Title: Factorial and Construct Validity of a New Instrument for the Assessment of Reading Motivation
Abstract: Reading motivation has been defined consistently as a multidimensional construct. However, there is some disagreement regarding the number and nature of the dimensions of reading motivation. In particular, there is a lack of studies investigating the dimensional structure and measurement invariance (e.g., across gender) of reading motivation questionnaires. Based on earlier instruments, qualitative findings referring to students' reasons for reading, and theoretical considerations, we developed the Reading Motivation Questionnaire (RMQ). A sample of 883 sixth-grade students was presented with 34 reading motivation items pertaining to seven dimensions. Five of these dimensions (i.e., curiosity, involvement, grades, competition, social recognition) referred to Wigfield and Guthrie's Motivations for Reading Questionnaire, whereas two dimensions (i.e., emotional regulation, relief from boredom) were based on recent qualitative findings. The results from confirmatory factor analyses supported the hypothesized factor structure. In addition, three higher order factors were identified: intrinsic, extrinsic, and regulatory reading motivation. Moreover, strict measurement invariance across female and male students and across groups with low versus high reading competence was established. Construct validity of the RMQ was supported by the contributions of the RMQ factors to reading amount, fluency, and comprehension and by the predicted gender differences in the dimensions of reading motivation. 变性(例如,跨性别)的调查。本文作者根据先前的研究工具、学生阅读原因的定性调查结果,以及理论的考虑,发展了一套《阅读动机问卷-RMQ》。该问卷由七个维度组成,共有34个题项,调查样本为883名小学六年级学生。该问卷其中五个维度(好奇心、参与、成绩、竞争、社会认可)是以Wigfield和Guthrie的《阅读动机问卷-MRQ》作为参考,而其余两个维度(情绪调节、厌倦缓解)是以最近的定性研究结果作为基础。实证性因子分析的结果支持本研究的因子结构假设;并确认出三种较高层次因子:内在、外在和调节性的阅读动机。此外,本研究亦建立出严格的,跨男女组别和跨阅读能力高低组别的测量不变性。RMQ的建构效度得到以下两种分析结果的支持:贡献因子对阅读量、流畅度和理解能力的贡献分析结果,以及阅读动机维度中的性别差异的预测结果。 La motivación lectora se ha definido consistentemente como un constructo multidimensional. Sin embargo, hay desacuerdos en cuanto al número y la naturaleza de las dimensiones de la motivación lectora. En particular, hay una falta de estudios sobre la estructura dimensional y la invariancia en las medidas (por ej. a través de los géneros) de los cuestionarios sobre la motivación lectora. Basándonos en instrumentos anteriores, en los resultados cualitativos con referencia a las razones por las que los estudiantes leen, y en consideraciones teóricas, desarrollamos el Cuestionario de la Motivación Lectora (RMQ por sus siglas en inglés). Se les dio a una muestra de 883 estudiantes de sexto grado 34 elementos de motivación lectora relacionados a siete dimensiones. Cinco de estas dimensiones (la curiosidad, el compromiso, las notas, la competencia, el reconocimiento) se referían al Cuestionario de la Motivaciones Lectoras de Wigfield y Guthrie, mientras que dos dimensiones (la regulación emocional, librarse del aburrimiento) se basaron en resultados cualitativos recientes. Los resultados de los análisis de los factores confirmativos apoyaron la hipótesis planteada sobre la estructura de factores. Además, se identificaron tres factores de orden superior: intrínseco, extrínseco y la motivación lectora reguladora. Aún más, se estableció la invariancia de medida estricta a través de estudiantes masculinos y femeninos y a través de grupos de nivel de competencia baja y alta. La validez del constructo del RMQ fue apoyada por las contribuciones de los factores del RMQ a la cantidad de lectura, la fluidez, y la comprensión y por las diferencias de género pronosticadas en las dimensiones de la motivación lectora. التحفيز للقراءة تم تعريفه دائما على انه بناء متعدد الأبعاد. ومع ذلك، هناك بعض الخلاف بشأن عدد وطبيعة أبعاد دوافع القراءة. على وجه الخصوص، هناك نقص في الدراسات التي تحقق هيكل الأبعاد وثبات المقايس (على سبيل المثال، عبر إختلاف الجنس) في استبيانات دوافع القراءة. بناءً على وسائل سابقة والنتائج النوعية المشيرة الى دوافع القراءة عند الطلبة، والاعتبارات النظرية، قمنا بتطوير استبيان دوافع القراءة (RMQ). عينة من 883 طالبا في الصف السادس أعطوا 34 دافعاً للقراءة متعلقة بسبعة أبعاد. خمسة من هذه الأبعاد (وهي: الفضول، والمشاركة والعلامات، والمنافسة، والدوافع الاجتماعية) التي أشار إليها استبيان دوافع القراءة عند ويغفيلد وغوثري (Wigfield and Guthrie)، والبعدين الأخرين (أي الإستعداد العاطفي، وإزالة الملل) أشارة إليهما الاكتشافات النوعية الجديدة. النتائج من تحليل العامل التأكيدي دعم عامل البنية المفترض. وبالإضافة إلى ذلك، تم التعرف على ثلاثة عوامل أساسية هي: دافع القراءة الجوهرية والغير جوهرية والتنظيمية. وعلاوة على ذلك، قد تم تأسيس مقياس ثباتة الدقيق عبر الإناث والذكور من الطلاب وعبر كفاءات القراءة المنخفضة مقابل المرتفعة من مجموعة الطلاب. وجاء تأييد صحة بناء RMQ من مساهمات عوامل RMQ لكمية القراءة ،وطلاقة القراءة، والفهم والفروق المتوقعة لدوافع القراءة بين الجنسين. Всегда считалось, что мотивация к чтению многомерна. Однако мнения по поводу количества и природы ее параметров разнятся. В частности, мало исследованы сами опросные листы, т.е. структура замеров и инвариантность параметров (например, по гендерному признаку). Основываясь на ранее существовавшем инструментарии, качественных исследованиях причин, побуждающих школьников к чтению, и некоторых теоретических соображениях, мы разработали анкету по мотивации к чтению (Reading Motivation Questionnaire – RMQ). Группе из 883 шестиклассников были предложены 34 возможных мотива для чтения, относящихся к семи основным параметрам. Пять из этих семи параметров (любознательность, причастность, оценки, соревнование, социальное признание) взяты из опросных листов Уигфилда и Гатри (Wigfield and Guthrie) , а остальные два параметра (регулирование эмоций, избавление от скуки) основаны на недавно полученных качественных результатах. Итог подтверждающего факторного анализа свидетельствует о том, что выдвинутая гипотеза о составе и природе мотивации верна. Дополнительно выявлены три фактора высокого порядка: внутренняя, внешняя и регуляционная мотивация. Более того, установлено строгое постоянство в соотношении девочек и мальчиков, а также в размерах групп с низкой и высокой компетентностью в чтении. Конструкционная значимость RMQ подтверждена соответствием факторов RMQ объему и пониманию прочитанного, скорости чтения, а также предсказуемым гендерным различиям в мотивации к чтению. On définit régulièrement la motivation à la lecture comme un concept multidimentionnel. Il existe toutefois un certain désaccord en ce qui concerne le nombre et la nature des dimensions de la motivation à la lecture. Il y a en particulier peu d'études qui examinent la structure dimentionnelle et la mesure de l'invariance (par exemple, en fonction du genre) des questionnaires de motivation à la lecture. En nous basant sur des instruments antérieurs, sur des études qualitatives concernant les raisons de lire des élèves, et sur des considerations théoriques, nous avons développé le Questionnaire de Motivation à la Lecture (QML). Nous avons présenté 34 items de motivation à la lecture renvoyant à sept dimensions à un échantillon de 883 élèves de 6e année. Cinq de ces dimensions (c'est-à-dire la curiosité, l'investissement, le niveau scolaire, la compétition, la reconnaissance sociale) renvoient au Questionnaire de Motivations à la Lecture de Wigfield and Guthrie, tandis que deux dimensions (c'est-à-dire la régulation émotionnelle, le soulagement de l'ennui) se basent sur des découvertes qualitatives récentes. Les résultats provenant d'analyses factorielles de confirmation confirment l'hypothèse d'une structure factorielle. Nous avons identifié en outre trois facteurs d'ordre supérieur : la motivation intrinsèque, la motivation extrinsèque et la motivation à lire comme régulation. Nous avons mis en évidence par ailleurs une invariance stricte entre garçons et filles et entre groupes ayant un niveau de compétence en lecture faible ou fort. La validité conceptuelle du QML repose sur la contribution des facteurs du QML à la quantité de lectures, à la fluidité de la lecture, à la comprehension, ainsi que sur la prédiction des différences de genre en fonction des dimensions de la motivation à la lecture. The ability to comprehend texts represents an indispensable prerequisite of academic success (e.g., Chapman, Tunmer, & Prochnow, 2000). In particular, learning at school relies to a large extent on written materials. For that reason, it becomes important to study those factors that facilitate the development of reading competence. In addition to cognitive factors, such as working memory capacity, reasoning ability, or prior knowledge (e.g., Alloway & Gregory, 2013; Kendeou & van den Broek, 2007; Kintsch, 1998; Tighe & Schatschneider, 2014), aspects of reading motivation have been shown to be significantly associated with various indicators of reading comprehension (e.g., Guthrie & Wigfield, 1999; Park, 2011; Unrau & Schlackman, 2006). Despite this positive evidence, previous assessments of reading motivation suffer from several shortcomings. First, there is only partial agreement on the number and nature of the primary factors of reading motivation. For example, the influential Motivations for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997) consists of 11 dimensions, whereas other approaches involve fewer dimensions of reading motivation (e.g., Greaney & Neuman, 1990; Sainsbury & Schagen, 2004; Schutte & Malouff, 2007; Watkins & Coffey, 2004) or proposed one-dimensional measures (e.g., McKenna, Kear, & Ellsworth, 1995). Second, researchers using multidimensional questionnaires have created varying composite scores to capture intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation without providing empirical evidence for secondary factors (e.g., Andreassen & Bråten, 2010; Guthrie, Wigfield, Metsala, & Cox, 1999; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). Third, although measures of reading motivation have been widely applied to female and male students, tests of measurement invariance across gender have not been conducted. This also applies to student groups with varying ages or developmental statuses, different levels of reading competence, and different socioeconomic and ethnic affiliations. Fourth, qualitative studies on reading motivation (e.g., Guthrie, Van Meter, McCann, & Wigfield, 1996; Nolen, 2007; Schiefele & Schaffner, 2013) have suggested dimensions of reading motivation that have not been included in previous questionnaires. Among those dimensions, the motivations to use reading as a means of coping with negative emotions and overcoming boredom appear to be of particular importance. For the purpose of overcoming the deficits of previous research, we intended to develop a new multidimensional questionnaire of reading motivation in a sample of sixth-grade students, analyze its structure of primary and secondary factors, provide tests of measurement invariance across gender and groups with low versus high reading competence, and examine its relations with various validation variables (e.g., reading fluency). Motivation to read can be conceptualized at the level of current or habitual reading motivation (cf. Pekrun, 1993; Schiefele, Schaffner, Möller, & Wigfield, 2012). Current motivation to read refers to the strength of a person's intention to read a specific text in a given situation. For example, someone very eager to read a particular book at home shows strong current reading motivation. In contrast, an individual who is repeatedly motivated to read can be ascribed a certain amount of habitual reading motivation. Thus, habitual reading motivation denotes the relatively stable readiness of a person to initiate reading activities (Schiefele et al., 2012). Reading motivation inventories, such as Wigfield and Guthrie's (1997) MRQ and the present Reading Motivation Questionnaire (RMQ), usually assess habitual forms of motivation. Quantitative and qualitative studies suggest multiple dimensions of reading motivation (e.g., Guthrie et al., 1996; Nolen, 2007; Watkins & Coffey, 2004; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). These dimensions correspond to different incentives of reading that may be subsumed under two higher order categories: intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation (Schiefele et al., 2012; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). Intrinsic reading motivation refers to the willingness to read because reading is satisfying or rewarding in its own right. According to a distinction suggested by Schiefele (1999, 2009), there are two forms of intrinsic motivation to read. In the case of object-oriented intrinsic motivation (labeled "curiosity" in the MRQ and RMQ), reading is motivated by thematic interests. In the case of experience-oriented intrinsic motivation (labeled "involvement" in the MRQ and RMQ), reading is motivated by positive experiences, such as becoming absorbed by a story. In contrast, extrinsic reading motivation refers to reasons that are external to the activity of reading and the text content. The extrinsically motivated reader strives to attain particular outcomes of reading, such as improving one's performance in school or being praised by one's parents (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). A further distinction refers to academic (or school-related) and recreational reading motivation (De Naeghel & Van Keer, 2013; De Naeghel, Van Keer, Vansteenkiste, & Rosseel, 2012). Academic reading is defined as reading at school and for homework, whereas recreational reading involves reading in one's leisure time. The RMQ is directed at recreational reading motivation for two reasons: First, it has been repeatedly found that out-of-school reading amount contributes more strongly to the development of reading competence than school-related reading amount (cf. Schiefele et al., 2012). Thus, the motivation to read in one's free time appears to be more important for reading comprehension than academic reading motivation. This assumption was confirmed by De Naeghel et al. (2012), who reported significant effects on reading comprehension only for recreational reading motivation, not academic. A second reason for focusing on recreational reading motivation refers to the overlap between motivation to learn and motivation to read at school and for homework. School-related reading may often coincide with school-related learning, and thus, measures of academic reading motivation probably reflect the more general motivations of students to learn or to achieve in school (e.g., achievement goal orientations; e.g., Elliot, 2005). Consequently, academic reading motivation might be confounded with more general motivational orientations pertaining to students' school-related learning. A wide variety of dimensions of reading motivation have been suggested (cf. Schiefele et al., 2012). The most comprehensive approach is represented by Wigfield and Guthrie's (1997) MRQ with 11 dimensions: curiosity, involvement, grades, competition, recognition, compliance, challenge, importance, work avoidance, social reasons, and efficacy. In our view, not all of these dimensions denote forms of reading motivation in a more narrow sense (see also Schiefele et al., 2012). Instead, some constructs indicate antecedents and/or consequences of reading motivation (e.g., reading efficacy, importance of reading, preference for challenging reading materials). Moreover, Watkins and Coffey (2004) could not identify the MRQ scales of importance and challenge as separate factors by means of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs). According to the expectancy–value approach (e.g., Heckhausen, 1991; Weiner, 1989; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000), a given motivation (e.g., striving to read a particular book) depends on expectancy beliefs (e.g., reading efficacy: "I will be able to understand the book") and value beliefs (e.g., importance of reading: "To be a good reader is important to me"). In the present case, the motivation to read a particular book would be strong if the person believes that he or she is able to comprehend the book and that reading (or being a good reader) is personally important. Also in accordance with expectancy–value theory, the preference for challenging reading materials may be regarded as an example of choice behavior. There is a long tradition in research that views choice behavior (e.g., choice of difficulty levels of a given task) as an important outcome of motivation (Atkinson, 1964; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Zimmerman, 2000). For example, students high in achievement motivation have been found to choose challenging tasks (Atkinson, 1964). In contrast to the expectancy–value approach, it seems plausible to conceptualize reading efficacy and importance of reading not only as antecedents but also as consequences of reading motivation (pertaining to the relation between self-efficacy and motivation, see Schunk, 1991; Zimmerman, 2000). For example, intrinsic reading motivation likely enhances the amount of reading (e.g., Becker, McElvany, & Kortenbruck, 2010), which in turn facilitates students' feelings of efficacy and importance of reading through enhanced comprehension ability (Schunk, 1991). Moreover, the preference for challenging reading tasks may be regarded not only as an outcome but also as an antecedent of reading motivation. Specifically, the choice of challenging reading tasks is likely to contribute to comprehension ability and feelings of efficacy, which in turn increase the motivation to read (Becker et al., 2010). Thus, taken together, it seems appropriate to assume reciprocal relations among reading motivation, reading efficacy, reading importance, and preference for challenging reading tasks. The status of work avoidance, social reasons, and compliance as dimensions of (recreational) reading motivation seems also debatable. Inspection of the corresponding MRQ items shows that work avoidance refers to disliking of complex and difficult stories. As such, strong work avoidance may be regarded as a consequence of lacking motivation to read and/or of low levels of reading efficacy beliefs. In accordance with our view, Guthrie and Klauda (2016) conceptualized the avoidance of reading as a negative aspect of engagement that depends on motivation. For example, empirical evidence suggests that students' intrinsic reading motivation is linked positively to reading engagement (e.g., amount of reading; Becker et al., 2010) and negatively to reading avoidance (Guthrie, Klauda, & Ho, 2013). The item contents of the social reasons for reading scale of the MRQ express both preference and frequency pertaining to literary practices within the family and the peer group (e.g., visiting a library, talking about books). Four out of seven items state particular activities that refer to reading in a social context (e.g., "I often read to my brother or my sister"). Because the reasons for these activities are not addressed by the items, it seems difficult to infer social motivations (e.g., Wentzel, 2005). For example, a child might read to his or her younger siblings because it is an enjoyable experience or because the parents demand it. Three items of the social reasons scale, however, refer to preferences (e.g., "My friends and I like to trade things to read") and indicate at least implicitly social reasons for reading. Because of the unclear nature of both the scale and the construct of social reasons for reading, we decided not to include this dimension in our questionnaire. Finally, compliance was defined by Wigfield and Guthrie (1997) as the motivation to read because it is required by school or a teacher. For example, students high in compliance strive to finish every reading assignment or to do their reading work exactly as the teacher wants it. Obviously, this dimension of reading motivation addresses only reading for school but not reading as part of leisure time activities. In that regard, it is important to note that the dimensions of grades and competition differ from compliance because they ask for students' motivation to read in their free time to get better in school (or reading) and outperform their classmates. Thus, based on the preceding considerations, we propose the following dimensions as facets of reading motivation in a more narrow sense: curiosity (to learn more about topics of one's interest), involvement (to get lost in a story or experience imaginative actions), grades (to improve one's grades, particularly in reading), competition (to reach higher levels of school achievement, particularly in reading, than other students), and recognition (to get praise for good reading performance). The main goal of the present study was to develop and evaluate a multidimensional reading motivation questionnaire that should be applicable to a wide range of students starting at the upper elementary level (grade 4). In our view, most students at that level should have developed basic reading and comprehension skills (Foorman & Connor, 2011) and the cognitive ability to answer specific questions regarding their own motivation (Kuhn & Franklin, 2006). In the present study, we chose a sample of sixth-grade students to examine the questionnaire. The selection of seven dimensions of the RMQ was based on theoretical considerations and previous qualitative and quantitative studies (see the preceding section). The dimensions of curiosity, involvement, grades, competition, and social recognition correspond conceptually to scales of the MRQ (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997; see also Schaffner & Schiefele, 2007; Schaffner, Schiefele, & Ulferts, 2013). As sources of items for these dimensions, we referred not only to the MRQ but also to other instruments and results from qualitative studies (Becker et al., 2010; Greaney & Neuman, 1990; Guthrie et al., 1996; Möller & Bonerad, 2007; Nolen, 2007; Schiefele & Schaffner, 2013; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). In addition to curiosity, involvement, grades, competition, and recognition, we included two new dimensions that have not been considered before as scales of reading motivation instruments and were derived from qualitative studies (Greaney & Neuman, 1990; Guthrie et al., 1996; Nolen, 2007; Schiefele & Schaffner, 2013). The findings of these studies suggest that emotional regulation (reading to cope with negative emotions) and relief from boredom (reading to overcome boredom and to fill in time because more preferred activities are not available) represent possibly relevant dimensions of reading motivation. In our own research (Schiefele & Schaffner, 2013), these dimensions were rather frequently mentioned by students when asking them for their motivation to read in their free time. The analysis of the RMQ focused on three issues: the structure of primary and secondary factors, measurement invariance across gender and competence groups, and construct validity. In particular, the first two issues have been neglected by previous research. Specifically, researchers applying the MRQ have used varying composites for intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation (for an overview, see Schiefele et al., 2012) without providing evidence for second-order factors that would justify the combination of particular dimensions. Moreover, in light of the repeatedly found gender differences in reading motivation (Chiu & McBride-Chang, 2006; Logan & Johnston, 2009, 2010; Mullis, Martin, Kennedy, & Foy, 2007), it seems important to establish measurement invariance across gender to be able to compare mean values or correlative associations between female and male students. In addition, there is also a need to demonstrate measurement invariance across groups with varying reading competence because poor and good readers differ in their reading motivations and the strengths of their relations among reading motivation, reading behavior, and reading comprehension (Lau & Chan, 2003; Logan, Medford, & Hughes, 2011). For the purpose of providing empirical support for the validity of the RMQ scales, we included measures of reading amount, reading fluency, and reading comprehension. Positive relations with the validation variables were expected for the intrinsic dimensions (curiosity and involvement) but not for the extrinsic dimensions (grades, competition, and recognition). In line with previous findings (e.g., Schaffner et al., 2013), we hypothesized nonsignificant or negative relations between the extrinsic dimensions and the validation variables. According to Schaffner et al., reading is largely a leisure time activity and as such is more strongly controlled by intrinsic incentives. Extrinsically motivated readers may tend to read only when they have to (e.g., to better achieve in school, to please their parents), and thus, the amount of leisure time reading and the development of reading skills will not be enhanced or even reduced (Becker et al., 2010). Moreover, it is likely that extrinsically motivated readers are more strongly concerned with future outcomes of their reading activities than with understanding a given text (Brophy, 2005; Hulleman, Durik, Schweigert, & Harackiewicz, 2008). Thus, extrinsic reading motivation may interfere with the processes necessary for in-depth text comprehension, such as inference making and identifying main ideas (Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992; Wang & Guthrie, 2004). The status and role of emotional regulation and relief from boredom were more difficult to determine. Because of their ambiguous nature, we did not categorize these dimensions as either intrinsic or extrinsic. Although they possess an instrumental aspect (e.g., reading as a means to overcome negative emotions), they seem also closely associated with the positive experience involved in reading. Specifically, both dimensions presuppose that reading is intrinsically rewarding and, thus, facilitates positive emotional states or averts boredom. Because of their assumed close relation with intrinsic reading motivation, we anticipated positive contributions of emotional regulation and relief from boredom to the validation variables. As additional support for the construct validity of the RMQ, we analyzed gender differences in reading motivation. Based on previous research, it was expected that girls tend to exhibit higher intrinsic reading motivation than do boys (Logan & Johnston, 2009, 2010; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). Whereas prior findings do not suggest gender effects on most of the dimensions of extrinsic reading motivation (McGeown, Goodwin, Henderson, & Wright, 2012; Schaffner et al., 2013; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997), there is some evidence for boys being higher in competition-oriented reading motivation (Stutz, Schaffner, & Schiefele, 2016; Unrau & Schlackman, 2006; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997; however, see Schaffner et al., 2013; Wang & Guthrie, 2004). Finally, qualitative findings (Schiefele & Schaffner, 2013) suggest that reading for the purpose of emotional regulation is more pronounced in girls than in boys. The present sample comprised 883 sixth-grade students (442 girls, 441 boys) from 48 classes within 24 elementary schools2 in and around a large city in the northeast of Germany. The schools were selected to represent the population in the area, thereby including rural and urban areas of different socioeconomic backgrounds. The average age of the sample was 11.33 years (standard deviation [SD] = 0.57). Moreover, about 7% of the participating students reported that both of their parents were born in a foreign country. This percentage is below the average of students in Germany with both parents born in a foreign country (about 15%), but it is typical for student populations in the "new" German states that formerly belonged to East Germany (cf. Baumert & Schümer, 2001; Tarelli, Schwippert, & Stubbe, 2012). Finally, the average norm-referenced scores (T-values) for reading fluency (mean [M] = 46.9, SD = 8.32) and reading comprehension (M = 48.1, SD = 7.66) in the present sample were only slightly below the population mean for sixth-grade students in Germany across all school tracks (M = 50.0, SD = 10.0). For purposes of the present study, the total sample was randomly divided into two subsamples. Sample 1 involved 438 students (221 girls, 217 boys; Mage = 11.34 years, SD = 0.59), and sample 2 entailed 445 students (221 girls, 224 boys; Mage = 11.32 years, SD = 0.56). The two samples did not differ significantly with respect to the included study variables. The participants were tested during regular class time. They first answered the questionnaires on reading motivation and reading amount and then were presented with the tests on reading fluency and comprehension. The whole session took about 45 minutes. During the session, a teacher was present. The study was explained to the students as being concerned with their attitudes toward reading. They were assured that the study was anonymous and that their results would not be conveyed to their teachers or parents. All items had to be answered on 4-point rating scales ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 4 (very true). In each case, a higher score indicates a higher level of motivation. What are usually the reasons for you to read in your free time when you are not at school and not doing schoolwork? Reading activities in your free time may include reading of books, journals or magazines, and texts in the Internet. The following statements describe a number of possible reasons for reading in your free time. Please, indicate to what extent these reasons are true for you. The scale to assess reading amount was based on previous instruments (e.g., Becker et al., 2010; Schaffner et al., 2013). In accordance with Becker et al., the reading amount scale addressed both the frequency and the length of reading. To assess reading frequency, the participants were asked how many books they read in their spare time during the last 12 months (1 = 0 books; 2 = 1–5 books; 3 = 6–10 books; 4 = 11–20 books; 5 = more than 20 books), how often they read in their spare time (1 = about once a month; 2 = about once a week; 3 = several times a week; 4 = daily; 5 = several times a day), and how often they read during school vacations (1 = never; 2 = rarely;
Publication Year: 2016
Publication Date: 2016-02-23
Language: en
Type: article
Indexed In: ['crossref']
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 57
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot