Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
The authors would like to thank Kevin Murphy and two anonymous reviewers for the helpful direction in revising this manuscript.
This research advances understanding of empirical time modeling techniques in self-regulated learning research. We intuitively explain several such methods by situating their use in the extant literature. Further, we note key statistical and inferential assumptions of each method while making clear the inferential consequences of inattention to such assumptions.
Using a population model derived from a recent large-scale review of the training and work learning literature, we employ a Monte Carlo simulation fitting six variations of linear mixed models, seven variations of latent common factor models, and a single latent change score model to 1500 simulated datasets.
The latent change score model outperformed all six of the linear mixed models and all seven of the latent common factor models with respect to (1) estimation precision of the average learner improvement, (2) correctly rejecting a false null hypothesis about such average improvement, and (3) correctly failing to reject true null hypothesis about between-learner differences (i.e., random slopes) in average improvement.
The latent change score model is a more flexible method of modeling time in self-regulated learning research, particularly for learner processes consistent with twenty-first-century workplaces. Consequently, defaulting to linear mixed or latent common factor modeling methods may have adverse inferential consequences for better understanding self-regulated learning in twenty-first-century work.
Ours is the first study to critically, rigorously, and empirically evaluate self-regulated learning modeling methods and to provide a more flexible alternative consistent with modern self-regulated learning knowledge.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 1086–1120. CrossRef
Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), 338–375. CrossRef
Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management, 38(1), 9–44. CrossRef
Beier, M. E., & Kanfer, R. (2010). Motivation in training and development: A phase perspective. In S. J. Kozlowski, E. Salas, S. J. Kozlowski, & E. Salas (Eds.), Learning, training, and development in organizations (pp. 65–97). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Bledow, R. (2013). Demand-perception and self-motivation as opponent processes: A response to Bandura and Vancouver. Journal of Management, 39(1), 14–26. CrossRef
Braun, M. T., Kuljanin, G., & DeShon, R. P. (2013). Spurious results in the analysis of longitudinal data in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 16(2), 302–330. CrossRef
Brown, K. G., Howardson, G. N., & Fisher, S. W. (2016). Learner control: Taking stock and moving forward. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3, 267–291. CrossRef
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Ford, J. K. (2008). Transforming our models of learning and development: How far do we go? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 468–471. CrossRef
Ford, J. K., & Oswald, F. L. (2003). Understanding the dynamic learner: Linking personality traits, learning situations, and individual behavior. In M. R. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations (pp. 229–260). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Gully, S., & Chen, G. (2010). Individual differences, attribute-treatment interactions, and training outcomes. In S. W. J. Kozlowski & E. Salas (Eds.), Learning, training, and development in organizations (pp. 3–64). New York: Routledge.
Heggestad, E. D., & Kanfer, R. (2005). The predictive validity of self-efficacy in training performance: Little more than past performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11(2), 84. PubMed
Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kanar, A. M., & Bell, B. S. (2013). Guiding learners through technology-based instruction: The effects of adaptive guidance design and individual differences on learning over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1067–1081. CrossRef
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1996). A self-regulatory skills perspective to reducing cognitive interference. In I. G. Sarason, G. R. Pierce, & B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Cognitive interference: Theories, methods, and findings. The LEA series in personality and clinical psychology (pp. 153–171). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Kanfer, R., Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1996). Motivational skills and self-regulation for learning: A trait perspective. Learning and Individual Differences, 8(3), 185–209. CrossRef
Mitchell, T. R., & James, L. R. (2001). Building better theory: Time and the specification of when things happen. Academy of Management Review, 26(4), 530–547.
National Research Council. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. In J. W. Pellegrino & M. L. Hilton (Eds.), Committee on defining deeper learning and 21st century skills, board on testing and assessment and board on science education, division of behavioral and social sciences and education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Noe, R. A., Clarke, A. D. M., & Klein, H. J. (2014). Learning in the twenty-first-century workplace. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 245–275. CrossRef
Pinheiro, J. C., & Bates, D. M. (2000). Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. New York, NY: Springer. CrossRef
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Sitzmann, T., Bell, B. S., Kraiger, K., & Kanar, A. M. (2009). A multilevel analysis of the effect of prompting self-regulation in technology-delivered instruction. Personnel Psychology, 62, 697–734. CrossRef
Sitzmann, T., Ely, K., Bell, B. S., & Bauer, K. N. (2010). The effects of technical difficulties on learning and attrition during online training. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16(3), 281–292. PubMed
Sitzmann, T., & Johnson, S. K. (2012b). When is ignorance bliss? The effects of inaccurate self-assessments of knowledge on learning and attrition. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(1), 192–207. CrossRef
Sitzmann, T., & Wang, M. (2015). The survey effect: Does administering surveys affect trainees’ behavior? Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 1–12. CrossRef
Sitzmann, T., & Weinhardt, J. M. (2015). Training engagement theory a multilevel perspective on the effectiveness of work-related training. Journal of Management. doi: 10.1177/0149206315574596.
Skrondal, A., & Rabe-Hesketh, S. (2004). Generalized latent variable modeling: Multilevel, longitudinal, and structural equation models. Boca Raton: CRC Press. CrossRef
Steel, P., & König, C. J. (2006). Integrating theories of motivation. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 889–913. CrossRef
Vancouver, J. B. (2008). Integrating self-regulation theories of work motivation into a dynamic process theory. Human Resource Management Review, 18(1), 1–18. CrossRef
Vancouver, J. B., & Carlson, B. W. (2015). All things in moderation, including tests of mediation (at least some of the time). Organizational Research Methods, 18(1), 70–91. CrossRef
Vancouver, J. B., Weinhardt, J. M., & Vigo, R. (2014). Change one can believe in: Adding learning to computational models of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124(1), 56–74. CrossRef
Wood, R. E., Kakebeeke, B. M., Debowski, S., & Frese, M. (2000). The impact of enactive exploration on intrinsic motivation, strategy, and performance in electronic search. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49(2), 263–283. CrossRef
Zyphur, M. J. (2009). When mindsets collide: Switching analytical mindsets to advance organization science. Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 677–688. CrossRef
- The Latent Change Score Model: A More Flexible Approach to Modeling Time in Self-Regulated Learning
Garett N. Howardson
Michael N. Karim
Ryan G. Horn
- Springer US
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta