Adaptation of Engagement Questionnaire to Turkish for Science Classes: Validity and Reliability Study

Fatma Melik Uçar, Semra Sungur


The aim of this research was to adapt the Engagement Questionnaire in four dimensions (i.e. behavioral, emotional, cognitive, and agentic engagement) to Turkish to be used in science classes. For this purpose, firstly a pilot study was conducted with 153 middle school students, then the main study was conducted with 744 middle school students.  Both studies supported four-factor structure of Turkish version of the EQ. In addition, reliabilities seemed to be sufficient. The results concerning the measurement invariance across gender revealed the data from both genders lead to equally valid conclusions regarding their engagement levels. Consequently, the findings of this study indicated that the Turkish version of EQ appears to be a valid and reliable instrument to measure and understand the middle school students’ engagement level in science classes.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Student Engagement; Validity; Reliability; Confirmatory Factor Analysis; Measurement Invariance across Gender

Tam Metin:



Anderson, J.C. & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.

Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. 1. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369-386.

Archambault, I., Janosz, M., Fallu, J. S., & Pagani, L. S. (2009). Student engagement and its relationship with early high school dropout. Journal of adolescence, 32(3), 651-670.

Archambault, I., Janosz, M., Morizot, J., & Pagani, L. (2009). Adolescent behavioral, affective, and cognitive engagement in school: Relationship to dropout. Journal of school Health, 79(9), 408-415.

Avenilla, F. R. (2003). Assessing the links between emotional and behavioral school engagement and academic outcomes among high school students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:W.H.Freeman.

Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted impact of self‐efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67(3), 1206-1222.

Bearden, W. O., Hardesty, D.M, & Rose, R.L. (2001). Consumer self-confidence: Refinements in conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 121–34.

Bourke, S. & Frampton, J. (1992, November). Assessing the quality of school life: Some technical considerations. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the AARE, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia..

Chen, F.F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit ındexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464-504.

Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233-255.

Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement. Springer Science & Business Media.

Connell, J. P. (1990). Context, self, and action: A motivational analysis of self-system processes across the life span. The self in transition: Infancy to childhood, 61-97.

Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Self-processes and development (pp. 43-77). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dogan, U. (2014). Validity and Reliability of Student Engagement Scale. Bartin Üniversitesi Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(2), 390.

Dunleavy, J., & Milton, P. (2008). Student Engagement for Effective Teaching and Deep Learning. Education Canada, 48(5), 4-8.

Farmer-Dougan, V., & McKinney, K. (2001). Examining student engagement at Illinois State University: An exploratory investigation. Center for Teaching, Learning & Technology. Illinois State University

Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59(2), 117-142.

Fredericks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59-109.

Fredricks, J. A., & McColskey, W. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 763-782). Springer US.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., Friedel, J., & Paris, A. (2005). School engagement. In K. A. Moore & L. Lippman (Eds.), conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development: What do children need to flourish (pp. 305–321). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press

Fredricks, J., McColskey, W., Meli, J., Mordica, J., Montrosse, B., & Mooney, K. (2011). Measuring Student Engagement in Upper Elementary through High School: A Description of 21 Instruments. Issues & Answers. REL 2011-No. 098. Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast.

Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children's academic engagement and performance. Journal of educational psychology,95(1), 148.

Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., Hall, N. C., & Lüdtke, O. (2007). Between-and within-domain relations of students' academic emotions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 715.

Graham, J. M., Guthrie, A. C., & Thompson, B. (2003). Consequences of not interpreting structure coefficients in published CFA research: A reminder. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 142-153.

Green, J., Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2007). Motivation and engagement in English, mathematics and science high school subjects: Towards an understanding of multidimensional domain specificity. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(3), 269-279.

Greene, B. A., & Miller, R. B. (1996). Influences on achievement: Goals, perceived ability, and cognitive engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(2), 181-192.

Halpin, G., Halpin, G., & Arbet, S. (1994). Effects of number and type of response choices on internal consistency reliability. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79(2), 928-930.

Harter, S. P. (1992). Psychological relevance and information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43(9), 602-615.

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.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1998).Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Kahraman, N. (2014). Cross-Grade Comparison of Relationship between Students' Engagement and TIMSS 2011 Science Achievement. Egitim ve Bilim, 39(172).

Ladd, G. W., & Dinella, L. M. (2009). Continuity and change in early school engagement: Predictive of children's achievement trajectories from first to eighth grade?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 190.

Linnenbrink, E. A. & Pintrich, P.R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 119-137.

Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 153-184.

Martin, A. J. (2008). Enhancing student motivation and engagement: The effects of a multidimensional intervention. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(2), 239-269.

Mazer, J. P. (2013). Associations among teacher communication behaviors, student interest, and engagement: A validity test. Communication Education,62(1), 86-96.

Meece, J. L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictors of math anxiety and its influence on young adolescents' course enrollment intentions and performance in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 60.

Meece, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988).Students’ goal orientation and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514–523.

Miller, R. B., Greene, B. A., Montalvo, G. P., Ravindran, B., & Nichols, J. D. (1996). Engagement in academic work: The role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others, and perceived ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(4), 388-422.

Miserandino, M. (1996). Children who do well in school: Individual differences in perceived competence and autonomy in above-average children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 203-214.

National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine. (2004). Engaging schools: Fostering high school students’ motivation to learn. Committee on Increasing High School Students’ Engagement and Motivation to Learn. Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Natriello, G. (1984). Problems in the evaluation of students and student disengagement for secondary schools. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 17, 14–24.

Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E.R. (1998). Development of a scale to measure consumer skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7, 159 – 186.

Pascarella, E. T., Palmer, B., Moye, M., & Pierson, C. T. (2001). Do diversity experiences influence the development of critical thinking? Journal of College Student Development, 42, 257-271.

Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33.

Pintrich, P. R., Roeser, R. W., & De Groot, E. A. (1994). Classroom and individual differences in early adolescents' motivation and self-regulated learning. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 14(2), 139-161.

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801-813.

Reeve, J. (2012). A Self-determination Theory Perspective on student Engagement. In S.L. Christenson et al. (eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement. (pp. 149-171). New York, NY: Springer.

Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 579-595. doi:10.1037/a0032690

Reeve, J., & Lee, W. (2014). Students' classroom engagement produces longitudinal changes in classroom motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 527-540.

Reeve, J., & Tseng, C.-M (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 257-267.

Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2006). Prediction of dropout among students with mild disabilities: A case for inclusion of student engagement variables. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 276–292.

Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2008). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children’s behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement.

Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (2009). Engagement and disaffection as organizational constructs in the dynamics of motivational development. Handbook of motivation at school, 223-245.

Skinner, E., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effect of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571–581.

Sungur, S. (2004). An implementation of problem based learning in high school biology courses (Doctoral dissertation, Middle East Technical University).

Uğur, E., & Akın, A. (2015). The Psychometric Properties of Turkish Version of the Student Engagement Scale. SDU International Journal of Educational Studies, 2(1), 53-59.

Voelkl, K. E. (1996). Measuring students’ identification with school. Educational and Psychological

Walker, C. O., Greene, B. A., & Mansell, R. A. (2006). Identification with academics, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive engagement. Learning and Individual Differences, 16(1), 1-12.

Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Engaged and disaffected action: The conceptualization and measurement of motivation in the academic domain. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.

Weng, L.J. (2004). Impact of the number of response categories and anchor labels on coefficient alpha and test-retest reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 956-972.

Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Klauda, S. L., McRae, A., & Barbosa, P. (2008). Role of reading engagement in mediating effects of reading comprehension instruction on reading outcomes. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 432-445.

Wolters, C. A. (2004). Advancing Achievement Goal Theory: Using Goal Structures and Goal Orientations to Predict Students' Motivation, Cognition, and Achievement. Journal of educational psychology, 96(2), 236.

Yazzie- Mintz, E. (2007). Voices of students on engagement: A report on the 2006 High School Survey of Student Engagement. Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation & Educational Policy, Indiana University.


  • Şu halde refbacks yoktur.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.




Creative Commons Lisansı

İlköğretim Online Dergisi Creative Commons Alıntı-Gayriticari 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.

ISSN: 1305-3515