Experienced autonomy in the examination context

Abstract

The Experienced autonomy in the examination context scale is a psychological instrument consisting of six items designed to assess the degree of self-determination students perceive regarding the planning and execution of their university examinations. Developed as part of a diploma thesis at the University of Mannheim, the scale is based theoretically on the principles of Self-Determination Theory (SDT). Initial psychometric testing, utilizing non-linear factor analytic techniques, indicated that the construct is best characterized by two correlated sub-dimensions: Self-determined and Externally-determined preparation.

Keywords

Autonomy, Examination, Study, Self-Determination Theory, Academic Emotion, Student Well-being, Psychological Basic Needs, Prüfungsautonomie

Authors

Dipl. Psych. Stefan Janke

Purpose

The primary purpose of the scale is to quantitatively measure the degree of perceived autonomy experienced by students specifically within the context of university examinations, including the selection, timing, planning, and preparation for those assessments. This measurement is crucial for investigating motivational and emotional processes in academic settings, such as linking perceived autonomy to academic anxiety and structural factors within university curricula.

Construct

The scale measures the psychological construct of Autonomy, drawing heavily from the framework of the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000). According to SDT, autonomy is an essential psychological basic need, defined as the organismic desire to self-organize experience and behavior, ensuring activity aligns with one’s integrated sense of self.

In the university setting, this construct is termed “Examination Autonomy” (Prüfungsautonomie), encompassing self-determination in planning and preparing for exams. Theoretical explication suggests three process-oriented facets: internal causality attributions (belief in self-determined outcomes), volition (willingness to initiate action voluntarily), and perceived choice (the possibility to make independent decisions). While initially hypothesized as unidimensional, factor analysis revealed that the measured construct is better represented by a higher-order factor of “Experienced Examination Autonomy,” comprising two primary, highly correlated factors: Self-determined Examination Preparation and Externally-determined Examination Preparation.

Validity

Evidence for the scale’s Convergent and Divergent Validity was established through a non-linear Structural Equation Model (SEM) analysis.

• Convergent Validity: Experienced examination autonomy was found to covary positively and significantly with structurally anchored decision-making freedom, which was operationalized by comparing students from study programs known to offer high structural freedom (Economics and Psychology) versus low structural freedom (Business Administration and Business Law).
• Divergent/Criterion Validity: Consistent with the Control-Value Theory of Achievement Emotions (Pekrun, 2006), experienced examination autonomy was negatively associated with test anxiety (measured using the German version of the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire). This supports the theoretical assumption that greater perceived control (resulting from autonomy) reduces anticipated failure and associated anxiety.
• Model Fit: The tested structural model demonstrated acceptable to good fit indices (Chi-Square = 92.52, df = 59, p = .00; CFI = .94; TLI = .91; RMSEA = .05).

Reliability

Specific reliability coefficients (e.g., Cronbach’s Alpha) for the overall scale are not explicitly documented in the source material. However, the psychometric analysis indicated that the scale does not measure a single, homogeneous dimension of experienced study autonomy. Instead, item responses are determined by two separate, yet correlated, dimensions: Self-determined and Externally-determined Examination Preparation.

For practical application, the developers recommend the inclusion of a global control item (“Insgesamt fühle ich mich in Bezug auf Planung und Gestaltung meiner Prüfungen autonom”) to ensure a reliable global measure of perceived examination autonomy is available, particularly if scale homogeneity is insufficient for highly specific research questions.

Factor Analysis

Scale dimensionality was investigated using non-linear Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), specifically the 2 Parameter Normalogiven Item Response Theory (IRT) model, implemented via a generalized Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) approach (Mplus, Muthén & Muthén, 2007). This method was chosen due to the categorical response format and expected skewness of item responses.

An initial one-factor CFA model (M1) showed insufficient fit (CFI = .92, TLI = .88, RMSEA = .11). Subsequent analysis revealed a high residual association between the two negatively polarized items (Items 3 and 5). Modeling this residual correlation (M2) significantly improved the fit (CFI = .97, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .08). Further testing confirmed that the scale is best represented by two primary factors, interpreted as Self-determined and Externally-determined Examination Preparation, which correlated at .70. These two factors were subsequently associated with a higher-order factor, “Experienced Examination Autonomy,” with loadings of .80 and -.87, respectively. Items 2 and 6 showed comparatively weaker factor loadings (around .40) on the self-determined factor across analyses.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report psychometric scale

Format: Six items using a 5-point Likert response scale.

Language Available: German (deutsch)

Population Group: University Students

Age Group: Typically young adults (Sample median age: 20.7 years).

Population Details: The validation study sample (N=381) consisted of students from the University of Mannheim (53% male, 45.7% female), primarily in their first to fourth semesters, studying Business Administration, Economics, Business Law, and Psychology.

Test Methodology: Online questionnaire, self-administered. Response options are 1 = trifft gar nicht zu (does not apply at all), 2 = trifft eher nicht zu (tends not to apply), 3 = trifft teilweise zu (applies partially), 4 = trifft eher zu (tends to apply), and 5 = trifft vollständig zu (applies completely).

Keywords

Psychological Scale, University Students, Self-Determination, Academic Testing, Decision Freedom, Student Motivation, Item Response Theory, Structural Equation Modeling

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not specified in source.

Affiliation Email addresses: [email protected]; [email protected]

Correspondence Address: Dipl. Psych. Stefan Janke, Universität Mannheim, Lehrstuhl Pädagogische Psychologie, 68131 Mannheim, Germany.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was developed as part of a diploma thesis (Janke, 2012). No information regarding usage fees or specific licensing permissions is provided in the source documentation. The core data collection for validation took place in 2011/2012.

Reference’s

• Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
• Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 38. Perspectives on motivation (pp. 237–288). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
• Gagné, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in the engagement of prosocial behavior. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 199–223.
• Glöckner-Rist, A., & Hoijtink, H. (2003). The best of both worlds: Factor analysis of dichotomous data using the two-parameter normal ogive IRT model. Journal of Applied Measurement, 4, 137–152.
• Glöckner-Rist, A., & Rist, F. (2006). A short note on the use of the Correlated Trait Correlated Method (CTCM) model for studying item wording effects. Journal of Applied Measurement, 7, 1–10.
• Janke, S. (2012). Strukturell verankerte Entscheidungsfreiheit, erlebte Autonomie und studentisches Befinden. Unveröffentlichte Diplomarbeit, Universität Mannheim.
• Katz, I., & Assor, A. (2007). When choice is not empowering: A review of control, choice, and intrinsic motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 429–448.
• Levesque, C., Zuehlke, A. N., Stanek, L. R., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Autonomy and competence in German and American university students: A comparative study using Self-Determination Theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 68–75.
• Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–396.
• Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus user’s guide (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
• Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 315–341.
• Pekrun, R. (2011). Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ): Deutsche Version. Manuskript, Universität München.
• Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Daily well-being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 419–435.
• Ryan, R. M., Huta, V., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Living well: A self-determination theory perspective on eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 139–170.
• Reeve, J., & Hamm, D. (2003). Toward a process conceptualization of intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation during task performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 155–167.

Items of the Experienced autonomy in the examination context

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

Instruktion

Bitte beurteilen Sie die folgenden Aussagen in Bezug auf die Prüfungssituation in Ihrem aktuellen Studienfach. Einige dieser Aussagen beziehen sich auf Ihre Prüfungsplanung. Mit diesem Begriff wird sowohl die Auswahl von Prüfungen, als auch die Wahl des jeweiligen Prüfungszeitpunkts bezeichnet.

Items

Antwortvorgaben

5-stufiges Antwortformat mit den Optionen 1 = trifft gar nicht zu, 2 = trifft eher nicht zu, 3 = trifft teilweise zu, 4 = trifft eher zu und 5 = trifft vollständig zu.