Using Latent Growth Modeling to Examine Change in Motivation Across a Low-Stakes Testing Session

• In Event: Applying Advanced Models in Noncognitive Assessment

Abstract

Purpose
With the emphasis on accountability in education, low-stakes testing is prevalent. However motivation in low-stakes testing may impact the validity of inferences made from test scores. This study sought to address gaps in the literature on test-taking motivation by examining the overall trajectory or form of growth in test-taking motivation and what predicts variability in the change in motivation.

Theoretical framework
The researchers approached this study from two theoretical perspectives used to describe test-taking motivation. The first, Expectancy-Value (EV) theory, states that the effort individuals give to a particular task is influenced by their expectancies regarding their performance on the task and the degree to which they value the task. The second perspective often used for understanding test-taking motivation is that of fatigue, which is defined as the extent to which examinees become tired/bored and fail to attend to the test(s) as a testing session progresses.

Data
A sample of 683 upperclass college students completed a three-hour, low-stakes testing session during the Spring 2009 semester. In this session, students completed a difficult cognitive test of quantitative and scientific reasoning followed by four noncognitive tests of attitudes or affect. After each test, students completed a self-report measure of effort and importance for that test. The noncognitive tests included measures of achievement goal orientation, personality, need for cognition.

Methods
Latent growth modeling (LGM) was used to explore and model the trajectory of self-reported test-taking effort across the five tests. Several growth forms were fit to the data, and model-data fit was evaluated by examining fit indices, standardized mean and covariance residuals, and model-implied versus observed means. Measures obtained from the noncognitive tests were included to explain variability in effort.

Results
LGM results indicated that change in effort was well-represented by a piecewise growth form, wherein effort increased from the first to fourth test and then decreased from the fourth to fifth test. Effort for each test and rates of change in effort had significant variability. Whether an examinee attended the regular testing session versus a make-up session, mastery approach goal orientation, conscientiousness, and agreeableness related to effort for the tests; only agreeableness was related to rates of change in effort. Further, the degree to which examinees viewed a particular test as important was weakly to moderately related to effort for the cognitive test but not for the noncognitive tests, but change in test-taking effort was not related to change in perceived test importance.

Significance
These results have important implications both for the use of motivation theories to understand test-taking motivation and for assessment practice. The results did not fully align with the motivation theories commonly used to understand test-taking motivation. Additionally, the results indicated that individuals varied in their levels of motivation, that personality and attitudes accounted for this variability, and that motivation generally was lowest for the difficult test. Assessment practitioners should consider this when conducting low-stakes testing. Regardless, understanding test-taking motivation is crucial for assessment professionals to feel confident in the validity of inferences made from these scores.

Authors

• Carol L. Barry, The College Board

• Sara J. Finney, James Madison University