View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Development and Validation of a Questionnaire on Multisyllabic Decoding and Encoding with Upper Elementary Learners

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Development and Validation of a Questionnaire on Multisyllabic Decoding and Encoding with Upper Elementary Learners
Language: English
Authors: Zoi A. Traga Philippakos (ORCID 0000-0001-9559-7345), Jeff Labban, Margaret Quinn
Source: Reading Research Quarterly. 2025 60(4).
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Early Childhood Education
Grade 3
Primary Education
Grade 4
Intermediate Grades
Grade 5
Middle Schools
Descriptors: Test Construction, Test Validity, Test Reliability, Questionnaires, Elementary School Students, Reading Skills, Spelling, Self Efficacy, Affective Behavior, Student Behavior, Decoding (Reading), Grade 3, Grade 4, Grade 5, Rural Schools, Disadvantaged Youth, Self Management
DOI: 10.1002/rrq.70059
ISSN: 0034-0553
1936-2722
Abstract: This study aimed to develop and validate a self-efficacy and affect questionnaire focused on upper-elementary students' reading and spelling of multisyllabic words. The research addresses a gap in understanding students' self-efficacy, affect, and avoidance behaviors related to decoding and spelling complex words. Participants included 395 students in grades 3-5 from rural Title I schools in the southeastern United States. Students completed a 34-item questionnaire assessing self-efficacy, affect, avoidance, and self-regulation, followed by standardized reading subtests (CAPTI/Read Basix). The sample was randomly split, and an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and a follow-up confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted. Results supported a four-factor structure including self-efficacy for processes/tasks, affect, self-efficacy for self-regulation, and avoidance. Regression analyses indicated that factor scores were positively associated with reading ability and with standardized reading subtest scores. The findings highlight the questionnaire's reliability and validity, offering practical implications for educators to assess and address students' motivational and cognitive needs in reading instruction. Implications for research and practice are further discussed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1487124
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFnhx0H_Ha3PWBbSY8sCxRdAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDOHvcJitFIzEXwdXfAIBEICBmwm1F2nUqHrluvluxQUTcmwnN1f2q6FfcwXm1Ili5HtZ3ukMtJY1UBQY2t6oSRK-AaTUKI2tMhboxaTECztuN-q6Is15j7ybutL_qvbHxO3g0VYZMcfjyfHHvDLTj0KsfPjk6HyXHP15JKQVUU1bmpCoFQ2Y8YIHRjFmpgLWdWRf13Upeod4SixCCArC6rU-NaKMJOIwR8cXa_u_
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0188874265;[nrnu]01oct.25;2025Oct28.05:49;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0188874265-1">Development and Validation of a Questionnaire on Multisyllabic Decoding and Encoding With Upper Elementary Learners </title> <p>This study aimed to develop and validate a self‐efficacy and affect questionnaire focused on upper‐elementary students' reading and spelling of multisyllabic words. The research addresses a gap in understanding students' self‐efficacy, affect, and avoidance behaviors related to decoding and spelling complex words. Participants included 395 students in grades 3–5 from rural Title I schools in the southeastern United States. Students completed a 34‐item questionnaire assessing self‐efficacy, affect, avoidance, and self‐regulation, followed by standardized reading subtests (CAPTI/Read Basix). The sample was randomly split, and an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and a follow‐up confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted. Results supported a four‐factor structure including self‐efficacy for processes/tasks, affect, self‐efficacy for self‐regulation, and avoidance. Regression analyses indicated that factor scores were positively associated with reading ability and with standardized reading subtest scores. The findings highlight the questionnaire's reliability and validity, offering practical implications for educators to assess and address students' motivational and cognitive needs in reading instruction. Implications for research and practice are further discussed.</p> <p>This study aimed to develop and validate a self‐efficacy and affect questionnaire focused on upper‐elementary students' reading and spelling of multisyllabic words. The research addresses a gap in understanding students' self‐efficacy, affect, and avoidance behaviors related to decoding and spelling complex words. Participants included 395 students in grades 3–5 from rural Title I schools in the southeastern United States. Students completed a 34‐item questionnaire assessing self‐efficacy, affect, avoidance, and self‐regulation, followed by standardized reading subtests (CAPTI/Read Basix).</p> <p>Keywords: affect; avoidance; big words; decoding; multisyllabic; questionnaire; reading; self‐efficacy; spelling; upper elementary</p> <hd id="AN0188874265-2">Introduction</hd> <p>As students transition from the primary grades to upper‐elementary grades, texts become more complex on the level of organizational structures, ideas, and on linguistic and syntactic composition. Upon entry to upper elementary grades, learners are tasked to process longer words, complex and compound sentences, longer paragraphs, and lengthier chapters and make meaning. For students who are challenged with the reading of longer words, the process of decoding and comprehending will be far more tedious and discouraging (Perfetti and Stafura [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref1">44</reflink>]). Lack of automaticity in word recognition and grade‐level fluency affects not only their ability to automatically decode words but also their ability to comprehend (Hiebert [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref2">22</reflink>]; Kuhn and Schwanenflugel [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref3">29</reflink>]; LaBerge and Samuels [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref4">30</reflink>]; Pressley and Allington [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref5">47</reflink>]; Sabatini et al. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref6">53</reflink>]; Toste et al. [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref7">60</reflink>]). Upper elementary students who struggle with reading are also at risk for further academic difficulties and reduced motivation (Toste et al. [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref8">60</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref9">61</reflink>]) that can gradually affect their overall motivation to read (Morgan and Fuchs [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref10">39</reflink>]). While the importance of word reading instruction for early learners is widely recognized, this focus diminishes after second grade. In upper elementary grades, the primary instructional goal shifts from decoding individual words to improving students' ability to gain knowledge from texts. However, for a significant portion of students, the transition to reading for comprehension is hindered by difficulties with basic word‐level reading skills (Vaughn et al. [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref11">67</reflink>]).</p> <p>Multisyllabic words, also called "big words" (Traga Philippakos et al. [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref12">65</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref13">64</reflink>]), present a particular challenge for readers who struggle with word recognition. These words require not only fluency in decoding but also knowledge of morphemes (roots, prefixes, and suffixes) that carry meaning. The use of typical strategies used for the reading of monosyllabic words will be insufficient in the context of multisyllabic decoding (e.g., sounding out). Without adequate strategies for decoding these complex words, students may be unable to build their vocabulary or comprehend the increasingly challenging texts they encounter in upper elementary grades (see Hiebert [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref14">22</reflink>]; Vaughn et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref15">66</reflink>]).</p> <p>Additionally, struggling readers often exhibit low motivation, which contributes to reduced comprehension and less frequent use of strategies (Boardman et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref16">8</reflink>]; Guthrie and Wigfield [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref17">21</reflink>]). Understanding the multisyllabic reading and spelling self‐efficacy and motivation of upper elementary learners is essential given the increasingly complex linguistic demands placed on students at this stage. As students shift from learning to read to reading to learn, they are expected to decode and comprehend multisyllabic words with efficiency—skills that many struggling readers have yet to master (Hiebert [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref18">22</reflink>]; Vaughn et al. [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref19">67</reflink>]). These "big words" require morphological awareness and strategic decoding processes that go beyond early reading strategies (Traga Philippakos et al. [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref20">64</reflink>]; LaBerge and Samuels [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref21">30</reflink>]). Students' self‐perceptions about their ability to decode and spell such words, along with their motivation to engage in related tasks, directly influence their reading success (Bandura [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref22">6</reflink>]; Wigfield and Guthrie [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref23">70</reflink>]). Low self‐efficacy in these areas often leads to avoidance, reduced engagement, and a cycle of underachievement (Linnenbrink and Pintrich [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref24">34</reflink>]; Toste et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref25">59</reflink>]). While interventions have shown that self‐efficacy and motivation can be improved through targeted instruction, current research remains limited in measuring these constructs specifically in relation to multisyllabic reading and spelling (Traga Philippakos et al. [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref26">63</reflink>]; Toste et al. [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref27">60</reflink>]). Due to how often upper elementary students encounter multisyllabic words (e.g., Hiebert et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref28">23</reflink>]), there is a pressing need for assessment tools. Such tools are essential for guiding instruction, strengthening intervension strategies, and boosting literacy outcomes for students. The purpose of this study is to validate a questionnaire on multisyllabic decoding and encoding.</p> <hd id="AN0188874265-3">Self‐Efficacy and Motivation</hd> <p>Self‐efficacy is broadly defined as one's perceptions about their own abilities (Bandura [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref29">5</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref30">4</reflink>]) while motivation, a highly linked concept, relates to the degree to which someone wishes to do something and is influenced highly by either internal, intrinsic sources or external, extrinsic sources, or both (Dweck and Leggett [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref31">13</reflink>]; Ryan and Deci [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref32">52</reflink>]). Self‐efficacy is often positioned as an antecedent to motivation, either leading to enhanced or stifled motivation depending upon perceived capability (Fortier et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref33">18</reflink>]; Schunk [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref34">54</reflink>]). Both self‐efficacy (Lee and Jonson‐Reid [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref35">31</reflink>]; Olivier et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref36">41</reflink>]) and motivation (Zee et al. [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref37">72</reflink>]) are predictive of academic achievement.</p> <hd id="AN0188874265-4">Motivation and Self‐Efficacy in Reading</hd> <p>Specifically, as it relates to reading, studies investigating motivation consistently report that high levels of motivation are positively associated with reading success (Guthrie and Wigfield [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref38">21</reflink>]; Logan et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref39">35</reflink>]). It is important to consider that there is likely a bidirectional relationship between motivation and reading success, where the development of reading skills significantly influences motivational processes. As students develop their reading abilities, they are more likely to experience an increase in their sense of competence and engagement in learning (Eccles and Wigfield [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref40">15</reflink>]; Parsons et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref41">42</reflink>]). This, in turn, fosters greater interest in school success and continued learning. Conversely, students who struggle with reading often experience a decline in motivation, creating a cycle where poor reading skills lead to lower engagement, which results in even greater difficulties in acquiring reading skills. For instance, students who report lower feelings of perceived competence in reading show poor task performance, are less likely to initiate reading tasks, and ultimately demonstrate lower achievement (Wigfield and Guthrie [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref42">70</reflink>]; Zimmerman [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref43">74</reflink>]). When students face the challenge of decoding multisyllabic words—words that require additional cognitive resources for both decoding and meaning construction—they may develop a negative self‐concept regarding their reading abilities (Smith et al. [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref44">58</reflink>]). This can lead to increased anxiety, avoidance, and a lack of confidence in their reading abilities. These motivational and emotional responses further hinder their ability to engage with and succeed in reading tasks (e.g., Linnenbrink and Pintrich [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref45">34</reflink>]). Therefore, it is critical to consider self‐efficacy when addressing the needs of struggling readers. Without addressing motivational barriers, students may continue to struggle with the decoding of more complex texts, including multisyllabic words.</p> <p>While research on students' self‐efficacy and emotional responses to reading and spelling multisyllabic words is relatively limited (e.g., Toste et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref46">59</reflink>]; Traga Philippakos et al. [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref47">63</reflink>]), the need for such research is increasingly apparent. As upper elementary students encounter more complex texts, the decoding and spelling of multisyllabic words become a critical skill. However, for students who struggle with decoding single‐syllable words, the challenges presented by multisyllabic words are even greater. The complexity of these words—both in terms of their length and the meaning carried by their morphemes—demands a higher level of cognitive processing (LaBerge and Samuels [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref48">30</reflink>]). As such, it is essential to develop tools that capture students' perceptions and emotional responses to these tasks, as they are integral to their reading development. Toste et al. ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref49">59</reflink>]) examined the effects of a multisyllabic word reading intervention that incorporated motivational beliefs training for a subgroup of struggling readers in grades 3 and 4. Their findings indicated that students who participated in the intervention, which combined reading instruction with motivational beliefs training, demonstrated better performance in sentence‐level comprehension tasks compared to students in the control group, who received standard reading instruction. These results emphasize the critical role that motivational beliefs play in facilitating reading success, particularly in interventions designed to address specific areas of difficulty, such as multisyllabic word reading. The study underscores the importance of considering students' motivational beliefs alongside their academic skills when designing instructional interventions.</p> <p>This research suggests a significant interaction between students' motivation and their reading outcomes. The addition of motivational beliefs training alongside reading intervention appeared to enhance students' engagement and comprehension abilities. The findings imply that addressing students' motivational beliefs, including their perceptions of their own reading competence, can contribute to better outcomes in reading interventions. This is consistent with previous literature that highlights the bidirectional relationship between motivation and academic achievement (Guthrie and Humenick [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref50">20</reflink>]; Wigfield and Guthrie [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref51">70</reflink>]). Motivated students tend to persist longer with challenging tasks, exhibit higher levels of engagement, and perform better academically, while students who struggle with motivation may face additional barriers to learning and reading development (Zimmerman and Schunk [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref52">75</reflink>]).</p> <p>In a follow‐up study, Toste et al. ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref53">60</reflink>]) extended their research to a sample of 4th and 5th grade struggling readers. In contrast to the earlier study, this replication did not reveal significant differences in reading outcomes between students who received motivational beliefs training and those who did not. However, the researchers observed an interesting shift in students' self‐concept. Students in the intervention group reported a decrease in their self‐concept following the intervention, suggesting that participation in the intervention led to a more realistic self‐assessment of their reading abilities. This finding aligns with research suggesting that interventions can foster greater self‐awareness and self‐reflection among students, which may ultimately support more accurate self‐evaluations (Bandura [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref54">6</reflink>]; Zimmerman [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref55">73</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188874265-5">Self‐Efficacy Components</hd> <p>While some research has historically examined self‐efficacy as a broad, generalized phenomenon (e.g., Sherer et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref56">57</reflink>]), subsequent studies identified multiple subcomponents that contribute to an overall self‐efficacy construct. That said, the exact subcomponents that comprise self‐efficacy are still unclear. Further, given the domain‐specific nature of self‐efficacy—in other words, one can feel efficacious in one area and completely inefficacious in another—it is important to address subcomponents of self‐efficacy in specific contexts relating to specific domains. Prior work demonstrates that items that are underspecified lead to issues with measurement (Schunk and Pajares [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref57">55</reflink>]). Capturing an individual's self‐efficacy as it relates to tasks and processes within that specific domain is critical (Bandura [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref58">7</reflink>]; Pei and O'Brien [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref59">43</reflink>]). For example, in their work developing an instrument to capture students' reading fluency self‐efficacy, Peura et al. ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref60">45</reflink>]) combine items in increasing specificity, all of which attend to fluency‐related tasks and processes, from broad reading‐related items to items that were more fluency‐related to specific items that directly addressed students' fluency. The researchers found that the highly specific and the intermediate items (i.e., not the broad items) predicted students' overall reading fluency, thus indicating the necessity for more specific items associated with the specific, focal reading tasks and processes.</p> <p>In addition to tasks and processes, a reader's affect, or their feelings toward the act of reading, is an important correlate to the overall construct of self‐efficacy. In their framework of self‐efficacy, engagement, and learning, Linnenbrink and Pintrich ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref61">34</reflink>]) identify motivational engagement factors including affect, interest, and value as elements that are recursively related to self‐efficacy and as overall impacts on students' learning and engagement. Measures of self‐efficacy often include items that relate to affective factors including the extent to which one enjoys the task or more nuanced items such as continuing to read despite being disinterested in the topic or after getting frustrated (Carroll and Fox [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref62">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>Self‐efficacy is noted to have effects (Schunk and Pajares [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref63">55</reflink>]; Liew et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref64">33</reflink>]) on students' self‐regulation, or the ability to manage cognition, emotion, and action toward a particular goal or outcome (Pintrich [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref65">46</reflink>]). In their framework of self‐efficacy, Linnenbrink and Pintrich ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref66">34</reflink>]) include cognitive engagement with self‐regulatory related processes like strategy use and metacognition as important aspects connecting self‐efficacy with learning and engagement. Zimmerman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref67">76</reflink>]) later described a cyclical process in which self‐regulatory processes were plotted across three phases—forethought (including self‐efficacy), performance (including self‐control), and self‐reflection, which loops back to the forethought phase. Further research indicates this relationship may be recursive wherein self‐regulation influences reading competence and motivation, rather than just the inverse (Liew et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref68">32</reflink>]). In addition, Code ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref69">11</reflink>]) provided a framework for agency among young adults and positioned (and later confirmed statistically) self‐efficacy and self‐regulation as contributing factors to the overall construct. While much research has sought to understand these two interdependent but related constructs, on the other hand, many consider self‐regulation and related concepts as a component of overall self‐efficacy. For example, Zumbrunn et al. ([<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref70">77</reflink>]), using confirmatory factor analysis, confirmed the validity of their writing self‐efficacy scale which included subscales of ideation, or the degree to which a respondent felt they could generate ideas, conventions, or the degree to which a respondent felt they could adhere to writing conventions, and finally, self‐efficacy, or the degree to which a respondent felt they could persist at writing. Across the board, self‐efficacy and self‐regulation are linked, and the exact pathways between these two constructs are uncertain.</p> <p>Moreover, potentially contributing to a measure of one's self‐efficacy is the extent to which one avoids certain tasks, processes, and activities. Avoidance can be an effective proxy for self‐efficacy as one theoretically is likely to avoid tasks they feel less efficacious toward (McCabe [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref71">37</reflink>]). In their intervention study focused on low performing first graders, Ronimus et al. ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref72">51</reflink>]) used teacher‐rated task avoidance and found it was strongly correlated with student reported self‐efficacy. That said, while self‐efficacy appeared to be impacted by participation in the intervention, task avoidance was not. Avoidance‐related items are commonly used in measures of reading motivation (e.g., Wigfield [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref73">68</reflink>]) but may also be important to feelings of self‐efficacy.</p> <hd id="AN0188874265-6">Present Study</hd> <p>The purpose of the present study was to develop and validate a self‐report questionnaire designed to measure students' self‐efficacy, affect, and avoidance related to the reading and spelling of multisyllabic words. By capturing students' perceptions of their own abilities and the emotional responses they associate with reading these complex words, the tool provides valuable insight into how learners view their capacity to decode and encode multisyllabic words and how these perceptions may influence their motivation and engagement. This tool can serve as a research instrument to explore the affective and cognitive dimensions of multisyllabic word reading and spelling, contributing to a more nuanced understanding of reading development in upper elementary students. Moreover, it may support future investigations examining the relationship between students' self‐efficacy and reading outcomes, including decoding accuracy, fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary development. Ultimately, findings derived from the use of this measure can inform the design of more targeted instructional interventions by identifying trends in student self‐perceptions and emotional responses—offering meaningful implications for both educational research and evidence‐based instructional practices.</p> <p>Traga Philippakos et al. ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref74">64</reflink>]) developed a questionnaire that examined grade 3 to 5 students' motivation to read and spell multisyllabic words. The exploratory factor analysis revealed three factors addressing tasks, affect, and avoidance. This was the first study that examined motivation and self‐efficacy specifically related to multisyllabic reading and spelling and not about reading in general (Traga Philippakos et al. [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref75">63</reflink>]). However, the study did not include a large sample of participants, and learners were homogenous. Also, even though the EFA revealed a factor of avoidance, the factor included only two items, and there was no correlation between avoidance and any other factors or reading measures. Regardless, though, the previous study identified relationships between the constructs of self‐efficacy for processes/tasks, affect, and reading measures of morphology, word recognition, vocabulary, sentence efficiency, and comprehension. Further, the measure was sensitive enough to reveal differences in the performance of higher‐and lower‐performing students on reading measures. Finally, the measure was sensitive enough to detect change as a result of instruction.</p> <p>The purpose of the present study was to validate the measure from the Traga Philippakos et al. ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref76">63</reflink>]) study and to include a diverse group of participants, increasing variability. Further, previous items were revised, including adding items to address self‐regulation, adding two items on the construct of avoidance, and removing one of the items that did not load with any of the factors. Thus, in the analysis, we followed the following process: First, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and then proceeded with a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (see measures). The questions that guided this investigation were the following:</p> <hd id="AN0188874265-7">Exploratory Factor Analysis</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What are the underlying dimensions (factors) of students' self‐efficacy and affect related to reading and spelling multisyllabic words, as measured by the newly developed scale?</item> <p></p> <item> How do the identified factors (e.g., processes, avoidance, self‐regulation, affect) relate to each other within the context of multisyllabic word reading and spelling?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0188874265-8">Confirmatory Factor Analysis</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What is the evidence of structural validity and internal consistency for the instrument?</item> <p></p> <item> Do the psychometric properties of the measure hold for the different groups (high vs. low reading performance)? Is the scale sensitive to differences?</item> <p></p> <item> Do the factors correlate with students' reading achievement scores, providing evidence of validity?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0188874265-9">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188874265-10">Participants and Setting</hd> <p>Participants included 395 students across grades 3 to 5 (<emph>n</emph> = 178 female) (see Table 1 for demographics). The participating schools were all located in rural areas in the southeast region of the United States and were all Title I. All sites used a program that was classified by their state as High‐Quality Instructional Material (HQIM). Instruction for Tier I used the schools' HQIMs, and Tier II instruction utilized programs that addressed the specific needs of assessed students. Thus, small‐group instruction was offered in homogeneous small groups. There was not a specific program used for multisyllabic reading and spelling. The instructional emphasis for upper elementary grades was on fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary learning in Tier II instruction, and teachers would address word‐recognition needs as those were presented based on what they knew.</p> <p>1 TABLE Participants' demographics.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Grade</th><th align="center">Female</th><th align="center">Male</th><th align="center">Black</th><th align="center">White</th><th align="center">Multiracial</th><th align="center">Hispanic</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">3rd</td><td align="center">64 (16.20%)</td><td align="center">73 (18.48%)</td><td align="center">27 (6.84%)</td><td align="center">68 (17.22%)</td><td align="center">5 (1.27%)</td><td align="center">37 (9.37%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4th</td><td align="center">51 (12.91%)</td><td align="center">74 (18.73%)</td><td align="center">22 (5.57%)</td><td align="center">57 (14.43%)</td><td align="center">4 (1.01%)</td><td align="center">42 (10.63%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">5th</td><td align="center">63 (15.95%)</td><td align="center">70 (17.72%)</td><td align="center">35 (8.86%)</td><td align="center">51 (12.91%)</td><td align="center">10 (2.53%)</td><td align="center">37 (9.37%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total</td><td align="center">178 (45.06%)</td><td align="center">217 (54.94%)</td><td align="center">84 (21.27%)</td><td align="center">176 (44.56%)</td><td align="center">19 (4.81%)</td><td align="center">116 (29.37%)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0188874265-11">Procedures</hd> <p>Students accessed the questionnaire on a tablet and electronically completed the questionnaire independently. Practice items that were unrelated to the study's focus were provided initially and modeled by the administrators so students could have a better understanding of the scale's numerical values and meaning (see Traga Philippakos and Davis [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref77">62</reflink>]). After the practice items, the administrator, who had no knowledge of scale development or the purposes of the study, read each of the sentences out loud and asked students to select a number from 0 to 100 that best supported students' confidence/certainty or affect associated with tasks. After collecting the questionnaire, students logged into their computers and completed the CAPTI subtests of word recognition, morphology, and vocabulary. The overall time for the completion of the questionnaire was 15 min. The CAPTI subscales required, on average, 9 min for their completion. Participants were given a break between the scale's completion and the CAPTI subtests.</p> <hd id="AN0188874265-12">Measures and Administration</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188874265-13">Questionnaire</hd> <p>The multisyllabic‐motivation questionnaire addressed self‐efficacy for processes/tasks (19 items), affect (6 items), self‐regulation (5 items), and avoidance (4 items). The items were based on the Traga Philippakos et al. ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref78">63</reflink>]) In the present questionnaire, two items were added to address avoidance; in the previous questionnaire, only two items were included, with an alpha of 0.67. In addition, one item was removed as it had not loaded in any of the factors, and two items were added addressing enjoyment/affect within the writing of sentences. The final questionnaire for this analysis included 34 items.</p> <p>The self‐efficacy items were on a scale of 0% (no chance) to 100% (completely sure). The scale incorporated an interval of 10% (Bandura [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref79">7</reflink>]) and the use of a Likert scale was based on previous studies (Kauffman et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref80">25</reflink>]; MacArthur et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref81">36</reflink>]; Traga Philippakos and Davis [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref82">62</reflink>]). Items on affect and avoidance also used a Likert scale of 0% (not me at all) to 100% (describes me exactly). The self‐efficacy questionnaire on tasks included items that addressed the completion of reading and spelling of multisyllabic words that had two or more syllables (e.g., I can spell big words that have two syllables; for example, mar/ket, market). The self‐efficacy on self‐regulation included items that addressed strategies to problem‐solve reading and spelling of big words (e.g., I can break big words in syllables to read them easily). Avoidance included items that indicated the goal to avoid the reading or spelling of big words (e.g., I avoid reading big words). Finally, affect addressed enjoyment and feelings toward reading and spelling of big words (e.g., I usually enjoy reading big words in sentences).</p> <hd id="AN0188874265-14">Reading Measures</hd> <p>CAPTI Assess (Sabatini et al. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref83">53</reflink>]) provides reading assessments for grades 3 to 12 and includes an assessment of foundational reading skills called ReadBasix. ReadBasix was known previously as RISE and SARA. ReadBasix includes a total of six subtests. Students completed the subtests in 2 days as Part A and Part B. Part A included the subtests of word recognition (approximately 8 min) and vocabulary (approximately 9 min). Part B included the subtests of morphology (approximately 10 min) and reading efficiency (9 min). On average, students completed Part A in 12 min and Part B in 14 min. Classification on the subtests is based on scale scores and is as follows: weak (score of 190–235), low average (score of 236–250), high average (score of 251–265), and strong (score of 266–310). ReadBasix/CAPTI battery of assessments demonstrates acceptable to strong rates of reliability with upper elementary students (range from 0.67 to 0.93; Sabatini et al. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref84">53</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188874265-15">Administration Procedures</hd> <p>Students completed the questionnaire in their classrooms and accessed it using their Chromebooks via a link posted by their teacher on Google classroom. Items were read to students by research personnel, and students selected the number that best represented their feelings or efficacy. Prior to the completion of the questionnaire, practice items were given using procedures by Traga Philippakos et al. ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref85">64</reflink>]) (e.g., how confident/sure are you that you can jump up one foot?). The completion of the scale lasted for approximately 15 min in each of the classrooms.</p> <p>Students completed the CAPTI subscales on their computer. The completion of each part was done in students' homeroom classrooms. Students wore their headsets, accessed the subtests on their Chromebooks, and independently completed their work. The completion of the test was proctored by school interventionists. Reports were generated at the ReadBasics site and were shared with the researchers without student identifiers.</p> <hd id="AN0188874265-16">Data Analytic Procedure</hd> <p>Data management and descriptive analyses were carried out using R version 4.4 (R Core Team [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref86">49</reflink>]). Modeling and hypothesis testing was conducted using Mplus version 8 (Muthén and Muthén [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref87">40</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188874265-17">Factor Analysis</hd> <p>A two‐step factor analytic approach was used to test our primary research hypothesis: that the factor structure identified by Traga Philippakos et al. ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref88">63</reflink>]) would be recovered in a new, more heterogeneous sample. As an initial step, both Bartlett's test of Sphericity and the Kaiser‐Meyer‐Olkin test were conducted to determine whether item inter‐correlations supported proceeding to factor analysis (Dziuban and Shirkey [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref89">14</reflink>]). Tests were carried out using the "psych" package (Revelle [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref90">50</reflink>]) implemented in R, and both indicators provided strong evidence to proceed to factor analysis, for the entire sample as well as each of the random splits: Bartlett's <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, KMO > 0.90. Overall reliability of the 34‐item measure was assessed using both Cronbach's alpha (<emph>α</emph>) and McDonald's Omega (<emph>ω</emph><subs><emph>t</emph></subs>; McDonald [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref91">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>To ensure the validity of the factor structure, the total sample (<emph>N</emph> = 380) was randomly divided into two approximately equal groups, balanced on reading ability (low/high performers), grade (3rd‐5th), reported gender (female/not female), and racial and ethnic identification (White, Hispanic, Black, or Other). The first subsample (<emph>n</emph> = 191) was used to conduct an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), which served to test (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref92">1</reflink>) whether the underlying factor structure identified in Traga Philippakos et al. ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref93">63</reflink>]) would be recovered in a more heterogeneous sample; and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref94">2</reflink>) whether further model refinements were appropriate.</p> <p>The resulting factor structure was then re‐evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the second subsample (<emph>n</emph> = 189). This two‐step process is consistent with best practices in scale development and validation (e.g., Fabrigar et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref95">16</reflink>]; Worthington and Whittaker [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref96">71</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188874265-18">Exploratory Factor Analysis</hd> <p>Although a four‐factor structure was identified in our previous work, the EFA step was repeated in the present study for two reasons. First, modifications were made to the measure following the previous study (i.e., items were added). Second, the larger number of items in the ostensible "Self‐Efficacy for Processes" factor, identified in the previous study, made the presence of minor factors a likelihood. Thus, a preliminary EFA was conducted on the full set of items to determine whether the original four‐factor structure could be recovered. Maximum likelihood with robust standard errors (MLR) was selected as the factor extraction method given the heavy skew observed in most items. An oblique rotation method (i.e., geomin rotation) was applied to factor loadings given the correlations between ostensible factors observed in the previous study.</p> <p>Factor identification was guided by a combination of strategies, including comparison of the relative magnitude of eigenvalues via scree plots, as well as the magnitude and statistical significance of individual factor loadings. Specifically, the elbow rule (as opposed to the Kaiser criterion > 1.0) was applied when examining eigenvalues. Further, items for which rotated factor loadings failed to achieve statistical significance and a magnitude ≥ 0.35 for any factor were removed. Lastly, items with cross‐loadings that met both loading criteria were reviewed, and theory‐driven decisions were made to either remove, allow cross‐loading, or assign to a single factor.</p> <p>Once the number of factors to extract had been identified, we tested for potential minor factors within the larger "Self‐Efficacy for Processes" factor. To this end, exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM; Asparouhov and Muthén [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref97">2</reflink>]) was employed, in which factor structure was not explicitly specified for items 1–18 (as in typical EFA) but was specified for the remaining items (as in CFA). Results of the ESEM model were used to identify which residual covariances to freely estimate moving forward, and which to leave constrained.</p> <hd id="AN0188874265-19">Confirmatory Factor Analysis</hd> <p>The second half of the total sample random split (<emph>n</emph> = 189) was used to confirm the factor structure identified in the EFA procedure; MLR was again used for factor extraction. Model fit was assessed using combination recommendations set forth by Hu and Bentler ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref98">24</reflink>]): RMSEA < 0.06, SRMR < 0.08, CFI ≥ 0.95.</p> <hd id="AN0188874265-20">Measurement Invariance and Construct Validity</hd> <p>Following the EFA/CFA process, the full sample was brought back together to test for invariance across reading ability groups (i.e., high vs. low performers), for sensitivity of factor scores to reading ability group classification, and for predictive associations of factor scores with observed scores on established literacy tests (CAPTI assessments). To that end, chi‐square comparisons, scaled for MLR estimation (Asparouhov and Muthen [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref99">1</reflink>]), were used to test invariance: configural, metric, or scalar. Given sufficient evidence of invariance, multiple regression was used to test for differences in factor scores conditional on reading ability group and grade.</p> <p>Finally, factor scores were regressed on each of the CAPTI subtest scores, controlling for reading ability group classification. However, these regression models indicated the presence of net (or negative) suppressor effects (Krus and Wilkinson [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref100">28</reflink>]) among factor scores. Thus, a two‐pronged approach was taken to testing construct validity. First, each factor score was individually regressed onto CAPTI subtest scores, controlling for reading ability classification and grade level. Next, we estimated a second‐order factor, in which the original four latent factors served as indicators of an overarching factor: Motivation for Multisyllabic Reading and Spelling. Scores for this general factor were then regressed onto CAPTI subtest scores as a means of testing construct validity for the measure as a whole.</p> <hd id="AN0188874265-21">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188874265-22">Exploratory Factor Analysis</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188874265-23">RQ1. What Are the Underlying Dimensions (Factors) of Students' Self‐Efficacy and Affect Relat...</hd> <p>Reliability for the entire 34‐item measure was high (<emph>α</emph> = 0.93, <emph>ω</emph><subs><emph>t</emph></subs> = 0.97). However, the initial EFA indicated that item 34 cross‐loaded significantly onto both the self‐efficacy for processes/tasks (<emph>λ</emph> = 0.351, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05) and affect factors (<emph>λ</emph> = 0.435, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05), but not on the self‐regulation factor for which it was hypothesized. The decision was made to remove this item from the measure and re‐run the EFA. Eigen values produced from the remaining 33 items suggested a four‐to‐five factor solution was appropriate; however, no items loaded significantly on the fifth factor. Further, the first four factors accounted for 66.4% of the variance in the data; whereas, additional factors contributed minimally to the proportion of variance accounted for and merely subdivided the self‐efficacy for processes/tasks factor into potential minor factors while leaving the other three hypothesized factors intact. Lastly, all rotated item loadings exceeded 0.35. Given these results, along with findings from the previous study, we proceeded with the four‐factor solution (see Figure 1). The final factor structure established in the exploratory analysis can be found in Table 2. Table 3 contains information on model fit statistics.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01oct25/rrq70059-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70059-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Second‐order measurement model. *All items loaded significantly at p < 0.001." /> </p> <p></p> <p>2 TABLE Exploratory factor analysis loadings.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Questionnaire items</th><th align="center">Self‐efficacy tasks/processes for reading and spelling</th><th align="center">Factors</th></tr><tr><th align="center">Affect</th><th align="center">Self‐efficacy for self‐regulation</th><th align="center">Avoidance</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">0.642</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">2</td><td align="center">0.706</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">3</td><td align="center">0.759</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">4</td><td align="center">0.700</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">5</td><td align="center">0.784</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">6</td><td align="center">0.811</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">7</td><td align="center">0.640</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">8.</td><td align="center">0.661</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">9</td><td align="center">0.821</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">10</td><td align="center">0.804</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">11</td><td align="center">0.853</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">12</td><td align="center">0.802</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">13</td><td align="center">0.815</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">14</td><td align="center">0.855</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">15</td><td align="center">0.829</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">16</td><td align="center">0.640</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">17</td><td align="center">0.675</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">18</td><td align="center">0.653</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">19</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.845</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">21</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.821</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">23</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.928</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">24</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.859</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">26</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.894</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">27</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.871</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">28</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.584</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">30</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.684</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">31</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.726</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">32</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.796</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">33</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.808</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">20</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.869</td></tr><tr><td align="left">22</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.864</td></tr><tr><td align="left">25</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.658</td></tr><tr><td align="left">29</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.715</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Eigen value</td><td align="center">14.34</td><td align="center">3.93</td><td align="center">1.53</td><td align="center">2.12</td></tr><tr><td align="left">% of variance</td><td align="center">43.47%</td><td align="center">11.90%</td><td align="center">4.64%</td><td align="center">6.44%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cumulative %</td><td align="center">43.47%</td><td align="center">55.37%</td><td align="center">60.01%</td><td align="center">66.45%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">α</td><td align="center">0.94</td><td align="center">0.95</td><td align="center">0.84</td><td align="center">0.86</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 * All factor loadings significant at <emph>p</emph> < 0.001.</p> <p>3 TABLE Model fit statistics for EFA, CFA, low and high reading ability groups, and full sample for four‐factor and second‐order models.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center"><italic>ω</italic><xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></th><th align="center"><italic>χ</italic><sup>2</sup></th><th align="center">df</th><th align="center">CFI</th><th align="center">SRMR</th><th align="center">RMSEA</th><th align="center">LL<sub>90</sub></th><th align="center">UL<sub>90</sub></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Factor analysis</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Exploratory (N = 191)</td><td align="center">0.93</td><td align="center">817.796</td><td align="center">478</td><td align="center">0.910</td><td align="center">0.057</td><td align="center">0.061</td><td align="center">0.054</td><td align="center">0.068</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Confirmatory (N = 189)</td><td align="center">0.95</td><td align="center">688.729</td><td align="center">478</td><td align="center">0.930</td><td align="center">0.062</td><td align="center">0.048</td><td align="center">0.040</td><td align="center">0.056</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Reading ability</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Low (N = 238)</td><td align="center">0.94</td><td align="center">703.896</td><td align="center">478</td><td align="center">0.941</td><td align="center">0.055</td><td align="center">0.045</td><td align="center">0.037</td><td align="center">0.051</td></tr><tr><td align="left">High (N = 142)</td><td align="center">0.94</td><td align="center">979.478</td><td align="center">478</td><td align="center">0.844</td><td align="center">0.075</td><td align="center">0.086</td><td align="center">0.078</td><td align="center">0.094</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Full sample</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4‐factor model (N = 380)</td><td align="center">0.95</td><td align="center">810.394</td><td align="center">478</td><td align="center">0.945</td><td align="center">0.049</td><td align="center">0.043</td><td align="center">0.038</td><td align="center">0.048</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2nd order model (N = 380)</td><td align="center">0.93</td><td align="center">827.777</td><td align="center">480</td><td align="center">0.943</td><td align="center">0.055</td><td align="center">0.044</td><td align="center">0.039</td><td align="center">0.049</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 * Reliability estimate in which tau equivalence is not assumed.</p> <hd id="AN0188874265-25">RQ2. How Do the Identified Factors (e.g., Processes, Avoidance, Self‐Regulation, Affect) Rela...</hd> <p>Significant correlations were found among all four factors (see Table 4). Specifically, there were positive correlations between self‐efficacy for tasks, self‐efficacy for self‐regulation, and affect (<emph>p</emph> < 0.001), and all three were negatively correlated with avoidance (<emph>p</emph> < 0.005).</p> <p>4 TABLE Pearson correlations among factors.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">SE processes/tasks</th><th align="center">Affect</th><th align="center">SE self‐regulation</th><th align="center">Avoidance</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">EFA factors (N = 191)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SE processes/tasks</td></tr><tr><td align="left">r</td><td align="center">1.00</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">p</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Affect</td></tr><tr><td align="left">r</td><td align="center">0.503</td><td align="center">1.00</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">p</td><td align="center">< 0.001</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">SE self‐regulation</td></tr><tr><td align="left">r</td><td align="center">0.644</td><td align="center">0.645</td><td align="center">1.00</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">p</td><td align="center">< 0.001</td><td align="center">< 0.001</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Avoidance</td></tr><tr><td align="left">r</td><td align="center">−0.292</td><td align="center">−0.507</td><td align="center">−0.282</td><td align="center">1.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">p</td><td align="center">0.001</td><td align="center">< 0.001</td><td align="center">0.002</td><td align="center">—</td></tr><tr><td align="left">CFA factors (N = 189)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SE processes/tasks</td></tr><tr><td align="left">r</td><td align="center">1.00</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">p</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Affect</td></tr><tr><td align="left">r</td><td align="center">0.610</td><td align="center">1.00</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">p</td><td align="center">< 0.001</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">SE self‐regulation</td></tr><tr><td align="left">r</td><td align="center">0.585</td><td align="center">0.609</td><td align="center">1.00</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">p</td><td align="center">< 0.001</td><td align="center">< 0.001</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Avoidance</td></tr><tr><td align="left">r</td><td align="center">−0.257</td><td align="center">−0.459</td><td align="center">−0.290</td><td align="center">1.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">p</td><td align="center">0.002</td><td align="center">< 0.001</td><td align="center">0.002</td><td align="center">—</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 * <emph>p</emph> ≤ 0.002 for all correlations.</p> <hd id="AN0188874265-26">Confirmatory Factor Analysis</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188874265-27">RQ3. What Is the Evidence of Structural Validity and Internal Consistency for the Instrument?</hd> <p>Model fit indices suggested acceptable‐to‐good fit: RMSE = 0.048 (CI<subs>90</subs>: 0.040–0.056), CFI = 0.93, SRMR = 0.062 (Table 3). Full model results are presented in Table 5. All standardized item loadings exceeded 0.60 and were statistically significant (<emph>p</emph> < 0.001). Internal consistencies of the factors were acceptable (see alphas; Kline [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref101">27</reflink>]). Furthermore, significance was observed for all residual covariances established in the exploratory analysis: covariance of item 17 with item 18 (<emph>p</emph> = 0.076). Lastly, all factors were significantly correlated (Table 4), with self‐efficacy for tasks/processes, affect, and self‐efficacy for self‐regulation sharing positive correlations with each other (<emph>p</emph> < 0.001) and negative correlations with avoidance (<emph>p</emph> < 0.005).</p> <p>5 TABLE Confirmatory factor analysis loadings.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Questionnaire items</th><th align="center">Self‐efficacy tasks/processes for reading and spelling</th><th align="center">Factors</th></tr><tr><th align="center">Affect</th><th align="center">Self‐efficacy for self‐regulation</th><th align="center">Avoidance</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">0.632</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">2</td><td align="center">0.675</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">3</td><td align="center">0.731</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">4</td><td align="center">0.707</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">5</td><td align="center">0.858</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">6</td><td align="center">0.796</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">7</td><td align="center">0.640</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">8.</td><td align="center">0.720</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">9</td><td align="center">0.825</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">10</td><td align="center">0.769</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">11</td><td align="center">0.774</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">12</td><td align="center">0.839</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">13</td><td align="center">0.75</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">14</td><td align="center">0.765</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">15</td><td align="center">0.768</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">16</td><td align="center">0.701</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">17</td><td align="center">0.711</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">18</td><td align="center">0.748</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">19</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.715</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">21</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.697</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">23</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.833</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">24</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.863</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">26</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.834</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">27</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.826</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">28</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.621</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">30</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.792</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">31</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.754</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">32</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.716</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">33</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.685</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">20</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.776</td></tr><tr><td align="left">22</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.803</td></tr><tr><td align="left">25</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.635</td></tr><tr><td align="left">29</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.697</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Eigen value</td><td align="center">13.84</td><td align="center">3.56</td><td align="center">1.62</td><td align="center">2.07</td></tr><tr><td align="left">% of variance</td><td align="center">41.94%</td><td align="center">10.79%</td><td align="center">4.90%</td><td align="center">6.26%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cumulative %</td><td align="center">41.94%</td><td align="center">52.73%</td><td align="center">57.63%</td><td align="center">63.89%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">α</td><td align="center">0.94</td><td align="center">0.91</td><td align="center">0.84</td><td align="center">0.82</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 * All factor loadings significant at <emph>p</emph> < 0.001.</p> <hd id="AN0188874265-28">RQ4. Do the Psychometric Properties of the Measure Hold for the Different Groups (High vs. Lo...</hd> <p>In order to examine the sensitivity of the measure to detect differences between readers of higher and lower reading ability, differences were investigated between learners with different levels of performance on CAPTI word recognition and morphology measures. Chi‐squared difference testing, scaled for MLR estimation, provided evidence for scalar invariance (see Table 6), indicating that mean differences in the variance shared across factor items were accounted for by mean differences in the latent factors (Putnick and Bornstein [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref102">48</reflink>]). Thus, between groups comparisons of factor scores were appropriate, as was their utilization as covariates in further analyses. Results of reading ability regressed on factor scores showed that, controlling for grade level, higher‐performing students had higher scores on self‐efficacy for processes/tasks (<emph>p</emph> < 0.001), self‐efficacy for self‐regulation (<emph>p</emph> < 0.001), affect (<emph>p</emph> = 0.002), and lower scores for avoidance (<emph>p</emph> = 0.002) compared to their lower‐performing peers (see Table 7).</p> <p>6 TABLE Tests of measurement invariance between reading ability groups.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Invariance level</th><th align="center"><italic>χ</italic><sup>2</sup></th><th align="center">df</th><th align="center"><italic>χ</italic><sup>2</sup>/df</th><th align="center">Parameters</th><th align="center">Scaling factor</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Configural</td><td align="center">1662.611</td><td align="center">956</td><td align="center">1.739</td><td align="center">232</td><td align="center">1.237</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Metric</td><td align="center">1690.342</td><td align="center">985</td><td align="center">1.716</td><td align="center">203</td><td align="center">1.236</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Scalar</td><td align="center">1699.585</td><td align="center">1014</td><td align="center">1.676</td><td align="center">174</td><td align="center">1.229</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Invariance test</th><th align="center">Δ<italic>χ</italic><sup>2</sup></th><th align="center">df</th><th align="center"><italic>p</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Configural vs.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Metric</td><td align="center">27.301</td><td align="center">29</td><td align="center">0.555</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Scalar</td><td align="center">29.916</td><td align="center">58</td><td align="center">0.999</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Metric vs.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Scalar</td><td align="center">12.884<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="center">29</td><td align="center">0.999</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>5 a Adjustment to scaling factor made per recommendations in Asparouhov and Muthén ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref103">3</reflink>]): adjusted scaling factor = 1.228.</item> <item>7 TABLE Reading ability and grade level regressions on factor scores.</item> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Factors</th><th align="center">Reading and grade level</th><th align="center"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="center">SE</th><th align="center"><italic>p</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Self‐efficacy for processes/tasks</td><td align="center">Reading ability</td><td align="center">0.547</td><td align="center">0.080</td><td align="center">< 0.001<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn9" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">4th grade</td><td align="center">0.350</td><td align="center">0.093</td><td align="center">< 0.001<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn9" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">5th grade</td><td align="center">0.115</td><td align="center">0.092</td><td align="center">0.213</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Affect</td><td align="center">Reading ability</td><td align="center">0.276</td><td align="center">0.088</td><td align="center">0.002<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn8" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">4th grade</td><td align="center">0.060</td><td align="center">0.103</td><td align="center">0.558</td></tr><tr><td align="center">5th grade</td><td align="center">−0.333</td><td align="center">0.102</td><td align="center">0.001<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn8" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Self‐efficacy for self‐regulation</td><td align="center">Reading ability</td><td align="center">0.275</td><td align="center">0.076</td><td align="center">< 0.001<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn9" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">4th grade</td><td align="center">0.019</td><td align="center">0.089</td><td align="center">0.834</td></tr><tr><td align="center">5th grade</td><td align="center">−0.186</td><td align="center">0.088</td><td align="center">0.036<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Avoidance</td><td align="center">Reading ability</td><td align="center">−0.254</td><td align="center">0.083</td><td align="center">0.002<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn8" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">4th grade</td><td align="center">−0.039</td><td align="center">0.097</td><td align="center">0.690</td></tr><tr><td align="center">5th grade</td><td align="center">−0.186</td><td align="center">0.097</td><td align="center">0.125</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Multisyllabic motivation</td><td align="center">Reading ability</td><td align="center">0.316</td><td align="center">0.064</td><td align="center">< 0.001<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn9" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">4th grade</td><td align="center">0.105</td><td align="center">0.075</td><td align="center">0.165</td></tr><tr><td align="center">5th grade</td><td align="center">−0.152</td><td align="center">0.075</td><td align="center">0.043<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>6 <emph>Note:</emph> Grade level was dummy coded, with 3rd grade serving as the referent category.</item> <item>7 *  < 0.05.</item> <item>8 **  < 0.01.</item> <item>9 ***  < 0.001.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0188874265-29">RQ5. Do the Factors Correlate With Students' Reading Achievement Scores, Providing Evidence o...</hd> <p>Results of individual factor regressions are presented in (Table 8). Controlling for reading ability and grade level, factor scores for self‐efficacy for processes/tasks were positively associated with all CAPTI subtest scores (<emph>p</emph> < 0.001); whereas factor scores for affect were only significantly associated with morphology (<emph>p</emph> < 0.01). Factor scores for self‐efficacy for self‐regulation were significantly associated with word recognition, morphology, and sentence processing (<emph>p</emph> < 0.05), and were marginally associated with vocabulary (<emph>p</emph> = 0.062). Avoidance was significantly negatively associated with word recognition, vocabulary, and morphology (<emph>p</emph> < 0.05). Reading ability was significantly positively associated with all CAPTI subtest scores (<emph>p</emph> < 0.05); however, grade level was not consistently associated with any of the CAPTI subtest scores.</p> <p>8 TABLE Factor scores regressed on CAPTI scores, controlling for reading ability and grade level.*</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Factor</th><th align="center">CAPTI sub‐score</th><th align="center"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="center">SE</th><th align="center"><italic>p</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Self‐efficacy for processes/tasks</td><td align="center">Word recognition</td><td align="center">2.775</td><td align="center">0.644</td><td align="center">< 0.001<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn13" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">Vocabulary</td><td align="center">2.737</td><td align="center">0.539</td><td align="center">< 0.001<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn13" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">Morphology</td><td align="center">3.016</td><td align="center">0.624</td><td align="center">< 0.001<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn13" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">Sentence processing</td><td align="center">4.048</td><td align="center">0.919</td><td align="center">< 0.001<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn13" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">Reading efficacy</td><td align="center">3.893</td><td align="center">0.748</td><td align="center">< 0.001<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn13" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Affect</td><td align="center">Word recognition</td><td align="center">0.732</td><td align="center">0.595</td><td align="center">0.219</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Vocabulary</td><td align="center">0.446</td><td align="center">0.503</td><td align="center">0.376</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Morphology</td><td align="center">1.584</td><td align="center">0.577</td><td align="center">0.006<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn12" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">Sentence processing</td><td align="center">0.462</td><td align="center">0.832</td><td align="center">0.579</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Reading efficacy</td><td align="center">0.757</td><td align="center">0.706</td><td align="center">0.284</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Self‐efficacy for self‐regulation</td><td align="center">Word recognition</td><td align="center">1.557</td><td align="center">0.687</td><td align="center">0.024<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn11" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">Vocabulary</td><td align="center">1.097</td><td align="center">0.587</td><td align="center">0.062</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Morphology</td><td align="center">2.436</td><td align="center">0.670</td><td align="center">< 0.001<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn13" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">Sentence processing</td><td align="center">2.226</td><td align="center">0.929</td><td align="center">0.017<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn11" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">Reading efficacy</td><td align="center">1.224</td><td align="center">0.823</td><td align="center">0.138</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Avoidance</td><td align="center">Word recognition</td><td align="center">−1.420</td><td align="center">0.627</td><td align="center">0.024<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn11" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">Vocabulary</td><td align="center">−1.312</td><td align="center">0.528</td><td align="center">0.013<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn11" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">Morphology</td><td align="center">−1.831</td><td align="center">0.609</td><td align="center">0.003<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn12" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">Sentence processing</td><td align="center">−1.093</td><td align="center">0.865</td><td align="center">0.208</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Reading efficacy</td><td align="center">−0.843</td><td align="center">0.750</td><td align="center">0.262</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Multisyllabic motivation</td><td align="center">Word recognition</td><td align="center">2.253</td><td align="center">0.807</td><td align="center">0.006<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn12" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">Vocabulary</td><td align="center">1.859</td><td align="center">0.685</td><td align="center">0.007<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn12" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">Morphology</td><td align="center">3.298</td><td align="center">0.781</td><td align="center">< 0.001<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn13" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">Sentence processing</td><td align="center">2.658</td><td align="center">1.110</td><td align="center">0.017<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn11" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">Reading efficacy</td><td align="center">2.440</td><td align="center">0.961</td><td align="center">0.012<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn11" /></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>10 <emph>Note:</emph> Model results including reading ability and grade level estimates in Supporting Information.</item> <item>11 *  < 0.05.</item> <item>12 **  < 0.01.</item> <item>13 ***  < 0.001.</item> </ulist> <p>Model fit remained strong when incorporating the higher order factor—multisyllabic motivation—into the model: RMSEA = 0.044 (CI90: 0.039–0.049); CFI = 0.943, SRMR = 0.055. Scores for the general multisyllabic motivation factor were positively and significantly associated with all CAPTI subtest scores (<emph>p</emph> < 0.02).</p> <hd id="AN0188874265-30">Discussion</hd> <p>The purpose of the present study was to refine and validate a self‐report questionnaire designed to measure upper‐elementary students' self‐efficacy, affect, and avoidance related to reading and spelling of multisyllabic words. This present study expands the work by Traga Philippakos et al. ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref104">63</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref105">65</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref106">64</reflink>]), who initially developed the measure for advanced decoding and encoding and identified three latent factors. However, this initial work was limited in sample diversity. Limitations from the previous study were addressed by expanding the participant pool to increase heterogeneity and by revising items within the instrument to enhance its robustness. The present results provide strong evidence for the psychometric soundness and structural integrity of the revised measure across a sample of greater demographic diversity and a wider range of reading abilities.</p> <p>All four factors were significantly interrelated in theoretically coherent ways. Positive correlations among the three constructs of self‐efficacy for processes and tasks, affect, and self‐efficacy for self‐regulation and their shared negative association with avoidance align with prior work (see Traga Philippakos et al. [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref107">65</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref108">64</reflink>]) and indicate the interdependence of motivation constructs with literacy tasks. Further, the findings support prior work suggesting that students' motivation toward specific reading‐related tasks is best understood through multiple, interrelated constructs (Wigfield and Guthrie [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref109">70</reflink>]; Klassen et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref110">26</reflink>]). Factor comparisons across reading ability subgroups were psychometrically appropriate; thereby supporting the use of these factor scores in subsequent analyses as well as in educational decision‐making.</p> <p>Exploratory structural equation modeling revealed four potential minor factors within the self‐efficacy for processes/tasks factor, indicating that students differentiate among aspects of strategy use and process management when considering their reading and spelling work/capabilities. This aligns with Bandura's ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref111">6</reflink>]) theory of self‐efficacy, which suggests that domain specific and task specific beliefs can be further decomposed into finer judgments related to strategies, effort, and persistence. This factor structure echoes findings in previous motivation research, where self‐efficacy for reading is often multidimensional (see also Shell et al. [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref112">56</reflink>]; Bråten et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref113">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>Regression analyses examining associations between motivational constructs and external reading outcomes provided further evidence of construct validity. Self‐efficacy for processes emerged as a robust predictor, positively associated with all assessed reading skills (<emph>p</emph> < 0.001), underscoring the central role of task‐specific confidence in students' work on multisyllabic reading and spelling. Self‐efficacy for self‐regulation and avoidance also demonstrated significant relationships, though the strength of the association is less strong with morphology and word recognition. Interestingly, affect, while strongly correlated with other factors, did not predict reading outcomes. These findings potentially suggest that emotional reactions alone may be insufficient for explaining individual differences in reading achievement; whereas, self‐efficacy related to tasks for completion of reading and spelling is more sensitive. A higher‐order factor representing general motivation toward multisyllabic word tasks also demonstrated significant associations with key reading components, further supporting the coherence and educational relevance of the measure (Wigfield et al. [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref114">69</reflink>]; Guthrie et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref115">19</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188874265-31">Implications for Research and Practice</hd> <p>Findings from this study offer important implications for both educational research and classroom practice. The structure of the measure, that includes more than one factor/dimension, highlights the complexity of upper‐elementary learners' motivational profiles in reading and spelling multisyllabic words. Further research could potentially examine how distinct components (e.g., process self‐efficacy) contribute uniquely to reading performance. The identification of a higher‐order motivation factor also suggests the potential for developing composite scores for use in broader models of reading instruction. Future research could also examine learners' profiles in reading (in general) using a reader's motivation questionnaire, and the relationship with multisyllabic reading and spelling. Thus, examine whether factors related to the reading of larger morphological units influence (and in what ways they do) the overall reading attitudes and motivation to read. Also, we estimated a second‐order factor, using the original four latent factors as indicators of a higher‐order construct labeled motivation for multisyllabic reading and spelling. Future research, using a new sample of learners, could examine the presence of an overarching factor and the relationship of the subfactors in predicting reading outcomes.</p> <p>While direct classroom use may not be practical or feasible due to the high number of learners and the many competing demands on teachers' time, the instrument offers a valuable means for researchers and educational specialists to assess students' motivation as it relates to multisyllabic word reading and spelling, and to monitor changes associated with targeted instruction. By identifying students who exhibit high avoidance or low self‐efficacy in decoding complex words, the tool can support research efforts aimed at designing and refining interventions that address both cognitive and motivational dimensions of literacy learning. Its demonstrated sensitivity to individual differences and instructional impact suggests potential utility in informing instructional planning and in contributing to data collection within broader educational frameworks, such as multi‐tiered systems of support (MTSS; Coyne et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref116">12</reflink>]; Fien et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref117">17</reflink>]). In this context, the instrument can serve as a research‐based diagnostic and evaluative tool, helping to shape more responsive, evidence‐based literacy practices at the systems level.</p> <hd id="AN0188874265-32">Limitations and Directions for Future Research</hd> <p>Despite the study's strengths, several limitations should be considered and discussed. Thus, even though the present sample was more diverse than that of the original study, broader replication across varying geographic, linguistic, and instructional contexts is necessary to further establish generalizability. Therefore, it would be important to conduct a CFA with a much larger sample that varies further in reading performance, demographics, and linguistic characteristics. Moreover, while external reading measures (CAPTI) were used to establish construct validity, this was the only reading measure utilized. The measure was computerized, and no other alternative reading measure was used. It would be important to incorporate other reading measures that would closely relate to the constructs under investigation (e.g., morphology and spelling).</p> <hd id="AN0188874265-33">Conclusion</hd> <p>This study offers evidence for the validity and reliability of a refined measure of students' motivation specific to multisyllabic word reading and spelling. The instrument captures a multidimensional construct that includes self‐efficacy for processes related to multisyllabic reading and spelling, affect, self‐efficacy for self‐regulation, and avoidance, all of which are meaningfully related to reading outcomes. The measure holds promise for advancing both research on reading motivation and instructional practices to support confident readers, especially in upper‐elementary settings, where the presence of multisyllabic words can affect learners' access to reading and willingness to read.</p> <hd id="AN0188874265-34">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0188874265-35">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>Research data are not shared.</p> <ref id="AN0188874265-36"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref92" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Funding: The research reported here was supported by the Reading Reimagined program of the Advanced Education Research and Development Fund (AERDF no. IC‐READ_0624‐UTK). The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of Reading Reimagined or AERDF.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref94" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> [Correction added on 10 October 2025, after first online publication: The third author's first name has been corrected in this version.]</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0188874265-37"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Asparouhov, T., and B. Muthen. 2006. "Robust Chi Square Difference Testing With Mean and Variance Adjusted Test Statistics. Mplus Web Notes: No. 10." https://<ulink href="http://www.statmodel.com/examples/webnote.shtml#web10">www.statmodel.com/examples/webnote.shtml#web10</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Asparouhov, T., and B. Muthén. 2009. " Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling." Structural Equation Modeling 16, no. 1 : 397 – 438.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref103" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Asparouhov, T., and B. Muthén. 2014. " Auxiliary Variables in Mixture Modeling: Three‐Step Approaches Using Mplus." Structural Equation Modeling 21, no. 3 : 329 – 341. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.915181.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref30" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. 1977. " Self‐Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change." Psychological Review 84, no. 2 : 191 – 215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐295X.84.2.191.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref29" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice‐Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref22" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. 1997. Self‐Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. W.H. Freeman.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref58" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. 2006. " Guide for Constructing Self‐Efficacy Scales." In Self‐Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, edited by T. Urdan and F. Pajares, 307 – 337. Information Age Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref16" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Boardman, A. G., G. Roberts, S. Vaughn, J. Wexler, C. S. Murray, and M. Kosanovich. 2008. "Effective Instruction for Adolescent Struggling Readers: A Practice Brief. RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction."</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref113" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bråten, I., L. E. Ferguson, Ø. Anmarkrud, and H. I. Strømsø. 2013. " Prediction of Learning and Comprehension When Adolescents Read Multiple Texts: The Roles of Word‐Level Processing, Strategic Approach, and Reading Motivation." Reading and Writing 26, no. 3 : 321 – 348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐012‐9371‐x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carroll, J. M., and A. C. Fox. 2017. " Reading Self‐Efficacy Predicts Word Reading but Not Comprehension in Both Girls and Boys." Frontiers in Psychology 7 : 2056. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02056.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Code, J. 2020. " Agency for Learning: Intention, Motivation, Self‐Efficacy and Self‐Regulation." Frontiers in Education 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00019.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coyne, M. D., A. Oldham, S. M. Dougherty, et al. 2018. " Evaluating the Effects of Supplemental Reading Intervention Within an MTSS or RTI Reading Reform Initiative Using a Regression Discontinuity Design." Exceptional Children 84, no. 4 : 350 – 367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918772791.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dweck, C. S., and E. L. Leggett. 1988. " A Social‐Cognitive Approach to Motivation and Personality." Psychological Review 95, no. 2 : 256 – 273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐295X.95.2.256.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dziuban, C. D., and E. C. Shirkey. 1974. " When Is a Correlation Matrix Appropriate for Factor Analysis? Some Decision Rules." Psychological Bulletin 81, no. 6 : 358 – 361.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eccles, J. S., and A. Wigfield. 2002. " Motivational Beliefs, Values, and Goals." Annual Review of Psychology 53, no. 1 : 109 – 132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fabrigar, L. R., D. T. Wegener, R. C. MacCallum, and E. J. Strahan. 1999. " Evaluating the Use of Exploratory Factor Analysis in Psychological Research." Psychological Methods 4, no. 3 : 272 – 299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082‐989X.4.3.272.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fien, H., N. J. Nelson, K. Smolkowski, et al. 2021. " A Conceptual Replication Study of the Enhanced Core Reading Instruction MTSS‐Reading Model." Exceptional Children 87, no. 3 : 265 – 288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402920953763.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fortier, M. S., R. J. Vallerand, and F. Guay. 1995. " Academic Motivation and School Performance: Toward a Structural Model." Contemporary Educational Psychology 20, no. 3 : 257 – 274.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guthrie, J. T., A. L. W. Hoa, A. Wigfield, S. M. Tonks, N. M. Humenick, and E. Littles. 2007. " Reading Motivation and Reading Comprehension Growth in the Later Elementary Years." Contemporary Educational Psychology 32, no. 3 : 282 – 313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.05.004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guthrie, J. T., and N. M. Humenick. 2004. " Motivating Students to Read: Evidence for Classroom Practices That Increase Reading Motivation and Achievement." In The Voice of Evidence in Reading Research, edited by P. McCardle and V. Chhabra, 329 – 354. Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guthrie, J. T., and A. Wigfield. 2000. " Engagement and Motivation in Reading." In Handbook of Reading Research, edited by M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, and R. Barr, vol. 3, 403 – 422. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hiebert, E. H. 2022. " When Students Perform at the Below Basic Level on the NAEP: What Does It Mean and What Can Educators Do? " Reading Teacher 75, no. 5 : 631 – 639. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2082.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hiebert, E. H., A. Pugh, and D. M. Kearns. 2024. " The Presence and Progression of Rare Vocabulary in Texts Across Elementary Grades and Between Genres." Education Sciences 14, no. 12 : 1314. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14121314.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu, L., and P. M. Bentler. 1999. " Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives." Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6, no. 1 : 1 – 55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kauffman, D. F., R. Zhao, M. S. Dempsey, M. G. Zeleny, S. Wang, and R. H. Bruning. 2010. "Achievement Goals' Impact on 11th Grade Students' Affect, Selfefficacy, and Writing Achievement. In Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association."</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klassen, R. M., L. L. Krawchuk, and S. Rajani. 2008. " Academic Procrastination of Undergraduates: Low Self‐Efficacy to Self‐Regulate Predicts Higher Levels of Procrastination." Contemporary Educational Psychology 33, no. 4 : 915 – 931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.07.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kline, P. 1999. The Handbook of Psychological Testing. 2nd ed. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krus, D. J., and S. M. Wilkinson. 1986. " Demonstration of Properties of a Suppressor Variable." Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 18, no. 1 : 21 – 24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuhn, M. R., and P. J. Schwanenflugel. 2019. " Prosody, Pacing, and Situational Fluency (or Why Fluency Matters for Older Readers)." Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 62, no. 4 : 363 – 368. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.867.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> LaBerge, D., and S. J. Samuels. 1974. " Toward a Theory of Automatic Information Processing in Reading." Cognitive Psychology 6, no. 2 : 293 – 323. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010‐0285(74)90015‐2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, Y. S., and M. Jonson‐Reid. 2016. " The Role of Self‐Efficacy in Reading Achievement of Young Children in Urban Schools." Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 33 : 79 – 89.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liew, J., F. Erbeli, J. M. Nyanamba, and D. Li. 2020. " Pathways to Reading Competence: Emotional Self‐Regulation, Literacy Contexts, and Embodied Learning Processes." Reading Psychology 41, no. 7 : 633 – 659. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2020.1783145.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liew, J., E. M. McTigue, L. Barrois, and J. N. Hughes. 2008. " Adaptive and Effortful Control and Academic Self‐Efficacy Beliefs on Achievement: A Longitudinal Study of 1st Through 3rd Graders." Early Childhood Research Quarterly 23, no. 4 : 515 – 526.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Linnenbrink, E. A., and P. R. Pintrich. 2003. " The Role of Self‐Efficacy Beliefs in Student Engagement and Learning in the Classroom." Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties 19, no. 2 : 119 – 137. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560308223.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Logan, S., E. Medford, and N. Hughes. 2011. " The Importance of Intrinsic Motivation for High and Low Ability Readers' Reading Comprehension Performance." Learning and Individual Differences 21, no. 1 : 124 – 128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.09.011.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacArthur, C. A., Z. A. Philippakos, and S. Graham. 2016. " A Multi‐Component Measure of Writing Motivation with Basic College Writers." Learning Disability Quarterly 39, no. 1 : 31 – 43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948715583115.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCabe, P. P. 2003. " Enhancing Self‐Efficacy for High‐Stakes Reading Tests." Reading Teacher 57, no. 1 : 12 – 20.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDonald, R. P. 1999. Test Theory: A Unified Treatment. Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morgan, P. L., and D. Fuchs. 2007. " Is There a Bidirectional Relationship Between Children's Reading Skills and Reading Motivation? " Exceptional Children 73, no. 2 : 165 – 183. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290707300203.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muthén, L. K., and B. O. Muthén. 2017. Mplus User's Guide. 1998‐2017. 8th ed. Muthén & Muthén.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olivier, E., I. Archambault, M. De Clercq, and B. Galand. 2019. " Student Self‐Efficacy, Classroom Engagement, and Academic Achievement: Comparing Three Theoretical Frameworks." Journal of Youth and Adolescence 48 : 326 – 340.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parsons, S. A., J. A. Malloy, A. W. Parsons, and S. C. Burrowbridge. 2015. " Students' Engagement in Literacy Tasks." Reading Teacher 69, no. 2 : 223 – 231. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1378.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pei, Y., and K. H. O'Brien. 2023. " Development and Initial Validation of the Sources of Reading Self‐Efficacy Scale for College and University Students (SOURSES‐C)." Journal of Research in Reading 46, no. 3 : 225 – 246.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti, C., and J. Stafura. 2014. " Word Knowledge in a Theory of Reading Comprehension." Scientific Studies of Reading 18, no. 1 : 22 – 37.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peura, P., T. Aro, H. Viholainen, et al. 2019. " Reading Self‐Efficacy and Reading Fluency Development Among Primary School Children: Does Specificity of Self‐Efficacy Matter? " Learning and Individual Differences 73 : 67 – 78.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pintrich, P. R. 2000. " Multiple Goals, Multiple Pathways: The Role of Goal Orientation in Learning and Achievement." Journal of Educational Psychology 92, no. 3 : 544 – 555.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pressley, M., and R. L. Allington. 2015. Reading Instruction that Works: The Case for Balanced Teaching. 4th ed. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Putnick, D. L., and M. H. Bornstein. 2016. " Measurement Invariance Conventions and Reporting: The State of the Art and Future Directions for Psychological Research." Developmental Review 41 : 71 – 90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> R Core Team. 2024. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R‐project.org/.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Revelle, W. 2024. "Psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research. R Package Version 2.4.12." https://CRAN.R‐project.org/package=psych.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ronimus, M. M. S., A. J. Tolvanen, and R. H. Ketonen. 2022. " Is There Hope for First Graders at the Lowest Percentiles? The Roles of Self‐Efficacy, Task Avoidance, and Support in the Development of Reading Fluency." Learning Disability Quarterly 46, no. 2 : 120 – 133. https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487221086970.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, R. M., and E. L. Deci. 2000. " Self‐Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well‐Being." American Psychologist 55, no. 1 : 68 – 78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003‐066X.55.1.68.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sabatini, J., Z. Wang, and T. O'Reilly. 2019. " Relating Reading Comprehension to Oral Reading Performance in the NAEP Fourth‐Grade Special Study of Oral Reading." Reading Research Quarterly 54, no. 2 : 253 – 271. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.226.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schunk, D. H. 1995. " Self‐Efficacy, Motivation, and Performance." Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 7, no. 2 : 112 – 137.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schunk, D. H., and F. Pajares. 2009. " Self‐Efficacy Theory." In Handbook of Motivation at School, edited by K. R. Wentzel and D. B. Miele, 49 – 68. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shell, D. F., C. C. Murphy, and R. H. Bruning. 1989. " Self‐Efficacy and Outcome Expectancy Mechanisms in Reading and Writing Achievement." Journal of Educational Psychology 81, no. 1 : 91 – 100. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.81.1.91.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sherer, M., J. E. Maddux, B. Mercandante, S. Prentice‐Dunn, B. Jacobs, and R. W. Rogers. 1982. " The Self‐Efficacy Scale: Construction and Validation." Psychological Reports 51, no. 2 : 663 – 671.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, J. K., L. F. Smith, A. Gilmore, and M. Jameson. 2012. " Students' Self‐Perception of Reading Ability, Enjoyment of Reading and Reading Achievement." Learning and Individual Differences 22, no. 2 : 202 – 206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.04.010.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Toste, J. R., P. Capin, S. Vaughn, G. J. Roberts, and D. M. Kearns. 2017. " Multisyllabic Word‐Reading Instruction With and Without Motivational Beliefs Training for Struggling Readers in the Upper Elementary Grades: A Pilot Investigation." Elementary School Journal 117, no. 4 : 593 – 615. https://doi.org/10.1086/691684.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Toste, J. R., P. Capin, K. J. Williams, E. Cho, and S. Vaughn. 2019. " Replication of an Experimental Study Investigating the Efficacy of a Multisyllabic Word Reading Intervention With and Without Motivational Beliefs Training for Struggling Readers." Journal of Learning Disabilities 52, no. 1 : 45 – 58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219418775114.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Toste, J. R., L. Didion, P. Peng, M. J. Filderman, and A. M. McClelland. 2020. " A Meta‐Analytic Review of the Relations Between Motivation and Reading Achievement for K–12 Students." Review of Educational Research 90, no. 3 : 420 – 456. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320919352.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Traga Philippakos, Z. A., and A. Davis. 2024. " Writing Self‐Efficacy and Affect Across Genres: An Exploratory Factor Analysis with Upper‐Elementary Students." Reading & Writing Quarterly 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2024.2392265.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Traga Philippakos, Z. A., M. Quinn, and A. Davis. 2025a. " Upper Elementary Students' Self‐Efficacy, Affect, and Avoidance Associated with Multisyllabic Words: An Exploratory Study." Frontiers in Psychology‐Quantitative Psychology and Measurement 16, no. 1 : 1 – 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1562958.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Traga Philippakos, Z. A., M. F. Quinn, and L. M. Rocconi. 2024. " Developing Multisyllabic Decoding and Encoding Skills with Upper Elementary Learners: Reporting Two Cycles of Design‐Based Research." Reading & Writing Quarterly 41, no. 3 : 193 – 217. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2024.2406005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Traga Philippakos, Z. A., M. F. Quinn, and L. Rocconi. 2025b. " Multisyllabic Instruction for Upper Elementary Learners: A Pilot Study Exploring Feasibility and Effectiveness." Journal of Research in Childhood Education : 1 – 24. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2025.2465585.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaughn, S., P. Capin, N. Scammacca, G. Roberts, P. Cirino, and J. M. Fletcher. 2020. " The Critical Role of Word Reading as a Predictor of Response to Intervention." Journal of Learning Disabilities 53, no. 6 : 415 – 427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219419891412.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaughn, S., S. Linan‐Thompson, K. Kouzekanani, D. Pedrotty Bryant, S. Dickson, and S. A. Blozis. 2003. " Reading Instruction Grouping for Students With Reading Difficulties." Remedial and Special Education 24, no. 5 : 301 – 315. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325030240050501.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wigfield, A. 1997. " Reading Motivation: A Domain‐Specific Approach to Motivation." Educational Psychologist 32, no. 2 : 59 – 68.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wigfield, A., J. R. Gladstone, and L. Turci. 2016. " Beyond Cognition: Reading Motivation and Reading Comprehension." Child Development Perspectives 10, no. 3 : 190 – 195. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12184.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wigfield, A., and J. T. Guthrie. 1997. " Relations of Children's Motivation for Reading to the Amount and Breadth of Their Reading." Journal of Educational Psychology 89, no. 3 : 420 – 432. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.89.3.420.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Worthington, R. L., and T. A. Whittaker. 2006. " Scale Development Research: A Content Analysis and Recommendations for Best Practices." Counseling Psychologist 34, no. 6 : 806 – 838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zee, M., K. M. Rudasill, and R. J. Bosman. 2021. " A Cross‐Lagged Study of Students' Motivation, Academic Achievement, and Relationships With Teachers From Kindergarten to 6th Grade." Journal of Educational Psychology 113, no. 6 : 1208 – 1226.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zimmerman, B. J. 2000. " Attainment of Self‐Regulation: A Social Cognitive Perspective." In Handbook of Self‐Regulation, edited by M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner, 13 – 39. Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zimmerman, B. J. 2006. " Development and Adaptation of Expertise: The Role of Self‐Regulatory Processes and Beliefs." In The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance, edited by K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, and R. R. Hoffman, 705 – 722. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816796.039.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zimmerman, B. J., and D. H. Schunk. 2008. " Motivation: An Essential Dimension of Self‐Regulated Learning." In Motivation and Self‐Regulated Learning, edited by B. J. Zimmerman and D. H. Schunk, 1st ed., 1 – 30. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203831076‐1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zimmerman, B. J., D. H. Schunk, and M. K. DiBenedetto. 2017. " The Role of Self‐Efficacy and Related Beliefs in Self‐Regulation of Learning and Performance." In Handbook of Competence and Motivation: Theory and Application, edited by A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, and D. S. Yeager, 41 – 50. Guilford.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zumbrunn, S., M. Broda, D. Varier, and S. Conklin. 2020. " Examining the Multidimensional Role of Self‐Efficacy for Writing on Student Writing Self‐Regulation and Grades in Elementary and High School." British Journal of Educational Psychology 90, no. 3 : 580 – 603.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Zoi A. Traga Philippakos; Jeff Labban and Margaret Quinn</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref117"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1487124
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Development and Validation of a Questionnaire on Multisyllabic Decoding and Encoding with Upper Elementary Learners
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Zoi+A%2E+Traga+Philippakos%22">Zoi A. Traga Philippakos</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9559-7345">0000-0001-9559-7345</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jeff+Labban%22">Jeff Labban</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Margaret+Quinn%22">Margaret Quinn</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+Research+Quarterly%22"><i>Reading Research Quarterly</i></searchLink>. 2025 60(4).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+3%22">Grade 3</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Primary+Education%22">Primary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+4%22">Grade 4</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Intermediate+Grades%22">Intermediate Grades</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+5%22">Grade 5</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Construction%22">Test Construction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Validity%22">Test Validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Reliability%22">Test Reliability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questionnaires%22">Questionnaires</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Skills%22">Reading Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Spelling%22">Spelling</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Efficacy%22">Self Efficacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Affective+Behavior%22">Affective Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Behavior%22">Student Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Decoding+%28Reading%29%22">Decoding (Reading)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+3%22">Grade 3</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+4%22">Grade 4</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+5%22">Grade 5</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Rural+Schools%22">Rural Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Disadvantaged+Youth%22">Disadvantaged Youth</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Management%22">Self Management</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/rrq.70059
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0034-0553<br />1936-2722
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study aimed to develop and validate a self-efficacy and affect questionnaire focused on upper-elementary students' reading and spelling of multisyllabic words. The research addresses a gap in understanding students' self-efficacy, affect, and avoidance behaviors related to decoding and spelling complex words. Participants included 395 students in grades 3-5 from rural Title I schools in the southeastern United States. Students completed a 34-item questionnaire assessing self-efficacy, affect, avoidance, and self-regulation, followed by standardized reading subtests (CAPTI/Read Basix). The sample was randomly split, and an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and a follow-up confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted. Results supported a four-factor structure including self-efficacy for processes/tasks, affect, self-efficacy for self-regulation, and avoidance. Regression analyses indicated that factor scores were positively associated with reading ability and with standardized reading subtest scores. The findings highlight the questionnaire's reliability and validity, offering practical implications for educators to assess and address students' motivational and cognitive needs in reading instruction. Implications for research and practice are further discussed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1487124
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1487124
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/rrq.70059
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Test Construction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Validity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Reliability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Questionnaires
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Spelling
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Efficacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Affective Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Decoding (Reading)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 3
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 4
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 5
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Rural Schools
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Disadvantaged Youth
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Management
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Development and Validation of a Questionnaire on Multisyllabic Decoding and Encoding with Upper Elementary Learners
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Zoi A. Traga Philippakos
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jeff Labban
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Margaret Quinn
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 10
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0034-0553
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1936-2722
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 60
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Reading Research Quarterly
              Type: main
ResultId 1