Cited by 3,646Education, Achievement, and GiftednessInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Reliability and Predictive Validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Mslq)

Pintrich, Paul R., Smith, David A. F., Garcia, Teresa, Mckeachie, Wilbert J.·1993·Educational and Psychological Measurement

Abstract

This paper reports on a new self-report, Likert-scaled instrument that was designed to assess motivation and use of learning strategies by college students. The motivation scales tap into three broad areas: (1) value (intrinsic and extrinsic goal orientation, task value), (2) expectancy (control beliefs about learning, self-efficacy); and (3) affect (test anxiety). The learning strategies section is comprised of nine scales which can be distinguished as cognitive, metacognitive, and resource management strategies. The cognitive strategies scales include (a) rehearsal, (b) elaboration, (c) organization, and (d) critical thinking. Metacognitive strategies are assessed by one large scale that includes planning, monitoring, and regulating strategies. Resource management strategies include (a) managing time and study environment; (b) effort management, (c) peer learning, and (d) help-seeking. Scale reliabilities are robust, and confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated good factor structure. In addition, the instrument shows reasonable predictive validity to the actual course performance of students.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0013164493053003024

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Established learning questionnaires provide students with strategies or procedures, asking them to indicate whether and/or how often they apply the respective strategies.

    “Established learning questionnaires (e.g., Pintrich et al. 1993) provide students with strategies or procedures, asking them to indicate whether and/or how often they apply the respective strategies.”
  • The Critical Thinking Skills scale adopted from the MSLQ (Pintrich et al., 1993) measures the degree to which students apply knowledge to problem-solving or make critical evaluations, and demonstrates good reliability and validity (Cronbach's alpha = 0.80).

    “As indicated in the original study (Pintrich et al., 1993), this scale demonstrates good reliability and validity (Cronbach's alpha = 0.80).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & Mckeachie, W. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • The University of Michigan Ann Arbor
Venue
Educational and Psychological Measurement
Published
1993-09
Volume
53
Issue
3
Pages
801-813
ISSN
  • 0013-1644 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3888
OpenAlex
W2070635017
Cited by
3,646
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 132 · 2025: 202 · 2024: 219 · 2023: 227 · 2022: 209 · 2021: 226 · 2020: 220 · 2019: 250 · 2018: 184 · 2017: 181 · 2016: 183 · 2015: 200 · 2014: 141 · 2013: 166 · 2012: 130
FWCI
9.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Educational and Psychological Measurement (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire, learning strategies, academic motivation, self-efficacy, test anxiety, goal orientation, task value, metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies, resource management strategies, university students, course performance, instrument validation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review