![]() ![]() The focus of the first study (N = 682) was an elaborated measurement of personality (NEO-PI-R), which was applied with a relatively short intelligence test (Intelligence Structure Test 2000 R). Based on the integrative data analysis approach, we combined a total of five data sets. The present study investigated whether different combinations of hierarchical levels lead to different personality-intelligence correlations. Personality and intelligence are defined as hierarchical constructs, ranging from broad g-factors to (domain-)specific constructs. The results indicate that the additional domain-specific variance can, in large parts, be explained by self-concept and self-esteem on domain-specific level. To explore the nature of this method factor, domain-specific self-concept/-esteem were focussed to establish discriminant validity evidence in a second study. The findings implied a strong role for a shared method factor. #Unpacking achievement guide driversThe first study was designed to disentangle the variance components in general and domain-specific achievement motivation in order to delineate hypotheses regarding potential drivers for the predictive power of domain-specific achievement motivation. To address this, 715 students in secondary school answered questionnaires on general and domain-specific achievement motivation, domain-specific self-concept, and domain-specific self-esteem in two different studies. Although there is research on domain-specific motivational measures, it is still unknown where this higher predictive power originates from. ![]() Achievement motivation scores on the domain-specific level are better predictors of domain-matching scholastic performance than scores of general achievement motivation measures. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |