ment motivation research, we expected that individuals
background (see Heckhausen, 1991). with a high motive to pursue success should (1) perform
The AMS consists of 15 items to measure HS and 15 better (Heckhausen, 1991; Spangler, 1992), (2) be more
items to assess FF. The questionnaire was originally devel- likely to persist (Spangler, 1992), (3) enjoy working on
oped in the Norwegian language (Gjesme & Nygard, 1970) achievement-related tasks more (Puca & Schmalt, 1999),
and was later translated into a variety of languages (see (4) evaluate themselves more positively after working on
© 2006 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2006; Vol. 22(3):216–224
218 J.W.B. Lang & S. Fries: Revised Achievement Motives Scale
achievement-related tasks (Heckhausen, 1991), (5) be AMS

more likely to experience flow during tasks (Puca &
Schmalt, 1999), and (6) be more likely to set themselves The 30 items of the German Version of the AMS by Göttert
realistic and challenging goals than people with a low mo- and Kuhl (1980) were rated on 4-point scales ranging from
tive to pursue success (Birney, Burdick, & Teevan, 1969; 4 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree.
Heckhausen, 1963, 1991). In contrast, we expected that in-
dividuals with a high motive to avoid failure would (1) wor-
ry more while working on achievement-related tasks (Elliot
& McGregor, 1999), (2) evaluate themselves more nega- Study 2
tively after working on achievement-related tasks (Heck- Participants and Procedure
hausen, 1991), (3) be less likely to experience flow while
working on achievement-related tasks (Puca & Schmalt,
Participants were recruited from the campus of a German
1999), (4) be less likely to set realistic and challenging
university. A total of 132 persons (62 male, 70 female) with
goals (Birney et al., 1969; Heckhausen, 1963, 1991), and
a mean age of 25.10 years (SD = 5.79) participated. Partic-
(5) have more test anxiety (Elliot & McGregor, 1999) than
ipants worked on the measures described below while sit-
individuals with a low motive to avoid failure. With respect
ting alone in a room of the university instructed by a trained
to performance, Atkinson (1957) initially conceptualized
experimenter.
FF as a strictly inhibitory tendency that debilitates perfor-
mance and prevents persistence in achievement situations.
In contrast, Birney et al. (1969) argued that FF inhibits per-
formance in complex and new tasks, whereas it facilitates AMS
performance in easier tasks. Given these contradictory the-
oretical propositions, we included both easy and complex The AMS was described in Study 1.
tasks as criteria in the present studies without generating a
hypothesis concerning the relationship between FF and
performance. Digit-Symbol Performance and Persistence
To achieve the outlined objectives, we conducted three
studies. Study 1 accomplished the first two objectives,
Participants worked on a digit-symbol substitution task
whereas Study 2 and Study 3 were designed to validate the
similar to the task included in the Wechsler Adult Intelli-
AMS-R.
gence Scale (Wechsler, 1955). As in the original task, we
used eight different digit-symbol combinations. Partici-
pants worked on six trials each containing 48 digit-symbol
substitutions (288 overall) on a separate sheet of paper. Par-
Method ticipants were instructed to work as fast and as precisely as
possible. The time the person needed to complete the 48
substitutions was stopped by the experimenter for each tri-
Study 1
al. After each trial, participants had a short recreation pe-
Participants and Procedure riod. As a measure of performance, we used the mean num-
ber of correct substitutions per second across the six trials.
After all trials of the digit-substitution task were complet-
The data of Study 1 were obtained on the Internet. Web-
ed, the person’s persistence was assessed to test the pro-
based studies are a new and promising way to gain large
posed positive relationship between HS and persistence.
sample sizes that are more similar to the general population
We, therefore, asked participants whether they were willing
than samples from university settings (e.g., Gosling, Va-
to work on additional digit-symbol trials in order to im-
zire, Srivastava, & John, 2004). A total of 3,523 German-
prove their performance (coded yes = 1, no = 0).
speaking web-users (1567 male, 1956 female) with a mean
age of 28.08 years (SD = 10.22) volunteered to participate
in the study. In terms of education, 19% of participants held
a college degree, 38% had finished high school (9 to 10 Task Enjoyment
years of education in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria),
and 61% had completed the highest degree of schooling In order to tap task enjoyment, we administered three items
possible (i.e., Abitur or Matura, which includes 12 to 13 after participants completed the digit-substitution task. We
years of education). Information about the study was dis- used the items “I enjoyed working on this task,” “This task
tributed by using the website of the local psychology de- was really challenging,” and “Working on this task was
partment and mailing lists. As an incentive, every partici- interesting.” Participants responded to these items on 5-
pant had the opportunity to receive an individual feedback point scales ranging from strongly agree to strongly dis-
and win one of three prizes (50, 30, and 10 Euro). agree.
Positive and Negative Self-Evaluation Test Anxiety
After participants had completed their work on the digit- Elliot and McGregor (1999) considered test anxiety as a
symbol substitution task, we administered two items as- domain-specific adaptation of FF. Therefore, test anxiety
sessing positive self-evaluation (“How happy do you feel should be strongly but not perfectly correlated with FF. To
about your performance in the task?” and “How proud of assess test anxiety, we used the 20 items of the German
your test performance are you after working on these adaptation of the Test Anxiety Inventory (Hodapp, Laux,
tasks?”) and two items assessing negative self-evaluation & Spielberger, 1982). Items were rated on a 4-point scale
(“How annoyed do you feel about your performance in the ranging from almost never to almost always.
task?” and “How ashamed do you feel about your perfor-
mance in the task?”) Participants responded to these items
on 5-point scales ranging from strongly to not at all. Spatial Reasoning Performance
Participants worked on the unwinding subtest (20 items;

administration time: 9 min) of the Wilde Intelligence Test
Pauli Task Performance and Goal-Setting – 2 (Kersting, Althoff, & Jäger, in press), a frequently used
German intelligence test.
As previously outlined, HS should contribute to moderately
positive goal setting behavior, whereas FF should entice
individuals to set negative, equal, or very high positive Worry
goals (Birney et al., 1969; Heckhausen, 1963, 1991). To
test these predictions, we used the Pauli task, which has Worry was measured using a three-item scale developed by
been previously used by Heckhausen (1963) to validate Rheinberg (2004). Participants worked on these items after
motive measures. In this task, participants work on rows of finishing their work on the performance task and responded
simple addition and subtraction tasks. Each row contains to these items on 7-point scales ranging from strongly agree
30 tasks and participants are given 20 s to complete each to strongly disagree.
row. Participants first worked on one practice trial and then
were asked to mark their goal prior to working on each of
six additional trials. To evaluate participants’ goal-setting Flow
behavior, we first calculated the average difference score
(new goal – performance in the last trial) across the six Flow experiences were measured using a nine-item scale
trials for each participant. Next, we coded whether partic- developed by Rheinberg (2004). Participants filled out the
ipants’ average difference scores were moderately positive flow items after working on the performance task. Items
or not. Difference scores were coded as low positive when were rated on 7-point scales ranging from strongly agree
they were larger than 0 and smaller than 5. A cut-off value to strongly disagree.
of 0 as the upper cut-off value is typically used in research
on goal-setting (e.g., Birney et al., 1969). We chose 5 as
the upper cut-off value as improvements above 4 were rare
in the task (less than 85% of all trials) and, thus, reflected Results
unrealistically high goal-setting.
Factor Analyses of the Original AMS
We conducted both CFAs and EFAs on the full item set.
Study 3 All CFAs were calculated using maximum likelihood esti-
mation. For model evaluation, we used the standardized
Participants and Procedure root-mean-square residual (SRMR) to detect simple model
misspecification. The comparative fit index (CFI), the
Participants were 126 (79 male, 47 female) 9th and 10th- Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and the root-mean square error
grade students (mean age: 15.12 years, SD = 0.84) from of approximation (RMSEA) were used as indicators of
two German schools. Participants worked on the measures complex model misspecification (Hu & Bentler, 1998). Hu
described below in groups of 10 to 20 persons. and Bentler suggested that cut-off values of SRMR ≤ .08,
RMSEA ≤ .06, CFI ≥ .95, and TLI ≥ .95 indicate a relative-
ly good fit between the hypothesized model and the ob-
served data. Fit values of SRMR ≤ .10, RMSEA ≤ .08,
AMS CFI ≥ .90, and TLI ≥ .90 are typically considered indicators
of an acceptable fit. CFA results revealed that the theoret-
The AMS was described in Study 1. ically intended two-factor model did not provide an accept-
220
European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2006; Vol. 22(3):216–224

J.W.B. Lang & S. Fries: Revised Achievement Motives Scale
© 2006 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

Table 2. Factor loadings for the AMS-R items in the cross-validation sample
CFA EFA
Item HS FF FF HS
5. I like situations, in which I can find out how capable I am. .63 .05 .65
7. When I am confronted with a problem, which I can possibly solve, I am enticed to start working on .52 –.04 .50
it immediately.
8. I enjoy situations, in which I can make use of my abilities. .51 .03 .53
10. I am appealed by situations allowing me to test my abilities. .79 –.03 .77
14. I am attracted by tasks, in which I can test my abilities. .72 .00 .72
17. I am afraid of failing in somewhat difficult situations, when a lot depends on me. .72 .70 –.03
21. I feel uneasy to do something if I am not sure of succeeding. .72 .70 –.03
22. Even if nobody would notice my failure, I’m afraid of tasks, which I’m not able to solve. .74 .75 .01
26. Even if nobody is watching, I feel quite anxious in new situations. .75 .76 .03
28. If I do not understand a problem immediately I start feeling anxious. .76 .75 –.02
Note. n = 1761. For the original German versions of the items see Dahme et al. (1993)
able fit to the data of all three studies (see Table 1). Partic- Items were dropped from the analyses if the modification
ularly, the CFI and TLI indices pointed toward a serious indices suggested a strong loading on the nonintended fac-
amount of complex model misspecification in all samples. tor or if the factor loading suggested a weak loading (< .40)
In Study 1, the two factors were strongly correlated in the on the intended factor. The final item set consisted of five
CFA model. This was surprising as all previous studies re- items for HS and five items for FF (Table 2). The reduced
ported lower HS-FF correlations. However, those studies item set provided a good fit to the targeted two-factor mod-
used samples of young adolescents or young and high- el in the sample we used for the procedure (Subsample 3).
achieving persons. Thus, we hypothesized that the previous The good fit could be confirmed in the cross-validation
findings may be a result of specific sample characteristics. sample (Subsample 4) and Study 2, whereas the fit of the
To test this hypothesis, we calculated the correlation be- model to the data of Study 3 was acceptable (Table 1). The
tween the two factors in two subsamples of Study 1. Sub- examination of modification indices in the item selection
sample 1 consisted of persons under 30 years, who received procedure lead to a noteworthy lower correlation between
a college degree (n = 213). Subsample 2 contained persons the two factors in all samples than in the original item set.
under 15 years (n = 51). In both subsamples, the factor cor- Factor loadings for the AMS-R items in the cross-valida-
relations were comparable to the findings of previous re- tion sample are provided in Table 2.
search (Table 1). EFA analyses of the AMS-R revealed similar results as
To ensure continuity with previous research, we also the CFAs. Comparable to the original scales, we found
conducted EFAs using maximum likelihood estimation and steep declines between the first and the second factor and
promax rotation (Table 1). Eigenvalues yielded a steep de- marked declines between the second and the third factor.
cline between the first and the second factor and another There were no misloading items in any of the samples. Fac-
marked decline between the second and the third factor tor loadings for the cross-validation sample are presented
suggesting either a one- or a two-factor solution according in Table 2.
to the scree criterion. For theoretical reasons, we extracted Internal consistencies (Cronbach’s α) were higher than
two factors. Similar to previous findings in the literature, .70 in all samples for both revised scales (Table 1). As a
there was a considerable number of misloading items in all comparison, the original composition of the scales with 15
the samples we examined. items each resulted in slightly higher internal consistencies
for both scales.
For exploratory reasons, we determined the amount of
Scale Development overlap between the AMS-R and the full AMS by calcu-
lating correlations between the scales of the AMS-R and
To develop the revised factor structure, we randomly divid- scales composed of the eliminated items of the original
ed the complete sample of Study 1 into two subsamples so AMS. Note that this is a conservative procedure, which
that the revised model developed on the first dataset could likely underestimates the correspondence between the
be cross-validated on the second dataset. Subsample 3 (n = measures. However, this procedure avoids overestimation
1762) was used for the item selection procedure, whereas of the correlations between the full and the shortened scales
Subsample 4 (n = 1761) was used for cross-validation pur- through the inclusion of short form items on both sides of
poses. To select the items we relied on CFA methodology. the correlation (Smith et al., 2000). We found that the re-
In a stepwise procedure, we gradually modified the full duced HS-scale (Study 1: r = .72, r = .73, r = .70, and r =
30-item set using modification indices and factor loadings. .77 for Subsamples 1 to 4; Study 2: r = .68; Study 3: r =
Table 3. Correlates of the AMS-R and the AMS

AMS-R AMS
Variable Cronbach’s α HS FF HS FF
Study 1 (N = 3523)
Age – .05** –.21*** .14*** –.19***
Gender – .03 .12*** –.01 .10***
Study 2 (N = 132)
Digit-symbol task performance .96 .16† .26** .03 .19*
Digit-symbol task persistence – .25** .21* .24** .18*
Task enjoyment .81 .19* .10 .13 .09
Positive self-evaluation .78 .18* .10 .08 .08
Negative self-evaluation .72 .08 .18* .05 .19*
Pauli task goal-setting – .24** –.15† .22* –.16†
Pauli task performance .96 .15† –.05 .14 –.10
Study 3 (N = 126)
Test anxiety .81 .03 .40*** –.10 .46***
Reasoning task performance .82 .20* –.23* .22* –.24*
Worry .83 –.10 .28** –.07 .35***
Flow .85 .31*** –.20* .35*** –.26**
†p < .05 one-tailed, *p < .05 two-tailed, **p < .01 two-tailed, ***p < .001 two-tailed.
.66) and the shortened FF-scale (Study 1: r = .86, r = .86, itive association with test anxiety, (4) a negative relation-
r = .88, and r = .83 for Subsamples 1 to 4; Study 2: r = .86; ship with flow experiences, and (5) a negative relationship
Study 3: r = .61) were strongly correlated with the scales with moderately positive goal-setting. In line with this rea-
composed of the eliminated items suggesting that the AMS soning, we found significant correlations in the proposed
and the AMS-R measured the same construct. directions between both FF-scales and these variables. As
previously outlined, we generated no hypothesis regarding
the association of FF with performance because of contra-
Age and Gender Differences dictory findings and theoretical propositions in the litera-
ture. For the revised FF-scale, we found a positive correla-
Correlations with age and gender in the demographically tion with the simple digit-substitution task, no significant
diverse sample of Study 1 are presented in Table 3. Older relationship with the slightly more complex Pauli task, and
persons tended to score higher on HS and lower on FF. a negative correlation with the complex spatial reasoning
Women (AMS-R: M = 11.64, SD = 3.40; AMS: M = 33.13, task in the present studies. These findings are in line with
SD = 8.61) had higher scores on FF than men (AMS-R: the assumption that FF increases performance in simple
M = 10.80, SD = 3.46; AMS: M = 31.43, SD = 8.82). On tasks and impairs performance in complex tasks (Birney et
the HS-scales, women (AMS-R: M = 17.06, SD = 2.36; al., 1969).
AMS: M = 47.83, SD = 6.12) did not have markedly higher
scores than men (AMS-R: M = 16.93 SD = 2.41; AMS:
M = 47.93, SD = 6.51).
Discussion
Criterion-Related Validity The objectives of the present research were to examine the
factor structure of the AMS and to develop a revised form
As expected, significant relationships between the revised of the instrument. Concerning the factor structure of the
HS-scale and the following criteria emerged (see Table 3): full-length AMS, our results replicate previous investiga-
(1) performance in the Pauli task, the digit-substitution tions, which did not find clear support that the items of the
task, and the reasoning task, (2) persistence, (3) task enjoy- full-length AMS are adequately described by a two-factor
ment, (4) flow, (5) positive self-evaluation, and (6) moder- model. Our findings on the factor structure of the newly
ately positive goal-setting. In contrast, the original AMS developed AMS-R suggest that the AMS-R provides a
was not significantly associated with digit-substitution per- good solution to this issue as indicated by the better fit and
formance, task enjoyment, and positive self-evaluation. For lower HS-FF correlations of the AMS-R. The findings
FF, we predicted (1) a positive relationship with negative from Study 2 and Study 3 further suggest that the scales of
self-evaluation, (2) a positive influence on worry, (3) a pos- the AMS-R are valid indicators of the two self-attributed
motives. Admittedly, the correlations found are not partic- Elliot, A.J., & McGregor, H.A. (1999). Test anxiety and the hier-
ularly high. However, they are in line with those reported archical model of approach and avoidance achievement moti-
in the meta-analytic literature (Spangler, 1992). With re- vation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76,
spect to some criteria of achievement motivation, the 628–644.
AMS-R scales seem to be more valid than the original Floyd, F.J., & Widaman, K.F. (1995). Factor analysis and the de-
velopment and refinement of clinical assessment instruments.
scales. Considering that the scales are also notably shorter,
Psychological Assessment, 7, 286–299.
these findings are promising, especially because it is typ-
Gjesme, T. (1971). Motive to achieve success and motive to avoid
ically found that shortened scales are less valid than longer
failure in relation to school performance for pupils of different
scales (Smith et al., 2000). ability levels. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,
To conclude, an important limitation of the present in- 15, 81–99.
vestigation is noteworthy. The findings of the current re- Gjesme, T., & Nygard, R. (1970). Achievement-related motives:
search are restricted to the German translation of the scales Theoretical considerations and construction of a measuring
and need to be replicated with AMS items in other languag- instrument. Unpublished report, University of Oslo.
es and cultural contexts. Gosling, S.D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O.P. (2004).
In addition to providing insight into the psychometric Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of
characteristics of the AMS instrument, the results of the six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. American
current investigation also have broader implications for the Psychologist, 59, 93–104.
measurement of the self-attributed achievement motive. Göttert, R., & Kuhl, J. (1980). LM-Fragebogen: Deutsche Über-
From a theoretical perspective, the results suggest that the setzung der AMS-Scale von Gjesme und Nygard [LM-Ques-
two-factor conceptualization of the self-attributed achieve- tionnaire: German translation of the AMS-scale by Gjesme and
ment motive can be successfully operationalized in valid Nygard]. Unpublished report, Ruhr-Universität Bochum.
and reliable scales. From a practical perspective, the AMS- Hagtvet, K.A., & Zuo, L. (2000). Conceptual and empirical com-
R may be more popular among researchers and respondents ponents of an internal domain study: An illustration in terms
of the Achievement Motives Scale. Scandinavian Journal of
because it reduces frustrating responses associated with an-
Educational Research, 44, 49–78.
swering a large number of highly similar items.
Halvari, H., & Kjormo, O. (1999). A structural model of achieve-
ment motives, performance approach and avoidance goals, and
performance among Norwegian Olympic athletes. Perceptual
Acknowledgments and Motor Skills, 89, 997–1022.
Heckhausen, H. (1963). Hoffnung und Furcht in der Leistungs-
We thank Jessica Ippolito and Tobias Dörfler for their help- motivation [Hope and fear in achievement motivation]. Mei-
ful comments on an earlier version of this paper. senheim/Glan: Hain.
Heckhausen, H. (1991). Motivation and action. New York:
Springer.
Hodapp, V., Laux, L., & Spielberger, C.D. (1982). Theorie und
References Messung der emotionalen und kognitiven Komponenten der
Prüfungsangst [Theory and measurement of the emotional and
cognitive components of test anxiety]. Zeitschrift für Differen-
Atkinson, J.W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking tielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 3, 169–184.
behavior. Psychological Review, 64, 359–372.
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P.M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance struc-
Baumert, J., Gruehn, S., Heyn, S., Köller, O., & Schnabel, K.-U. ture modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model mis-
(1997). Bildungsverläufe und psychosoziale Entwicklung im specification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453.
Jugendalter (BIJU). Dokumentation – Band 1. Skalen Längs-
Kersting, M., Althoff, K., & Jäger, A.O. (in press). WILDE-Intel-
schnitt I. [Educational and psychosocial development in ado-
ligenz-Test – 2 (WIT-2) [WILDE Intelligence Test – 2 (WIT-
lescence. Documentation – Volume I, scales, longitudinal data
2)]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
collection I]. Berlin: Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsfor-
schung. Man, F., Nygard, R., & Gjesme, T. (1994). The Achievement Mo-
Birney, R.C., Burdick, H., & Teevan, R.C. (1969). Fear for fail- tives Scale (AMS): Theoretical basis and results from a first
ure. New York: Van Nostrand-Reinhold. try-out of a Czech form. Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research, 38, 209–218.
Christophersen, K., & Rand, P. (1982). Factor structure of the
achievement motives scale (AMS): Two factors – two samples. McClelland, D.C., Atkinson, J.W., Clark, R., & Lowell, E.L.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 26, 13–28. (1953). The achievement motive. New York: Appleton-Centu-
Dahme, G., Jungnickel, D., & Rathje, H. (1993). Güteeigenschaf- ry-Crofts.
ten der Achievement Motives Scale (AMS) von Gjesme & Ny- McClelland, D.C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How
gard (1970) in der deutschen Übersetzung von Göttert und do self-attributed and implicit motives differ? Psychological
Kuhl – Vergleich der Kennwerte norwegischer und deutscher Review, 96, 690–702.
Stichproben. [Psychometric properties of a German translation Puca, R.M., & Schmalt, H.-D. (1999). Task enjoyment: A medi-
of the achievement motives scale (AMS): Comparison of re- ator between achievement motives and performance. Motiva-
sults from Norwegian and German samples]. Diagnostica, 39, tion and Emotion, 23, 15–29.
257–270. Rand, P. (1978). Some validation data for the Achievement Mo-
tives Scale (AMS). Scandinavian Journal of Educational Re- Jonas W.B. Lang
search, 22, 155–171.
Rheinberg, F. (2004). Motivationsdiagnostik [Motivational as- Institut für Psychologie
sessment]. Göttingen: Hogrefe. RWTH Aachen
Jägerstr. 17–19
Smith, G.T., McCarthy, D.M., & Anderson, K.G. (2000). On the

sins of short-form development. Psychological Assessment, D-52056 Aachen
12, 102–111. Germany
Spangler, W.D. (1992). Validity of questionnaire and TAT mea- Tel. +49 241 809-6133
sures of need for achievement: Two meta-analyses. Psycholog- E-mail [email protected]
ical Bulletin, 112, 140–154.
Wechsler, D. (1955). Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scale – revised. New York: Psychological Corporation.
Stefan Fries
Fakultät für Sozialwissenschaften

Lehrstuhl für Erziehungswissenschaft II
(Pädagogische Psychologie)
Universität Mannheim
Seminargebäude A 5
D-68131 Mannheim
Germany
Tel. +49 621 181-2212
E-mail [email protected]

A Revised 10-Item Version of The Achievement Motives Scale: Psychometric Properties in German-Speaking Samples

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Revised 10-Item Version of The Achievement Motives Scale: Psychometric Properties in German-Speaking Samples

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Revised 10-Item Version of The Achievement Motives Scale: Psychometric Properties in German-Speaking Samples

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EuropeanJ.W.B .

A Revised 10-Item Version of the

Achievement Motives Scale

Keywords: Achievement Motives Scale, motive measurement, self-attributed motive

achievement-related tasks (Heckhausen, 1991), (5) be AMS

Positive and Negative Self-Evaluation Test Anxiety

Participants worked on the unwinding subtest (20 items;

European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2006; Vol. 22(3):216–224

© 2006 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

Table 3. Correlates of the AMS-R and the AMS

Smith, G.T., McCarthy, D.M., & Anderson, K.G. (2000). On the

Fakultät für Sozialwissenschaften

You might also like