Cited by 2,122Evaluation of Teaching PracticesPsychometric Methodologies and TestingEducational Strategies and Epistemologies

The revised two‐factor Study Process Questionnaire: R‐SPQ‐2F

Open access
Biggs, John, Kember, David, Leung, Doris Y.P.·2001·British Journal of Educational Psychology

Abstract

Aim. To produce a revised two‐factor version of the Study Process Questionnaire (R‐SPQ‐2F) suitable for use by teachers in evaluating the learning approaches of their students. The revised instrument assesses deep and surface approaches only, using fewer items. Method. A set of 43 items was drawn up for the initial tests. These were derived from: the original version of the SPQ, modified items from the SPQ, and new items. A process of testing and refinement eventuated in deep and surface motive and strategy scales each with 5 items, 10 items per approach score. The final version was tested using reliability procedures and confirmatory factor analysis. Sample. The sample for the testing and refinement process consisted of 229 students from the health sciences faculty of a university in Hong Kong. A fresh sample of 495 undergraduate students from a variety of departments of the same university was used for the test of the final version. Results. The final version of the questionnaire had acceptable Cronbach alpha values for scale reliability. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated a good fit to the intended two‐factor structure. Both deep and surface approach scales had well identified motive and strategy subscales. Conclusion. The revision process has resulted in a simple questionnaire which teachers can use to evaluate their own teaching and the learning approaches of their students.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1348/000709901158433

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P.
Affiliations
  • University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • Hong Kong Polytechnic University (HK)
Corresponding author
Biggs, John
Venue
British Journal of Educational Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-03
Volume
71
Issue
1
Pages
133-149
ISSN
  • 0007-0998 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8279
OpenAlex
W2026539857
Cited by
2,122
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 93 · 2025: 101 · 2024: 99 · 2023: 121 · 2022: 120 · 2021: 127 · 2020: 147 · 2019: 110 · 2018: 115 · 2017: 116 · 2016: 107 · 2015: 114 · 2014: 119 · 2013: 121 · 2012: 85
FWCI
85.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) (acceptedVersion)
  • Hong Kong Education Bibliographic Database (submittedVersion)
  • eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PolyU Institutional Research Archive (Hong Kong Polytechnic University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
Keywords
Study Process Questionnaire, deep and surface approaches, learning methods, instrument revision, student learning evaluation, health sciences students, undergraduate students
MeSH terms
Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Teaching, Reproducibility of Results

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