| Literature DB >> 32168918 |
René Rodríguez-Medellín1, Jorge Zamarripa1, María Marentes-Castillo1, Fernando Otero-Saborido2, Raúl Baños3, Raquel Morquecho-Sánchez1.
Abstract
To date, no instrument adapted and validated that measures engagement and disaffection in the physical education class has been found, which limits the generation of knowledge of this area in Mexico. The aims of this study were to translate and adapt the engagement and disaffection scale to the context of physical education in Mexico and to examine its reliability, structure (two and four factors), and factorial invariance by gender in Mexican fifth- and sixth-grade elementary school students. A total of 1470 students participated (50.6% boys) with ages between 10 and 14 years (mean (M) = 10.56; standard deviation (SD) = 0.77) from federal (89.3%) and state (10.7%) elementary schools. Two factorial structures were tested (with four factors and two factors). The fit indexes of both models were satisfactory, and the factorial saturations were significant. The differences between the fit indexes of both models were irrelevant; therefore, the two-factor model was considered more suitable. The total strict invariance by gender was confirmed, and the reliabilities of the engagement and disaffection scale were acceptable. The Mexican version of the course engagement and disaffection scale in physical education is valid and useful to measure these constructs in the context of physical education in Mexico.Entities:
Keywords: Mexico; disaffection; engagement; gender; invariance; physical education
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32168918 PMCID: PMC7142481 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17061821
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
The standardized solution of the four sub-scales of the instrument.
| Sub-scales |
|
|
|
| Factorial saturations | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||
|
| 4.10 | 0.72 | −1.10 | 1.49 | |||
|
| 4.21 | 0.85 | −1.26 | 1.33 | |||
| 1 | I pay attention in my physical education class ( | 4.38 | 1.01 | −1.81 | 2.76 | 0.64 | 0.67 |
| 2 | I study for my physical education class ( | 3.25 | 1.51 | −0.35 | −1.32 | 0.24 | 0.26 |
| 3 | I try to do the most I can in the physical education class ( | 4.35 | 0.98 | −1.62 | 2.12 | 0.74 | 0.80 |
|
| 3.99 | 0.82 | −0.78 | 0.49 | |||
| 4 | I enjoy the time I spend in the physical education class ( | 4.42 | 1.00 | −1.90 | 3.01 | 0.77 | 0.79 |
| 5 | It is exciting when I make connections between ideas learned in the physical education class ( | 4.09 | 1.14 | −1.22 | 0.72 | 0.64 | 0.64 |
| 6 | The content we see in the physical education class is interesting ( | 4.12 | 1.16 | −1.28 | 0.74 | 0.69 | 0.69 |
|
| 2.21 | 1.05 | 0.72 | −0.34 | |||
|
| 1.93 | 1.20 | 1.09 | −0.07 | |||
| 7 | It is difficult to attend the physical education class ( | 2.25 | 1.50 | 0.72 | −1.04 | 0.61 | 0.71 |
| 8 | I only do enough to pass the physical education class ( | 2.85 | 1.60 | 0.09 | −1.56 | 0.44 | 0.59 |
| 9 | I do not do much work outside the physical education class ( | 2.35 | 1.48 | 0.60 | −1.12 | 0.66 | 0.78 |
|
| 1.93 | 1.20 | 1.09 | −0.07 | |||
| 10 | The classes of the physical education teacher are very boring ( | 1.97 | 1.37 | 1.10 | −0.23 | 0.86 | 0.86 |
| 11 | The physical education class stresses me ( | 2.00 | 1.41 | 1.09 | −0.33 | 0.86 | 0.86 |
| 12 | Being in the physical education class is a waste of time ( | 1.81 | 1.34 | 1.43 | 0.57 | 0.90 | 0.91 |
Note: M: Mean; SD: Standard Deviation. All saturations were significant, t > 1.96, p < 0.05.
Goodness-of-fit indexes of the invariance models.
| Model description |
| SBχ2 | RMSEA | (90% CI) | NNFI | CFI | ΔNNFI | ΔCFI | ΔRMSEA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M0a | Baseline Model boy | 53 | 245.547 ** | 0.070 | (0.061–0.079) | 0.964 | 0.971 | |||
| M0b | Baseline Model girl | 53 | 199.99 ** | 0.062 | (0.053–0.071) | 0.974 | 0.980 | |||
| M1 | Structural invariance (Baseline Model) | 106 | 444.020 ** | 0.066 | (0.060–0.072) | 0.969 | 0.975 | |||
| M2 | FL invariance | 116 | 476.339 ** | 0.065 | (0.059–0.071) | 0.970 | 0.974 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| M3 | FL invariance + Int. | 126 | 498.811 ** | 0.063 | (0.058–0.069) | 0.972 | 0.973 | 0.003 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| M4 | FS Invariance + Int. + Error | 138 | 486.970 ** | 0.059 | (0.053–0.064) | 0.976 | 0.975 | 0.007 | 0.000 | 0.007 |
Note: df = degree of freedom; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; 90% CI = 90% confidence interval for the RMSEA; NNFI = Non-Normed Fit Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; FL = factor load; Int.= intercepts. All comparisons in the Δ indices are made with respect to the baseline model (M1); ** p < 0.01.
Reliability, bivariate correlations, and discriminant validity between the variables of the study.
| Dimensions | α | CR | AVE | 1 | 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Engagement | 0.70 | 0.80 | 0.42 | 1 | 0.28 |
| 2. Disaffection | 0.82 | 0.87 | 0.55 | −0.53 ** | 1 |
Note: ** p < 0.01; α = Cronbach’s alpha; CR = Composite reliability; AVE = Average variance extracted. The value below the diagonal corresponds to the correlation between the variables. The value above the diagonal corresponds to the squared correlation between the variables.