It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Much research shows academic self-concept and achievement are reciprocally related over time, based on traditional longitudinal data cross-lag-panel models (CLPM) supporting a reciprocal effects model (REM). However, recent research has challenged CLPM's appropriateness, arguing that CLPMs with random intercepts (RI-CLPMs) provide a more robust (within-person) perspective and better control for unmeasured covariates. However, there is much confusion in educational-psychology research concerning appropriate research questions and interpretations of RI-CLPMs and CLPMs. To clarify this confusion, we juxtapose CLPMs and RI-CLPMs relating math self-concept (MSCs), school grades, and achievement tests over the five years of compulsory secondary schooling (N = 3,425). We extend basic models to evaluate: directional ordering among three rather than only two constructs; longitudinal invariance over time (multiple school years) and multiple groups (school tracks); lag-2 paths between non-adjacent waves; and covariates (gender, primary-school math and verbal achievement). Across all basic and extended RI-CLPMs and CLPMs, there was consistent support for the REM bidirectional-ordering hypothesis that self-concept and achievement are each a cause and an effect of the other. Consistent with the logic of these models, extensions of the basic models had more effect on CLPMs, but the direction and statistical significance of cross-lagged paths were largely unaffected for both RI-CLPMs and CLPMs. This substantive-methodological synergy has important implications for theory, methodology, and policy/practice; we support the importance of MSC as a predictor of subsequent achievement and demonstrate a more robust methodological framework for evaluating longitudinal-panel models.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Australian Catholic University, Institute for Positive Psychology and Education, North Sydney, Australia (GRID:grid.411958.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 2194 1270); Oxford University, Oxford, England (GRID:grid.4991.5) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8948)
2 Australian Catholic University, Institute for Positive Psychology and Education, North Sydney, Australia (GRID:grid.411958.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 2194 1270); University of Essex, Colchester, England (GRID:grid.8356.8) (ISNI:0000 0001 0942 6946); University of Munich, Munich, Germany (GRID:grid.5252.0) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 973X)
3 IPN – Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education, Department of Educational Measurement, Kiel, Germany (GRID:grid.461789.5); Centre for International Student Assessment (ZIB), Kiel, Germany (GRID:grid.6936.a) (ISNI:0000000123222966)