SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kıbrıs Türk Psikiyatri ve Psikoloji Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 3

Adaptation and Psychometric Evaluation of the Achievement Goal Questionnaire-Revised in Turkish for Middle School Students

Ortaokul Öğrencileri İçin Başarı Hedefi Anketi-Gözden Geçirilmiş Formunun Türkçe Uyarlaması ve Psikometrik Analizi

Emre Koçak(CANAKKALE ONSEKIZ MART UNIVERSITY)0009-0001-0725-6821
Derya Girgin(CANAKKALE ONSEKIZ MART UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF EDUCATION)0000-0002-6114-7925
Pages
254–262
Publication Date
2026-09-09
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These findings indicate that the Turkish version of the AGQ-R is a psychometrically sound tool for measuring achievement goal orientations among middle school students.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to adapt the Achievement Goal Questionnaire-Revised Form (AGQ-R) into Turkish and to examine its validity and reliability among middle school students.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The sample comprised 527 students in grades 5 through 8, aged 10 to 15, drawn from various public schools.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These findings indicate that the Turkish version of the AGQ-R is a psychometrically sound tool for measuring achievement goal orientations among middle school students.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Başarı Hedef Yönelimi · AGQ-R · Ölçek Uyarlaması

Abstract

This study aims to adapt the Achievement Goal Questionnaire-Revised Form (AGQ-R) into Turkish and to examine its validity and reliability among middle school students. The sample comprised 527 students in grades 5 through 8, aged 10 to 15, drawn from various public schools. The adaptation process employed the back-translation method, which is widely accepted in the literature, followed by a thorough review for grammatical and punctuation accuracy. To ensure cultural appropriateness, expert feedback was obtained from a multidisciplinary panel within the faculty of education, which facilitated the identification and removal of culturally specific content from the scale items. Validity and reliability analyses were conducted using SPSS 25 and AMOS 22. The internal consistency of the scale was supported by a Cronbach’s alpha of α = 0.89, and corrected item-total correlations ranged from 0.525 to 0.644 across all subscales. In addition, the convergent validity and internal consistency of the constructs were confirmed using Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and Composite Reliability (CR) values. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the hypothesized four-factor structure (mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance), demonstrating a good model fit (χ²/df = 2.145; RMSEA = 0.047; CFI = 0.978). These findings indicate that the Turkish version of the AGQ-R is a psychometrically sound tool for measuring achievement goal orientations among middle school students. It is recommended for use by researchers and educators to better understand and support student motivation in the Turkish educational context.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Başarı Hedefi Anketi-Gözden Geçirilmiş Formu’nun (AGQ-R) Türkçeye uyarlanmasını ve ortaokul öğrencileri üzerinde geçerlik–güvenirlik incelemesini amaçlamaktadır. Araştırmanın örneklemini, çeşitli devlet okullarında 5.–8. sınıflarda öğrenim gören ve yaşları 10–15 arasında değişen toplam 527 öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Uyarlama sürecinde alanyazında yaygın kabul gören geri çeviri yöntemi uygulanmış; takiben dilbilgisi, noktalama ve kültürel uygunluk açısından ayrıntılı değerlendirmeler yapılmıştır. Eğitim fakültesindeki farklı disiplinlerden uzmanların oluşturduğu grubun görüşleri doğrultusunda yapılan incelemelerde kültüre özgü ifadeler ölçekten çıkarılmıştır. Geçerlik ve güvenirlik analizleri SPSS 25 ve AMOS 22 istatistiksel paket programları kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Ölçeğin iç tutarlılığı Cronbach alfa katsayısı (α = 0.89) ile sağlanmış ve düzeltilmiş madde-toplam korelasyonları tüm alt boyutlarda 0.525 ile 0.644 arasında bulunmuştur. Buna ek olarak, yapıların yakınsak geçerliliği ve iç tutarlılığı, çıkarılan ortalama varyans (AVE) ve bileşik güvenirlik (CR) verileri ile doğrulanmıştır. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi, varsayılan dört faktörlü ( ustalık-yaklaşma, ustalık-kaçınma, performans-yaklaşma ve performans-kaçınma olmak üzere) yapıyı istatistiksel olarak doğrulamış ve iyi model uyum değerleri sunmuştur (χ²/ df = 2.145; RMSEA = 0.047; CFI = 0.978 ). Elde edilen bulgular, AGQ-R’nin Türkçe formunun ortaokul öğrencilerinin başarı hedef yönelimlerini ölçmede psikometrik açıdan geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu bağlamda ölçeğin, Türk eğitim sistemi içinde öğrenci motivasyonunun kapsamlı bir şekilde incelenmesi ve desteklenmesine yönelik yürütülecek bilimsel araştırmalarda kullanılabileceği önerilmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Koçak, E., Girgin, D. (2026). Adaptation and Psychometric Evaluation of the Achievement Goal Questionnaire-Revised in Turkish for Middle School Students. Kıbrıs Türk Psikiyatri ve Psikoloji Dergisi, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 3, 254–262. https://doi.org/10.35365/ctjpp.26.3.03

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (40)

  1. Akin, A. (2006). 2×2 Achievement goal orientations scale: The study of validity and reliability. Sakarya University Journal of Education Faculty, 12, 1–13.
  2. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261
  3. Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260–267. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.260
  4. Anderman, E. M., & Midgley, C. (1997). Changes in achievement goal orientations, perceived academic competence, and grades across the transition to middle-level schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22(3), 269–298. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1996.0926
  5. Arslan, S., & Akın, A. (2015). The validity and reliability study of the 2x2 achievement goal orientations scale (revised form). Sakarya University Journal of Education, 5(1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.19126/suje.05454
  6. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301
  7. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The Guilford Press. ISBN: 978-1-59385-274-0
  8. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. ISBN: 978-1-4625-1536-3
  9. Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with Amos: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge. ISBN: 978-1-138-79703-1
  10. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309
  11. Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Psychology Press. ISBN: 978-1-315-82750-6. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315827506
  12. Direktör, C., & Okray, Z. (2023). Turkish adaptation, validity, and reliability study of the State Impostor Phenomenon Scale. Cyprus Turkish Journal of Psychiatry & Psychology, 5(2), 105–110. https://doi.org/10.35365/ctjpp.23.2.02
  13. Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2013). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105(3), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046
  14. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040–1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040
  15. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.95.2.256
  16. Ebel, R. L., & Frisbie, D. A. (1991). Essentials of educational measurement (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. ISBN: 978-0-13-284613-4
  17. Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34(3), 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3
  18. Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.218
  19. Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.461
  20. Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2×2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501–519. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.501
  21. Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique, illustration, and application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 613–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.613
  22. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104 Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. ISBN: 978-0-13-813263-7
  23. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Andover, UK: Cengage Learning EMEA. ISBN: 978-1-4737-5654-0
  24. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  25. Huang, C. (2011). Achievement goals and achievement emotions: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 23(3), 359–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9155-x
  26. Huang, C., Wang, Y., Wu, T., & Wang, P. (2013). An empirical analysis of the antecedents and performance consequences of using the Moodle platform. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 3(2), 217–221. https://doi.org/10.7763/ijiet.2013.v3.267
  27. Kadan, G. D., Gökkaya, F., & Tunçay, Ş. (2025). The Adult Bullying Scale: An Adaptation Study. Cyprus Turkish Journal of Psychiatry & Psychology, 7(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.35365/ctjpp.25.1.01
  28. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. SBN: 978-1-59385-075-3
  29. Maehr, M. L. (1974). Culture and achievement motivation. American Psychologist, 29(12), 887–896. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037521
  30. Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1991). Enhancing student motivation: A schoolwide approach. Educational Psychologist, 26(3), 399–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653140
  31. McClelland, D. C. (1951). Measuring motivation in phantasy: The achievement motive. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership, and men (pp. 191–205). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press. ISBN: 978-0837155661
  32. McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN: 0805830758
  33. Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91(3), 328–346. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.91.3.328
  34. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74. Retrieved June 05, 2025, from http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/%7Esnijders/mpr_Schermelleh.pdf
  35. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2016). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York: Routledge. ISBN: 978-1-315-74910-5
  36. Senko, C., Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2011). Achievement goal theory at the crossroads: old controversies, current challenges, and new directions. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 26–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538646
  37. Şenler, B., & Sungur, S. (2007, November). Hedef yönelimi anketinin Türkçeye çevrilmesi ve adaptasyonu [Paper presentation]. 1. Ulusal İlköğretim Kongresi, Ankara, Türkiye. Retrieved June 03, 2025, from https://hdl.handle.net/11511/92286
  38. Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (2015). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN: 978-0-19-968521-9.https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199685219.001.0001
  39. Tunç, M. F., & Ümmet, D. (2025). Emotional Creativity Inventory: Adaptation to Turkish culture. Cyprus Turkish Journal of Psychiatry & Psychology, 7(2), 123–131. https://doi.org/10.35365/ctjpp.25.2.02
  40. Urdan, T., & Kaplan, A. (2020). The origins, evolution, and future directions of achievement goal theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101862