Perception of Study Requirements Instrument (MWS)

Abstract

The perception of study requirements instrument (MWS) is a validated 21-item psychological scale designed for the multidimensional measurement of how students perceive the demands placed upon them during their academic careers. The scale’s development was grounded in two qualitative preliminary studies examining challenges faced during the initial study phase (Bosse & Trautwein, 2014; Trautwein & Bosse, 2017).

Validation analyses were conducted using a large total sample (N = 1907) of students enrolled in various Bachelor’s degree programs across four German universities. Statistical evaluation, including Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), confirmed a robust six-factor structure. The subscales demonstrate moderate to satisfactory measurement accuracy, indicated by internal consistency values ranging from Cronbach’s Alpha = .66 to .82. Furthermore, significant correlations with established study success criteria provide strong evidence for the instrument’s predictive Criterion validity.

Keywords

Study requirements, Student perception, Higher education, Academic demands, Learning activity, Performance pressure, Study organization, Construct validity, Psychometrics, Academic success.

Authors

Vanessa Katharina Jänsch, Elke Bosse.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the MWS is to provide a standardized, cross-disciplinary instrument for assessing the perceived demands of university studies. Developed in response to relatively high dropout rates and the recognized importance of the study entry phase, the instrument aims to identify specific areas of difficulty experienced by students.

The MWS is based on the theoretical premise that academic success results from the interaction between the individual and the institution (Tinto, 1975). By capturing the intersection of individual student capabilities and institutional learning environments, the scale facilitates the analysis of systemic challenges. This makes the instrument highly valuable for application research, particularly in the evaluation of measures intended to improve study conditions, curriculum design, and the overall quality of teaching and learning in higher education settings. Due to certain reliability values, the scale is recommended for group research rather than Individual diagnostics.

Construct

The MWS measures the perception of study requirements across six distinct, empirically validated dimensions. These dimensions were derived from four initial theoretical categories (content, personal, social, and organizational) identified during the qualitative development phase. The final six subscales are:

• Wissenschaftsmodus (WM): Scientific Mode/Approach. Focuses on adjusting to academic methods and language (e.g., scientific writing). (3 items)
• Studienerwartungen & Anwendungsbezug (StA): Study Expectations & Practical Relevance. Relates to aligning study content with career goals and recognizing professional relevance. (3 items)
• Lernaktivität (LA): Learning Activity. Concerns effective learning strategies, time management, and managing workload. (4 items)
• Leistungsdruck & Misserfolg (LD): Performance Pressure & Failure. Addresses coping with examination stress, grading practices, and dealing with poor results. (3 items)
• Studienorganisation (SO): Study Organization. Covers managing institutional requirements, course scheduling, and utilizing advisory services. (4 items)
• Kontakt & Kooperation (KK): Contact & Cooperation. Measures the ability to establish social connections and work effectively in teams. (4 items)

Validity

The MWS demonstrates strong evidence across multiple facets of validity, confirming its suitability for research purposes.

Content and Factorial Validity: Content validity is supported by the instrument’s foundation in extensive qualitative preliminary studies (Bosse & Trautwein, 2014; Trautwein & Bosse, 2017) using the Critical Incident Technique. Factorial validity was established through both EFA (Sample 1) and CFA (Sample 2). The EFA indicated a clear six-component solution explaining 64% of the variance, which was subsequently confirmed by a CFA model (N=1165) showing a satisfactory fit (CFI = .93; RMSEA = .05).

Predictive Criterion Validity: Predictive Criterion validity was assessed using longitudinal data (N=320) measuring perceived study requirements at Time 1 and subjective study performance and study satisfaction at Time 2 (fifth semester). All six MWS subscales correlated significantly with both criteria (p < .001 or p < .01).

Multiple regression analyses confirmed that different subscales predicted distinct outcomes: Lernaktivität and Leistungsdruck & Misserfolg were significant predictors of study performance, while Studienerwartungen & Anwendungsbezug, Lernaktivität, and Studienorganisation were significant predictors of study satisfaction. The overall variance explained was 19% for study performance and 17% for study satisfaction.

Reliability

The reliability of the MWS subscales was assessed using measures of internal consistency across two large, independent samples (SP1 and SP2). The reliability estimates are generally moderate to satisfactory.

Given that the latent models underlying the subscales exhibit varying factor loadings (indicating they are tau-congeneric), both Cronbach’s Alpha and Raykov’s Rho (ρ) were utilized to provide a reliable reliability estimate (Raykov, 1997). The internal consistency values consistently fell between .66 and .82 for both metrics across both samples. Specifically, the Studienorganisation subscale reported the lowest values (α and ρ ≈ .66–.67), while Wissenschaftsmodus reported the highest (α and ρ ≈ .80–.82).

The scale exhibits high Objectivity due to its standardized procedure, including randomized item order, and simple, non-weighted averaging for subscale scoring, ensuring objective evaluation and interpretation.

Factor Analysis

The final 21-item MWS scale structure was determined by a two-stage factor analysis process based on preliminary qualitative research identifying four core dimensions (content, personal, social, and organizational).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA): Performed on Sample 1 (N=1260), the EFA (Principal Component Analysis with Varimax rotation) confirmed a six-component solution that accounted for 64% of the total variance. The resulting factors were: Leistungsdruck & Misserfolg, Kontakt & Kooperation, Wissenschaftsmodus, Studienerwartungen & Anwendungsbezug, Lernaktivität, and Studienorganisation.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA): The hypothesized six-dimensional model was subsequently tested using CFA via Mplus 7.31 on Sample 2 (N=1165). The model was estimated using Robust Maximum Likelihood (MLR) and demonstrated a satisfactory model fit (e.g., CFI = .93; RMSEA = .05), thus confirming the robust six-factor structure of the MWS.

Instrument

Test Type: Psychometric self-report instrument for measuring perceived academic demands.

Format: Paper-pencil or online questionnaire format. The items are positively formulated and administered in a randomized order.

Language Available: German (deutsch).

Population Group: University students (specifically Bachelor’s degree programs).

Age Group: Typically young adults (validation sample mean age: 23.0 to 24.1 years).

Population Details: The validation samples drew from students across four German higher education institutions (two universities and two universities of applied sciences). The total sample size across measurement points was N = 1907. The sample was found to be largely representative of the student population, with slight overrepresentation of female participants.

Test Methodology: The MWS consists of 21 items, rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = sehr schwer [very difficult] to 5 = sehr leicht [very easy]). An additional response option, “trifft auf mich/meinen Studiengang nicht zu” (does not apply to me/my study program), is included. The instrument supports two application versions: Version A assesses perceptions during the first year of study, and Version B assesses perceptions during the past year of study. Scoring involves calculating the unweighted mean score for each of the six subscales separately.

Keywords

Student organization, Academic performance, Study satisfaction, Qualitative research, Factor analysis, Higher education research, Longitudinal study, Multidimensional scale, German higher education.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Information not provided in the source content.

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

Correspondence Address: Universität Hamburg, Von-Melle-Park 8, 20146 Hamburg.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Permissions: The scale was developed as part of the “Studierfähigkeit – institutionelle Förderung und studienrelevante Heterogenität” (StuFHe) project, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).

Fee: Information not provided in the source content.

Test Year: Developed based on qualitative studies (2014, 2017) and validated using data collected during the Winter Semesters 2016/2017 and 2017/2018.

Reference’s

• Bosse, E. & Trautwein, U. (2014). Studienanforderungen in der Studieneingangsphase: Eine qualitative Untersuchung an einer norddeutschen Universität. The original PDF can be downloaded here: https://www.psycharchives.org/handle/20.500.12034/622
• Trautwein, U. & Bosse, E. (2017). Anforderungen im Studium: Qualitative Befunde zur Studieneingangsphase.
• Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of Recent Research.
• Heublein, U. (2014). Ursachen des Studienabbruchs in Deutschland.
• Heublein, U. et al. (2017). Studienberechtigte, Studienanfänger/innen und Studierende in Deutschland.
• Hell, B., Ptok, P. & Schuler, H. (2007). Methodik zur Ermittlung und Validierung von Anforderungen an Studierende (MEVAS).
• Bohndick, C. & Buhl, M. (2014). Anforderungen an Lehramtsstudierende.
• Richardson, M., Abraham, C. & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
• Schaeper, H. & Weiß, J. (2016). Institutionelle Lernumwelt und Studienerfolg.
• Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods.
• Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.
• Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The Critical Incident Technique.
• Bühner, M. (2011). Einführung in die Test- und Fragebogenkonstruktion.
• Bortz, J. & Döring, N. (2002). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation.
• Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U. & Köller, O. (2007). Missing data in educational research: Using multiple imputation to deal with nonresponse.
• Muthén, L. K. & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
• Becker, J. (2000a). Subjektive Studienleistung.
• Becker, J. (2000b). Studienzufriedenheit.
• Westermann, R., Elke, G., Spies, K. & Trautwein, U. (1996). Studienzufriedenheitsskala.

Items of the perception of study requirements instrument (MWS)

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

Anmerkung. WM = Wissenschaftsmodus; StA = Studienerwartungen & Anwendungsbezug; LA = Lernaktivität; LD = Leistungsdruck & Misserfolg; SO = Studienorganisation; KK = Kontakt & Kooperation