Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 7.1
Reliability coefficients
N
of
items
All (
n
=
Latino/a (
n
=
1,125)
White (
n
=
1,156)
3,527)
A
α
Mean
SD
α
Mean
SD
Elaboration
4
0.82
0.80
2.81
0.65
0.83
2.90
0.66
Control
5
0.71
0.71
3.07
0.53
0.72
3.06
0.54
Maladaptive
help-
seeking
6
0.86
0.86
2.25
0.83
0.87
2.05
0.77
Academic
efficacy
4
0.82
0.81
2.72
0.62
0.83
2.84
0.64
Effort
4
0.80
0.81
3.05
0.62
0.82
3.06
0.62
Worry
8
0.89
0.88
2.09
0.70
0.90
1.83
0.67
Mastery goal
orientation
5
0.87
0.85
4.08
0.73
0.88
3.90
0.76
Performance
approach
5
0.93
0.91
1.98
0.96
0.93
2.17
1.00
Performance
avoidance
4
0.86
0.85
2.26
0.99
0.87
2.41
0.99
All
45
0.84
0.86
2.65
0.35
0.84
2.61
0.32
Table 7.2
Descriptive statistics for study variables (
N
=
3,527)
Va r i a b l e
M
SD
Observed range
High school GPA
3.10
0.47
1.1-4.3
SAT1 verbal
455.6
90.7
200-730
SAT1 math
462.4
86.3
200-790
Elaboration
2.88
0.66
1-4
Control
3.08
0.54
1-4
Maladaptive help-seeking
2.12
0.79
1-5
Academic efficacy
2.78
0.64
1-4
Effort
3.05
0.62
1-4
Worry
1.96
0.69
1-4
Mastery goal orientation
3.99
0.77
1-5
Performance approach
2.12
0.99
1-5
Performance avoidance
2.32
0.99
1-5
Total GPA
2.84
.53
0.67-4.25
Intercorrelations among key variables
. The relationships among scales revealed
that all of the correlations (see Table 7.3 for the entire sample) among the adap-
tive learning strategies (elaboration, control, and effort) measures were positive
and statistically significant (
r
0.38 to 0.59,
p
< 0.01). Elaboration, control, and
effort scales were positively correlated with the efficacy scale (
r
=
=
0.40, 0.39, 0.39,
respectively,
p
< 0.01) but negatively correlated with worry (
r
=−
0.07,
−
0.09,
−
0.07,
p
< 0.01). Maladaptive help-seeking had a negative correlation with efficacy
(
r
0.38,
p
<
0.01). With regard to personal motivational beliefs, two of the performance goal
=−
0.33,
p
< 0.01), but it was positively correlated with worry (
r
=
