Educational Psychology, Vol. 22, No.

3, 2002
A Cognitive-behavioural Measure of Student
Goal Setting in a Tertiary Educational Context
FIONA WHITE, School of Psychology, University of Western Sydney, Australia
ABSTRACT This study investigated the psychometric properties of a newly developed
measure, the Student Goals and Behaviour Questionnaire (SGBQ). The SGBQ is a unique
measure in that it assesses both students goal setting attitudes and behaviour within a tertiary
education context. In other words, the SGBQ measures students actual, rather than preferred
academic goals. To date, no such instrument exists in the psychological and educational
literature. The SGBQ, a modied version of Locke & Lathams (1990) Goal Setting
Questionnaire (MGSQ), and Wood & Lockes (1987) measure of academic self-efcacy
(ASEQ) were administered to 100 rst-year Psychology students. With regard to construct
validity, predicted moderate levels of convergence were found between the SGBQ factors, and
MGSQ and ASEQ. It was also found that the SGBQ had predictive validity with respect to
subsequent academic performance. Furthermore, a number of demographic characteristics, such
as course of study and age were found to be associated with goal setting attitudes and
behaviour. The SGBQ would seem to have some promise as an instrument for the assessment
and monitoring of student goal setting.
There is a voluminous literature concerning goal setting as a motivational technique
for enhancing task performance in organisational and work-related contexts. One
consistent result obtained in the literature is that setting specic and challenging goals
result in superior performance to that obtained when participants have less well-articu-
lated goals (such as do your best; Mento et al., 1987; Locke & Latham, 1990; Locke,
1996). However, although there have been some attempts to apply goal setting
strategies in education (e.g. Wentzel, 1991; Gillat & Sulzer-Azaroff, 1994; Berry,
1996), no work has investigated the potential benecial effects of goal setting in a
university context. Related to this gap in the literature, very few researchers have
attempted to dene and measure goal setting. This study addresses these limitations
and proposes the following denition, goal setting consists of the cognitive and
behavioural processes involved in an individuals attempts to plan and regulate their
ISSN 0144-3410 print; ISSN 1469-046X online/02/030285-20 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/01443410220138520
286 F. White
FIG. 1. High Performance Cycle Model (Locke & Latham, 1990).
activities in order to achieve some longer-term outcome. This denition will form the
basis of a new measure, the Student Goals and Behaviour Questionnaire (SGBQ), the
psychometric properties of which will be explicated here. It is anticipated that the
SGBQ will identify salient factors that perhaps may aid educators and researchers in
modifying, designing and implementing effective goal setting programmes in tertiary
education.
Locke and Lathams (1990) HPC Model
One of the leading approaches to understanding motivation is goal-setting theory
(Locke & Latham, 1990). Goal setting refers to conscious behavioural intention that
channel our energies or motivation to help us attain future objectives (Muchinsky,
2000, p. 350). Goal setting theory provides the conceptual framework for Locke &
Lathams (1990) High Performance Cycle (HPC) model, one of the most empirically
tested models in the work motivation literature over the past 25 years (see Fig. 1).
Locke (1991, p. 25) states that the HPC model is data-based, conceptually well-devel-
oped, and integrated with other theories that have some insights to offer to researchers.
The HPC model adopts conceptual tenets from Goal Setting theory (Locke, 1968),
Expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) and Social Cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986). In
particular, the HPC model highlights Banduras (1982, p. 122) concept of self-efcacy,
that is, ones judgement of how well one can execute courses of action required to deal
Student Goal Setting 287
with prospective situations. According to Locke & Latham (1990) self-efcacy is said
to interact with goal setting and mediating mechanisms to predict performance.
Self-efcacy includes not only ones estimate of the degree to which effort will pay
off, but also ones ability, adaptability, creativity and capacity to perform in a situational
context. Self-efcacy is thought to reect both an individuals self-perceived ability, and
a motivational component dened by Kanfer (1987, p. 260) as intentions for effort
allocation. Thus, the more capable people judge themselves to be, the higher the goals
they will set for upcoming performance (Bandura & Cervone, 1986; Bandura & Wood,
1989; Thomas & Mathieu, 1994). Although previous research suggests that high goal
setting and high self-efcacy are positively related, this relationship is yet to be
investigated within a tertiary educational context.
The HPC model predicts that individuals with specic, challenging and clear goals
perform better than those with no goals, easy goals or vague goals (Locke, 1991). Locke
& Latham (1990) state that nearly 400 (mostly experimental) studies have shown this
relationship to be the case. These specic and challenging goals then intervene with
moderating factors (such as task complexity and ability) to predict high performance.
High performance, in turn, produces rewards, satisfaction and commitment to future
goals. Button et al. (1996, p. 1085) dene performance episodes as distinguishable
periods of time over which performance accrues and is reviewed. Organisational
practice such as yearly performance appraisals, monthly progress reports and quarterly
sales are examples of how performance has been operationalised in work settings
(Button et al., 1996). In fact, the HPC model has been applied almost exclusively
within work-related settings and relatively little work has adopted this model to develop
a comprehensive theory of academic performance. However, as Locke & Latham
(1990, p. 245) state the usefulness of the HPC model goes beyond the connes of the
work organisations another application of this model is to the eld of education.
The important point to note here is that despite the general similarities that exist
between work settings and educational contexts, each is quite specialised with regard to
complexity of tasks, rewards and performance measures. For example, in an educa-
tional setting, performance may be operationalised via class work and exam assess-
ments, where students receive feedback. By adopting these specic performance
indicators the HPC model will be applied to an educational context.
Application of the HPC Model in an Educational Context
The academic performance literature has previously identied a range of factors likely
to have a positive impact upon student academic performance, and interestingly these
factors appear similar to those highlighted in the HPC model. For example, some
researchers have examined internal student attributes, such as cognitive styles and
approaches to study (Biggs, 1987; Marton & Saljo , 1984) as possible determinants of
academic performance. Other factors examined have included external determinants,
such as teaching effectiveness. For example, Marsh (1987) and Ramsden (1990) have
developed instruments for measuring teaching quality, nding that effective teaching,
involving quality feedback and understandable explanations, is related to improved
student performance. As previously mentioned, these factors appear similar to the HPC
models moderating factors of situational constraints and feedback. Therefore in order
to understand how student academic performance is moderated, it may be valuable to
measure variables considered to be important within the HPC framework.
288 F. White
Attempts to Measure Individual Motives and Performance Outcomes
As discussed, previous attempts have been made to measure individual motives and
approaches to study. For example, Biggs (1987) Study Processes Questionnaire (SPQ)
examines motives and strategies, surface versus deep approaches, used in learning.
Related to this, Marton & Saljo (1984) found that students who adopted a deep
approach, which involved seeking the meaning of material, appeared to understand
material better than students who adopted a surface approach by memorising infor-
mation. Moreover, Pintich & DeGroot (1990) developed an attitudinal measure titled
the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire, developed for improving second-
ary teaching and learning. Despite the intuitive appeal of this research, results have
shown that students approach to studying have not been found to correlate well with
academic performance (Provost & Bond, 1997). Provost & Bond (1997) suggested that
one of the problems with these instruments is that they tend to focus upon what
students intend to do, rather than what they actually do in order to learn material.
Attempts have also been made to specically target attitudes towards goal setting.
Locke & Latham (1990) developed a questionnaire called the Goal Setting Question-
naire (GSQ) in order to evaluate attitudes to goal setting within work settings. It
consists of the items relating to goal clarity (I have specic, clear goals to aim for on
my job) and goal conict (I have too many goals on this job) and other goal setting
attitudes. However, none of the items measure goal setting behaviour. When specic
behaviours (such as conscientiousness and goal orientation) have been examined,
greater effects upon academic performance have been recorded (Colquitt & Simmering,
1998). Therefore, in order to provide an adequate model of successful student aca-
demic performance it is necessary to shift the emphasis from intention to actual
behaviour.
Measuring cognitive and behavioural goal setting in a tertiary educational
context: the construction of the SGBQ
This brief review of the literature would suggest that there is a genuine need for a
cognitive and behavioural measure of goal setting in a tertiary educational context. The
Student Goals and Behaviour Questionnaire (SGBQ) was constructed to address this
need. The attitudinal and behavioural variables highlighted in the HPC model provided
the foundation for the construction of some of the SGBQ items. For example, items
were formulated to measure specic student goals (such as What are your short term
goals for studying psychology?), general student goals (such as What are your long
term goals for studying at university?). Some attitudinal items relate to difculty of
student goals (such as How difcult are the goals you have set?); feedback (Do you
receive adequate feedback about your academic performance?). Other items related to
students goal setting behaviour, for example, student effort (such as How much time
did you spend writing your last class report ?) and goal setting (such as What form do
these goals take?).
The purpose of this study was to provide a preliminary examination of the utility of
the SGBQ in an educational context. Several psychometric properties of the SQBQ will
be investigated. First, internal reliability and factorial validity of the SGBQ will be
measured. The predictive validity of the SGBQ in relation to academic performance
will also be reported. The construct validity of the SGBQ will be examined in relation
to the Modied Goal Setting Questionnaire (MGSQ) and the Academic Self-Efcacy
Student Goal Setting 289
Questionnaire (ASEQ). Finally, the relationship between the SGBQ and a variety of
demographic variables (e.g. age, sex and course of study) will be investigated in order
to provide further information about the construct validity of the scale.
Methods
Participants
The participants were 27 male and 73 female rst year undergraduate Psychology
students from the University of Western Sydney, Macarthur. Participants were aged
between 18 and 49 years (M
5
22.41 years). The Tertiary Entrance Rank (TER) for the
sample ranged from 25 to 95 (M
5
64.35). Of the sample 60% spoke only English at
home, 16% also spoke a European language, 16% also spoke a Middle Eastern
language and 8% also spoke an Asian language. The majority of students were enrolled
in Arts and Social Science degrees. All participants in the study obtained course credit
for their involvement in the study.
Materials
There were three questionnaires used in this study: the Student Goals and Behaviour
Questionnaire (SGBQ), the Modied Goal Setting Questionnaire (MGSQ) and the
Academic Self-Efcacy Questionnaire (ASEQ).
(1) The Student Goals and Behaviour Questionnaire (SGBQ) was developed in
order to test the salient factors identied in the HPC model and with a focus
open actual behaviour, rather than attitudes towards goal setting. The SGBQ
consists of 26 items. Items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 9 are categorical in nature. Items 5,
6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23a, 23b, 24, and 25 are
responded to on a Likert rating scale. Item 19 is an open-ended item. The
psychometric properties and subsequent scoring of the SGBQ will be outlined in
the results section. A complete version of the SGBQ can be found in Appendix
A.
(2) The 53 items of Locke & Lathams (1990) Goal Setting Questionnaire (GSQ)
specically refer to work settings and thus in its current form is not appropriate
fore measuring student goal setting in a tertiary educational context. To address
this limitation, 38 items were extracted and modied for an educational context
resulting in the Modied Goal Setting Questionnaire (MGSQ). For example, I
have unclear goals on this job has been changed to I have unclear academic
goals. The MGSQ consists of a seven-point Likert scale (where 6
5
Almost
Always to 0
5
Never). A full list of these items is contained in Appendix B.
(3) Wood & Lockes (1987) Academic Self-Efcacy Questionnaire (ASEQ), consists
of 35 items relating to Banduras conceptualisation of magnitude of self-
efcacy, that is whether one can achieve that level of attainment and strength
of self-efcacy, that is ones degree of condence in their ability to perform at
that level (Wood & Locke, 1987). For example, the item memorise and recall
60% of facts and concepts, measures magnitude with a yes/no response set and
strength is measured by a degree of condence rating between 0 and 100%.
Reliability coefcients for the seven subscales ranged from 0.56 to 0.83 (Wood
& Locke, 1987).
(4) Finally, students academic performance was measured via their marks achieved
290 F. White
on assessment items in a rst year Psychology course. These assessment items
included: (a) a research report of 1250 words in length that is based on a class
experiment; and (b) a total mark which is made up of two research report marks,
and two sets of multiple choice exam marks that assessed lecture, tutorial and
textbook material for each semester across the year.
Procedure
All participants completed the SGBQ, the MGSQ and ASEQ after receiving their
results from their rst assessment item, a research report. Six months lapsed before
participants received their nal total mark in rst year Psychology. The administration
of questionnaires was counterbalanced to avoid order effects. On completion, students
returned all questionnaires to the researcher at the end of each testing session. When
the academic year was complete, the project investigators were provided with a list of
student identication numbers and marks that were matched with the questionnaire
data before identication numbers were removed. Participants remained anonymous at
all times to the project investigators. The research reported here was approved by the
University of Western Sydney Ethics Review Committee (project number 99/067).
Results
The validation of the SGBQ began with the formulation of a construct denition
derived from Goal Setting theory, and prior research and systematic observation
involving the HPC model (Locke & Latham, 1990). The reliability and validity of the
SGBQ framework and empirical analyses of items now follow.
The Factor Structure and Scoring of the SGBQ
Participant responses to 25 SGBQ items were subjected to an exploratory principal
components factor analysis with varimax rotation (NB. Item 19 was omitted from the
analysis) with no missing data points. This procedure was conducted in order to
investigate the SGBQs factor structure prior to reliability and validity analyses. Ac-
cording to Kaisers criteria, factors are retained on the basis of having an eigenvalue
greater than one (Bryman & Cramer, 1990). The results of the factor analysis revealed
that there were 10 factors with eigenvalues greater than one.
The 10 factors reported in Table I accounted for 65.8% of the total variance. These
factors include:
Factor 1. Effort contained items representing the amount of time students put towards
their class work. Factor 1 accounted for the greatest percentage of total variance. The
alpha coefcient for this ve-item scale was 0.74.
Factor 2. Feedback contained items relating to the perceived effect of educators
feedback on students goals in psychology. The alpha coefcient for this two-item scale
was 0.96.
Factor 3. Goal Setting contained items relating to goal setting strategies in psychology.
The alpha coefcient for this two-item scale was 0.64.
Factor 4. Goal Inuence contained one item relating to students perception of the
degree to which others have inuenced their goal setting.
Factor 5. Teaching Support contained items that measure the degree to which educa-
Student Goal Setting 291
tors assist students in achieving their goals. The alpha coefcient for this two-item scale
was 0.44.
Factor 6. Goal Efcacy contained items relating to condence, clarity and difculty of
student goal setting. The alpha coefcient for this three item scale was 0.40.
Factor 7. Meeting Deadlines contained items that referred to the students ability to set
and meet deadlines. The alpha coefcient for this two-item scale was 0.21.
Factor 8. Goal Type contained items that related to the nature of goals set by students.
The alpha coefcient for this two-item scale was 0.32.
Factor 9. Student Discussion contained one item that concerned the effect of student
discussion on their class work.
Factor 10. Specic Short-term Goals contained one item that identied students short
term goals in psychology (see Appendix C for a complete correlation matrix of these 25
items).
These 10 factors inuenced the scoring of SGBQ. For example, the individual scores
for items 13, 14, 15, 16, and 18 can be added to give a total score for Effort, similarly
items 23 a,b can be added to give a total score for Feedback and so on. When there is
a single item factor, this score is also the total score. This scoring procedure was used
in the next series of analyses.
Construct Validity of the SGBQ
The second set of analyses involved investigating the construct validity of the SGBQ.
The construct validity of a scale refers to the extent to which the test may be said to
measure the theoretical construct it purports to measure (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997,
p. 123). There are several ways in which the construct validity of the SGBQ can be
measured: rst, one may investigate the relationship between demographic variables
and the construct of goal setting; secondly, the predictive validity of the SGBQ with
regard to academic performance can be analysed; and nally, the convergent validity of
the SGBQ factors can be assessed against other scales that purport to measure similar
constructs, such as the MGSQ and ASEQ. All three of these analyses were conducted.
Demographic variables and the SGBQ. Normative data on demographic variables provide
construct specication (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997), as they affect the individuals
experiential history, and thereby affect their goal setting attitudes and behaviour. In
order to investigate this further, the relationship between demographic variables such as
age, sex and course of study and goal setting strategies were analysed. A t-test analysis
revealed no signicant differences between males and females across the 10 SGBQ
factors. However, several one-way ANOVAs revealed main effects for the course of
study on three SGBQ factors. These included: Factor 3: Goal Setting, where (F
6,
76)
5
3.02, P,0.01; Factor 6: Goal Efcacy where (F
6, 76
)
5
2.6, P,0.05; and Factor
7: Meeting Deadlines where (F
6, 76
)
5
3.16, P,0.01. Specic goal setting means and
standard deviations for each course of study can be referred to in Table II.
Table II reveals that students specialising in psychology, that is, Bachelor of Psy-
chology students, have signicantly higher goal setting and goal efcacy mean scores
than students enrolled in degrees with different specialisations (for example, Bachelor
of Arts/Law and Bachelor of Social Work). Moreover, Bachelor of Social Work students
have lower mean scores for meeting deadlines than students enrolled in other courses
of study.
The relationship between students age and goal setting was also measured. A
292 F. White
TABLE I. Principle components factor analysis of the SGBQ
Factor
loading Eigenvalue
Factor 1: Effort
13. How much time did you spend in the library for your last lab report? 0.605 3.77
14. How much time did you spend reading your textbook for your last lab report? 0.836
15. How much time did you spend reading your lecture notes for your
last lab report? 0.742
18. How much time did you spend writing your last lab report? 0.572
16. How much time did you spend in discussion with your tutor for 0.440
your last lab report?
Factor 2: Feedback
23 a. To what extent has feedback (grades, comments etc) affected your 0.973 2.30
goals in psychology?
23 b. Specically, how has feedback affected your goals ? 0.969
Factor 3: Goal Setting
What are your long term goals for study in psychology? 0.648 1.85
How did you decide on these goals in psychology? 0.801
Factor 4: Goal Inuence
5. To what degree have the formulation of these goals been inuenced
by others? 0.841 1.65
Factor 5: Teaching Support
12. Do you receive adequate feedback about your academic performance 0.811 1.56
25. How important is it for your lecturers and tutors to support your need
to set goals? 0.689
Factor 6: Goal Efcacy
7. With regard to Psychology, how difcult are the goals you have set? 0.822 1.46
8. How likely do you think it is that you will achieve all of these goals? 0.435
11. Studying is more enjoyable if I have clear goals. To what extent do
you agree with this statement? 0.474
Factor 7: Meeting Deadlines
24. Do you have any trouble dealing with getting work completed on a
deadline? 0.861 1.38
6. To what degree have you set deadlines for these goals? 0.479
Factor 8: Goal Type
9. What form do these goals take (a contract, diary entry, thoughts in my
head etc)? 0.759 1.29
10.To what extent do these goals place stress upon you? 0.488
Factor 9: Student Discussion
17. How much time did you spend in discussion with other students 0.853 1.19
for your last lab report?
Factor 10: Short-term Goals
3. What are your short term goals for study in psychology? 0.818 1.10
Factor 11: Long-term Goals
What are your long term goals for study at university? 0.787 0.872
Factor 12: Class work
20. Where was this mark relative to the mark you expected to get in this lab report? 0.537 0.822
21. Were the written comments on your last lab report (positive/negative) ? 0.735
22. How useful were these comments? 0.590
Student Goal Setting 293
TABLE II. Course of study and means and standard deviations of SGBQ factors
Goal Setting Goal Efcacy Meeting Deadlines
M SD M SD M SD
BA (n
5
33) 8.88 1.93 11.15 1.18 4.64 1.22
BSS (n
5
15) 9.20 2.31 11.72 1.54 5.01 1.31
BPsych (n
5
9) 10.22 2.05 12.22 1.30 4.67 1.23
BSW (n
5
11) 7.72 1.32 10.53 1.12 1.78 0.67
BA/Law (n
5
9) 6.67 1.99 11.22 0.97 6.72 1.79
Misc (n
5
6) 9.17 1.72 12.33 0.82 4.67 2.07
BA
5
Bachelor of Arts; BSS
5
Bachelor of Social Science; BPSych
5
Bachelor of
Psychology; BSW
5
Bachelor of Social Work; BA/Law
5
Bachelor of Arts/Law; and
Misc
5
miscellaneous degree students).
signicant positive relationship was found between age and several of the SGBQ
factors, namely:
Factor 1: Effort (r
5
0.509, P,0.001);
Factor 3: Goal Setting (r
5
0.362, P,0.001);
Factor 6: Goal Efcacy (r
5
0.392, P,0.001).
Therefore, it would appear from these correlational results that Effort, Goal Setting and
Goal Efcacy increase signicantly with age.
Predictive validity of the SGBQ and academic performance. Prior to testing the predictive
validity of the SGBQ, a correlational analysis of students TER scores and academic
performance was conducted. Amongst a sample of 65 reported TER scores, no
relationship was found between students TER and their research report mark
(r
5
0.166, P.0.05), however, a small but signicant positive relationship was found
between students TER score and their total end of year mark in Psychology (r
5
0.267,
P,0.05). Thus, it is important to note that irrespective of goal setting (SGBQ factors),
students TER scores were related to their end of year Psychology mark.
A correlational analysis between SGBQ factors and academic performance was
conducted to investigate predictive validity. Table III reveals that signicant associa-
tions were found between Factor 1: Effort, and Factor 6: Goal Efcacy and the research
report. Whereas signicant associations were found between Factor 4: Goal Inuence,
Factor 6: Goal Efcacy and Factor 10: Short Term Goals and their overall performance
in Psychology.
A more detailed analysis of these ndings revealed that students who set clear short
term goals in psychology (Factor 10), such as to obtain a credit or distinction, perform
signicantly better in their overall performance in Psychology than those students
whose short term goals are unsure (F
(5, 70) 5
2.49, P,0.05). See Fig. 2 for a graphical
depiction of these ndings.
Convergent validity of the SGBQ with the MGSQ and ASEQ. Table IV reveals support
for the predicted moderate degree of convergence between the SGBQ factors and
appropriate subscales of the MGSQ and ASEQ. For example, Factor 1: Effort has a
signicant positive correlation with MGSQ subscales of Goal Efcacy and Rationale
and ASEQ subscales of Self-efcacy Magnitude and Strength and signicant negative
294 F. White
TABLE III. A correlational analysis between SGBQ factors and academic performance
Academic performance
Report mark (n
5
100) Total mark (n
5
100)
Factor 1: Effort 0.271** 0.132
Factor 2: Feedback 20.142 20.056
Factor 3: Goal Setting 0.160 0.028
Factor 4: Goal Inuence 0.119 20.225*
Factor 5: Teaching Support 20.066 20.152
Factor 6: Goal Efcacy 0.362*** 0.362***
Factor 7: Deadlines 0.191 0.165
Factor 8: Goal Type 0.014 0.069
Factor 9: Student Discussion 0.069 0.006
Factor 10: Short-term Goals 0.127 0.309**
*P,0.05; **P,0.01 and ***P,0.0001.
association with MGSQ subscales of Goal Stress and Goal Conict. Factor 3: Goal
Setting was found to have a signicant positive correlation with the MGSQ subscale of
Goal Efcacy and Goal Clarity and the ASEQ subscale of Self-efcacy Strength.
Similarly, Factor 6: Goal Efcacy had a signicant positive correlation with GSG
subscales of Goal Efcacy and Goal Clarity and ASEQ subscales of Self-efcacy
Magnitude and Strength, and a signicant negative association with the MGSQ
subscales of Goal Conict and Dysfunctional Effect. Interestingly, SGBQ Factors 2:
FIG. 2. Short-term Goals (Factor 10) and academic performance.
Student Goal Setting 295
Feedback and 8: Goal Type did not appear to converge with any of the MGSQ and
ASEQ subscales suggesting unique constructs.
Discussion
The scientic value of this study arises as a preliminary investigation of the SGBQ, and
the extension of the HPC model into an educational setting. Keeping in mind that goal
setting attitudes and behaviour are difcult to quantify, measure and validate, the
psychometric evaluations of the Student Goals and Behaviour Questionnaire (SGBQ)
by means of administration to 100 rst-year psychology students revealed some
interesting ndings.
Factor Structure of the SGBQ
Factor analysis of SGBQ items revealed 10 signicant factors that accounted for 65.8
per cent of the total variance (see Table I). Factors such as Goal Efcacy, Effort,
Feedback, Type of Goals (task strategies) and Specic Goals to some extent reect the
variables identied in Locke and Lathams (1990) HPC model (see Figure 1). A
limitation of this preliminary investigation was the sample size. Most statistical texts
specify a minimum of ve subjects per variable for principal components factor analysis
(Bryman & Cramer, 1990), thus the small sample used here may limit any concrete
factor analytic conclusions. To address this limitation future research will need to
investigate the stability of this factor structure amongst a larger, more heterogenous
sample, for example, tertiary students in elds of study outside the area of psychology.
This preliminary investigation found that some factors (for example, 4 and 9) only
contained a single item. For Factors 4 and 9, further items will need to be added to the
existing items in order to calculate alpha reliabilities for all SGBQ factors. Related to
this, Factors 5, 6, 7 and 8 revealed low alpha reliabilities suggesting that these items
may need to be re-worded to improve the internal reliability of the SGBQ.
Demographic Variables and the SGBQ
The construct validity of the SGBQ was tested in several ways. With regard to
demographic variables, no signicant gender differences in goal setting behaviour and
attitudes were found. However, before rm conclusions can be made on this issue, a
more equal number of male and female students will need to be tested.
To account for the fact that the degree route or course of study taken by students
may affect there goal setting behaviour and subsequent academic performance, an
analysis of these variables was conducted. Table II revealed students enrolled in a
specialist psychology degree (such as the Bachelor of Psychology) had signicantly
higher goal setting mean scores than students enrolled in other specialist degrees. It
may be argued that reason for this nding is that the Bachelor of Psychology cohort
already possesses specic Psychology goals when compared to students enrolled in
Art/Law, whose goals may be more legally orientated. To address the issue of the
relative importance of course of study compared to student goal setting behaviour,
future research may wish to focus only on students enrolled in generalist degrees
(Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Social Science) before measuring differences in
academic goal setting and performance.
Finally, a signicant positive correlation between age and the SGBQ factors was
296 F. White
T
A
B
L
E
I
V
.
C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
S
G
B
Q
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
M
G
S
Q
a
n
d
A
S
E
Q
s
c
o
r
e
s
M
G
S
Q
s
u
b
s
c
a
l
e
s
A
S
E
Q
S
u
b
s
c
a
l
e
s
S
G
B
Q
G
o
a
l
G
o
a
l
T
a
n
g
.
G
o
a
l
D
y
s
f
u
n
t
.
G
o
a
l
S
E
S
E
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
S
t
r
e
s
s
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
R
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
e
R
e
w
a
r
d
s
C
o
n

c
t
E
f
f
e
c
t
C
l
a
r
i
t
y
m
a
g
s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
F
a
c
t
o
r
1
0
.
0
6
5
2
0
.
1
9
0
*
0
.
3
9
6
*
*
*
0
.
2
6
0
*
2
0
.
0
5
4
2
0
.
2
0
9
*
2
0
.
0
3
7
0
.
2
5
7
*
0
.
2
3
7
*
0
.
2
4
0
*
F
a
c
t
o
r
2
0
.
1
5
9
0
.
0
7
1
0
.
0
9
4
0
.
0
0
8
0
.
0
7
2
2
0
.
0
5
9
2
0
.
1
3
5
0
.
1
2
4
2
0
.
0
5
0
0
.
0
7
4
F
a
c
t
o
r
3
2
0
.
1
0
0
2
0
.
0
5
5
0
.
3
8
8
*
*
*
0
.
0
5
6
0
.
0
3
1
2
0
.
1
4
4
2
0
.
2
2
1
*
0
.
3
0
3
*
*
0
.
1
1
4
0
.
2
7
0
*
*
F
a
c
t
o
r
4
2
0
.
0
9
9
0
.
1
3
1
0
.
0
0
7
0
.
0
0
7
0
.
0
8
4
2
0
.
2
1
0
*
2
0
.
1
4
6
0
.
0
5
5
2
0
.
1
8
7
2
0
.
1
7
1
F
a
c
t
o
r
5
0
.
0
2
4
2
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
1
7
0
0
.
2
2
0
*
0
.
2
1
1
*
2
0
.
0
5
8
2
0
.
0
2
3
0
.
2
9
2
*
*
2
0
.
3
6
0
.
0
4
1
F
a
c
t
o
r
6
2
0
.
0
9
2
2
0
.
0
9
3
0
.
4
6
2
*
*
*
0
.
0
8
7
0
.
0
4
5
2
0
.
2
1
1
*
2
0
.
2
0
3
*
0
.
2
2
3
*
0
.
2
0
4
*
0
.
2
7
8
*
*
F
a
c
t
o
r
7
0
.
0
6
7
2
0
.
2
4
6
*
0
.
1
4
3
0
.
1
0
7
0
.
0
6
2
2
0
.
1
7
7
2
0
.
0
1
8
0
.
0
7
0
0
.
0
7
4
0
.
1
5
9
F
a
c
t
o
r
8
2
0
.
1
8
5
0
.
0
5
8
0
.
0
8
4
0
.
0
4
0
0
.
0
4
1
0
.
0
2
8
2
0
.
1
8
4
0
.
1
0
2
0
.
7
3
0
0
.
0
0
8
F
a
c
t
o
r
9
0
.
0
0
2
2
0
.
0
2
9
0
.
2
1
4
*
0
.
1
4
1
2
0
.
0
0
4
2
0
.
2
0
0
*
2
0
.
0
4
5
0
.
2
8
3
*
*
2
0
.
0
5
0
2
1
.
1
0
5
F
a
c
t
o
r
1
0
0
.
0
4
5
2
0
.
1
2
3
0
.
3
1
3
*
*
2
0
.
0
1
2
0
.
0
9
3
2
0
.
3
1
0
*
*
2
0
.
0
5
4
0
.
2
2
9
*
2
0
.
1
6
7
0
.
1
9
5
*
r
5
1
0
0
;
*
P
,
0
.
0
5
;
*
*
P
,
0
.
0
1
a
n
d
*
*
*
P
,
0
.
0
0
1
.
Student Goal Setting 297
found. Specically, older students placed more Effort, were more likely to set Specic
Goals and had higher Goal Efcacy than younger students. This nding may be
explained by the fact that older students are highly motivated because they have
specically chosen tertiary study at this point in their life, whereas younger students
simply see tertiary study as a transition from secondary school and are less motivated.
Predictive Validity of the SGBQ
Students academic performance was measured via:
a research report of 1250 words in length that is based on a class experiment;
a total mark that is made up of two research report marks and two sets of
multiple choice exam marks that assessed lecture, tutorial and textbook material
for each semester across the year study.
Thus, the two performance measures were quite distinct. Analyses of the predictive
validity of the SGBQ revealed that Effort and Goal Efcacy are signicantly associated
with students research report mark. This nding may be due to the fact that most of
the items on the Effort factor relate to the lab report. SGBQ factors of Goal Inuence,
Goal Efcacy and Short Term Goals were found to be signicantly associated with
students overall performance in Psychology (see Table III).
Moreover, Figure 2 reveals that students who set clear short-term goals, such as
seeking to obtain a credit or distinction on their next lab report, actually predicts their
overall performance. These results support the prediction of the High Performance
Cycle model and other research ndings (Mento et al., 1987; Locke & Latham, 1990;
Locke, 1996) that suggest that specic goals results in superior performance. The
signicance of these results is enhanced by the fact that students completed their goal
setting questionnaires 6 months prior to receiving their nal mark in rst year Psy-
chology. Because of this time lag, the results can be interpreted as genuinely predictive
of future academic performance.
It must be noted here that six factors of the SGBQ were not found to signicantly
predict academic performance. Theoretically, these six factors are important (see the
HPC model), however, the items as they currently stand may not accurately reect the
theoretical concepts that they purport to measure. For example, Goal Setting (Factor
3) items, as they currently stand, refer to long-term goal setting and do not refer to the
end of rst year performance. Therefore, the items that make up this factor may be
more useful and predictive of third year psychology students performance, rather than
rst year students. Furthermore, all of the items of the Effort factor refer to the lab
report, thus new items that refer to exam-goal-setting-behaviour may also need to be
included in a revised version of the SGBQ.
Convergent Validity of the SGBQ
Further analysis of validity revealed the SGBQ Factors 1, 3 5, 6, 9 and 10, which
incorporates variables from the High Performance Cycle Model, showed moderate
levels of convergence with the MGSQ, which measures attitudes to goal setting and
Wood & Lockes (1987) ASEQ which measures students magnitude and strength of
self-efcacy (see Table IV). This degree of convergence is supported by previous
ndings (Bandura & Cervone, 1986; Bandura & Wood, 1989; Thomas & Mathieu,
1994) in the literature that suggest that high goal setting and high self-efcacy are
298 F. White
positively related. However, SGBQ Factors 2 and 8 did not converge signicantly with
any MGSQ or ASEQ factors revealing that the uniqueness of each measure was also
conrmed.
Limitations and Future Applications of the SGBQ
When interpreting these ndings, sample size limitations need to be taken into account.
A larger more heterogeneous sample of tertiary students, involving second and third
year undergraduates would need to be included in future research investigations using
the SGBQ. Moreover, existing items will need to be modied and new items added as
previously discussed. Once such changes to sample characteristics and items are made,
the generalisability of these results, reliability and validity of the SGBQ will be
improved.
It is anticipated that the SGBQ will have important applications in the tertiary
educational context. Once acceptable levels of reliability and validity are achieved, the
SGBQ can be used to assess student attitudes and behaviour to goal setting, identify
problem areas in student goals setting, and implement changes to the curriculum where
students are taught to set specic high goals. Experiments can then be conducted to
investigate whether students who set specic high goals have improved academic
performance relative to a control group of students who do not set specic goals.
The development of a valid scale requires multiple procedures that are employed
sequentially at different stages of test construction (Anastasi & Urbina. 1997, p. 137).
Thus, further psychometric validation of the SGBQ amongst a larger, more heteroge-
neous sample of tertiary students will be needed before rm conclusions can be made
about the psychometric properties of the SGBQ. Continued validation of the SGBQ
will allow it to be used as an instrument by psychologists, educators and other
researchers in future research concerned with the nature of processes involved in
student academic performance. Moreover, should future research adopting the SGBQ
support the nding that systematic goal setting improves students academic perform-
ance, then all stakeholders in academic institutions have the potential to benet from
this research outcome.
Correspondence: Fiona White, School of Psychology, University of Western Sydney,
Locked Bag 1797, South Penrith Distribution Centre, NSW, Australia, 1797.
NOTES
[1] Portions of this research study were presented at the Teaching and Learning Conference, Northern
Territory University, Australia, 1999. This study is supported in part by a research grant awarded
by the Research Committee of the University of Western Sydney.
REFERENCES
Anastasi, A. & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological Testing. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efcacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. & Cervone, D. (1986). Differential engagement of self-reactive inuence in cognitive
motivation. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248287.
Bandura, A. & Wood, R. (1989). Effect of conceived controllability and performance standards on
self-regulation of complex decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 805814.
Student Goal Setting 299
Berry, G. (1996). Improving Student Achievement through Behaviour Intervention. EDRS: Microche [2
card(s)], Paper.
Biggs, J.B. (1987). Student Approaches to Learning and Studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for
Educational Research.
Biggs, J.B. (1993). What do inventories of students learning processes really measure? A theoretical
review and clarication. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 319.
Bryman, A. & Cramer, D. (1990). Quantitative Data Analysis for the Social Scientists. London:
Routledge.
Button, S.B., Mathieu, J.E. & Aiken, K.J. (1996). An examination of the relative impact of assigned
goals and self-efcacy on personal goals and performance over time. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 26, 10841103.
Colquitt, J.A. & Simmering, M.J. (1998). Conscientiousness, Goal Orientation, and Motivation to
learn during the learning process: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 654665.
Gillat, A. & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1994). Promoting principals managerial involvement in instructional
improvement. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 27, 115129.
Kanfer, R. (1987). Task-specic motivation: An integrative approach to issues of measurement,
mechanisms, processes, and determinants. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 5, 237264.
Lee, C., Bobko, P., Earley, P.C. & Locke, E.A. (1991). An empirical analysis of a goal setting
questionnaire, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 12, 467482.
Locke, E.A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organisational Behaviour and
Human Performance, 3, 157189.
Locke, E.A. (1991). Goal theory versus control theory: Contrasting approaches to understanding work
motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 15, 928.
Locke, E.A. (1996). Motivation through conscious goal setting. Applied & Preventative Psychology, 5,
117124.
Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. (1990). Work motivation and satisfaction: light at the end of the tunnel.
Psychological Science, 1, 240246.
Marsh, H. W. (1987). Students evaluations of university teaching: research ndings, methodological
issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11.
Marton, F. & Saljo , R. (1984). Approaches to learning. In, F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle
(Eds) The Experience of Learning (pp. 3655). Edinburgh, Scottish Academic Press.
Mento, A.J., Steel, R.P. & Karren, R.J. (1987). A meta-analysis of the effects of goal setting on task
performance: 19661984. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 39, 5283.
Muchinsky, P.M. (2000). Psychology Applied to Work. USA: Wadsworth.
Pintich, P. & Degroot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom
academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 3340.
Provost, S.C. & Bond, N.W. (1997). Approaches to studying and academic performance in a
traditional psychology course. Higher Education Research and Development, 16, 309320.
Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: the course
experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16, 129150.
Thomas, K.M. & Mathieu, J.E. (1994). Role of causal attributions in dynamic self-regulation and goal
processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 812818.
Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.
Wentzel, K.R. (1991). Relations between social competence and academic achievement in early
adolescents. Child Development, 62, 10661078.
Wood, R.E. & Locke, E.A. (1987). The relations of self-efcacy and grade goals to academic
performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 10131025.
300 F. White
Appendix A: Student Goals and Behaviour Questionnaire (SGBQ)
Student Goal Setting 301
Appendix A: Student Goals and Behaviour Questionnaire (SGBQ)continued
302 F. White
Appendix A: Student Goals and Behaviour Questionnaire (SGBQ)continued
Student Goal Setting 303
Appendix B: Modied Goal Setting Questionnaire (MGSQ)
1. I understand exactly what I am supposed to do as a student
2. I have specic, clear goals to aim for as a student
3. The academic goals I have are challenging, but reasonable (neither too hard or too easy)
4. I understand how my academic performance is measured
5. I have deadlines for meeting my study goals
6. If I have more than one goal to accomplish, I know which ones are most important and which
are least important
7. Lecturers and/or tutors clearly explain to me what my goals should be
8. Lecturers and/or tutors tell me the reasons for the goals I should have
9. Lecturers and/or tutors are supportive with respect to encouraging me to reach my goals
10. Lecturers and/or tutors let me participate in the setting of my goals
11. Lecturers and/or tutors let me have a say in deciding how I will go about implementing my goals
12. If I reach my goals I know my lecturers and/or tutors will be pleased
13. I get credit and recognition when I attain my academic goals
14. Trying for academic goals makes studying more fun than it would be without goals
15. I feel proud when I get feedback (in the form of grades) indicating that I have achieved my
academic goals
16. The other students I work with encourage me to attain my academic goals
17. I sometimes compete with other students to see who can do the best in reaching their academic
goals
18. If I reach my academic goals, I feel that this will increase my academic opportunities
19. If I reach my academic goals, it increases my chances of a pay rise
20. If I reach my academic goals, it increases my chances of getting into a higher degree
21. I usually feel that I have a suitable or effective action plan(s) for reaching my academic goals
22. I get regular feedback from my lecturers and/or tutors indicating how I am performing in relation
to my academic goals
23. I feel that my course was good enough so that I am capable of reaching my academic goals
24. Departmental policies help, rather than hurt academic goal attainment
25. Students work together to attain academic goals
26. This department provides sufcient resources (equipment, etc.) to make goal setting work
27. I nd working toward my academic goals very stressful
28. My academic goals are much too difcult
29. In the past I have not succeeded in attaining my academic goals
30. My lecturers and/or tutors acts non-supportively when I fail to reach my academic goals
31. I have too many academic goals
32. Some of my academic goals conict with my personal values
33. I am given incompatible or conicting goals by different people (or even by the same person)
34. I have unclear academic goals
35. My academic goals lead me to take excessive risk
36. My academic goals serve to limit, rather than raise my academic performance
37. The academic goals that I have lead me to ignore other important aspects of university life
38. The academic goals that I have focus only on short-range accomplishment and ignore important
long-range consequences
304 F. White
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
C
:
A
c
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
m
a
t
r
i
x
o
f
t
h
e
2
5
S
G
B
Q
i
t
e
m
s