Abstracts
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore the psychometric properties of the French version of the Student Engagement Instrument in order to perform a cross-cultural validation of its factorial structure, based on a sample of 919 French Canadian high school students. Results confirm the reliability of the instrument with good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha between .76 and .84). Confirmatory factor analysis shows the validity of the six scales composing the French version of the instrument. Results are significant as there were no standardized instruments with which to evaluate student engagement in high school students in French. Student engagement represents an important intervention target towards improving student achievement and preventing dropout.
Keywords:
- student engagement with school,
- psychological engagement,
- student engagement instrument,
- cultural validation,
- cognitive engagement
Résumé
Le but de cette étude est d’explorer les propriétés psychométriques de la version française de l’instrument de Mesure d’engagement des élèves afin de réaliser une validation interculturelle de sa structure factorielle, basée sur un échantillon de 919 élèves francophones du secondaire au Canada. Les résultats confirment la fiabilité de l’instrument avec une bonne cohérence interne (alpha de Cronbach entre .76 et .84). L’analyse factorielle confirmatrice démontre la validité des six échelles composant la version française de l’instrument. Les résultats sont significatifs étant donné l’absence d’instruments normalisés pour évaluer l’engagement des élèves du secondaire en français. L’engagement des élèves représente une cible d’intervention importante pour améliorer la réussite scolaire et prévenir l’abandon scolaire.
Mots-clés :
- l’engagement des élèves envers l’école,
- l’engagement psychologique,
- l’engagement cognitif,
- la validation culturelle,
- l’instrument de mesure d’engagement des élèves
Download the article in PDF to read it.
Download
Appendices
Bibliography
- Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20303
- Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002
- Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2010). Weighted least squares estimation with missing data. Mplus. https://www.statmodel.com/download/GstrucMissingRevision.pdf
- Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
- Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
- Betts, J. E., Appleton, J. J., Reschly, A. L., Christenson, S. L., & Huebner, E. S. (2010). A study of the factorial invariance of the Student Engagement Instrument (SEI): Results from middle and high school students. School Psychology Quarterly, 25(2), 84–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020259
- Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Sage.
- Connell, J. P. (1990). Context, self, and action: A motivational analysis of self-system processes across the life span. In D. Cicchetti & M. Beeghly (Eds.), The self in transition: Infancy to childhood (pp. 61–97). The University of Chicago Press.
- Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. R. Grunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), The Minnesota symposia on child psychology: Vol. 23. Self processes and development, 23, (pp. 43–77). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Evelo, D., Sinclair, M., Hurley, C., Christenson, S., & Thurlow, M. (1996). Keeping kids in school: Using Check & Connect for dropout prevention. University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED398701.pdf
- Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59(2), 117–142. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543059002117
- Fortin, L., Marcotte, D., Diallo, T., Potvin, P., & Royer, É. (2013). A multidimensional model of school dropout from an 8-year longitudinal study in a general high school population. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(2), 563–583. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-012-0129-2
- Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
- Fredricks, J. A., & McColskey, W. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 763–782). Springer Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_37
- Fredricks, J. A., McColskey, W., Meli, J., Montrosse, B., Mordica, J., & Mooney, K. (2011). Measuring student engagement in upper elementary through high school: A description of 21 instruments (Issues and Answers Report, REL 2011-No. 098). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED514996.pdf
- Garson, G. D. (2015). Structural equation modeling. Statistical Publishing Associates. https://web.archive.org/web/20220320042805/http://www.statisticalassociates.com/sem_p.pdf
- Hart, S. R., Stewart, K., & Jimerson, S. R. (2011). The Student Engagement in Schools Questionnaire (SESQ) and the Teacher Engagement Report Form-New (TERF-N): Examining the preliminary evidence. Contemporary School Psychology, 15(1), 67–79. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ934707.pdf
- Hoyle, R. H., & Duvall, J. L. (2004). Determining the number of factors in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences (pp. 301–315). Sage Publications.
- Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
- Janosz, M., Archambault, I., Morizot, J., & Pagani, L. S. (2008). School engagement trajectories and their differential predictive relations to dropout. Journal of Social Issues, 64(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00546.x
- Jimerson, S. R., Campos, E., & Greif, J. L. (2003). Toward an understanding of definitions and measures of school engagement and related terms. The California School Psychologist, 8(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03340893
- Jöreskog, K. G. (1969). A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 34(2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289343
- Li, Y., & Lerner, R. M. (2011). Trajectories of school engagement during adolescence: Implications for grades, depression, delinquency, and substance use. Developmental Psychology, 47(1), 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021307
- Maneesriwongul, W., & Dixon, J. K. (2004). Instrument translation process: A methods review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48(2), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03185.x
- Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 391–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.391
- McPartland, J. M. (1994). Dropout prevention in theory and practice. In R. J. Rossi (Ed.), Schools and students at risk: Context and framework for positive change (pp. 255–276). Teacher College.
- Ministère de l’Éducation, de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche (2015). Indicateurs de l'éducation - Édition 2014. Gouvernement du Québec. http://www.education.gouv.qc.ca/references/publications/resultats-de-la-recherche/detail/article/indicateurs-de-leducation/
- Moreira, P. A. S., Vaz, F. M., Dias, P. C., & Petracchi, P. (2009). Psychometric properties of the Portuguese version of the Student Engagement Instrument. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 24(4), 303–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573509346680
- Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2011). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.
- Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291170
- Wang, M.-T., & Eccles, J. S. (2011). Adolescent behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement trajectories in school and their differential relations to educational success. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22(1), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2011.00753.x
- Wang, M.-T., & Peck, S. C. (2013). Adolescent educational success and mental health vary across school engagement profiles. Developmental Psychology, 49(7), 1266–1276. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030028