Measuring Reading Motivation for Informational Texts

• In Event: 31.091 - Roundtable Session 10
  In Roundtable Session: 31.091-1 - Advances and Issues in the Measurement of Reading Motivation

Abstract

Informational book comprehension is crucial for success in science, math, history, and other subject areas. Despite its importance, few studies have examined students’ motivation for reading informational books. The goal of this study is to examine the distinguishability and reliability of two motivation assessments specifically designed to measure student motivation for reading informational books in middle school students.

The measures tap constructs that cut across several areas of achievement motivation including self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), expectancy-value theory (Eccles et al., 1983), self-efficacy theory (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007), and work on the impact of difficulty (Nicholls, Patashnick, & Nolen, 1985) and peer influences (Buhs, Ladd, & Herald, 2006).

Motivation for reading informational books was measured using the Motivations for Reading Information Book Questionnaire – School (MRIB-S) and Motivations for Reading Information Book Questionnaire – Non-school (MRIB-N), which were developed for this study and based on earlier measures of achievement motivation. The constructs examined were intrinsic motivation, avoidance, value, devalue, self-efficacy, perceived difficulty, peer acceptance, and peer rejection. Furthermore, previous researchers have reported that students who self-identify as struggling readers in school often read for pleasure outside of school (Alvermann et al., 2007); thus, school and non-school motivations may be important to examine separately.

The research questions guiding this work are as follows: (1) To what extent can informational book motivation constructs be distinguished? (2) Are these scales reliable measures of motivation for reading informational books?

The sample included 1197 seventh grade students from a rural area of a mid-Atlantic state in the United States. The sample was composed equally of males and females and included 78.2% European Americans, 19.0% African Americans, 2.5% Asian Americans, and .3% Native Americans. Of this sample, 18.4% of students were eligible for free lunch and 5.6% were eligible for or reduced-priced lunch.

Regarding Research Question 1, a CFA revealed that the constructs were distinguishable. For the non-school measure, there was an acceptable fit [RMSEA = .037 (.036-.039) CFI = .891; TLI = .885; SRMR = .067]; an analogous examination of the school measure also revealed acceptable fit [RMSEA = .037 (.035-.038) CFI = .889; TLI = .882; SRMR =. 067]. Regarding Research Question 2, Cronbach’s alpha values were examined for each of these scales and were in the acceptable range of .75-.89. The median value for the alphas was .83. In addition, the full paper includes analyses of the predictive validity of the scales on each measure.

The focus of this study was to examine the distinguishability and reliability of a measure of reading motivation for reading informational books. Developing a reliable measure of such motivation may be particularly useful at the middle school level as information book comprehension skills become more demanding in middle school. Future work should also examine other types of texts, such as informational websites and magazines.

Authors

• Jenna Cambria, University of Arkansas

• John T. Guthrie, University of Maryland