Factorial and Construct Validity of
aNew Instrument for the Assessment
of Reading Motivation
Ulrich Schiefele
Ellen Schaffner
University of Potsdam, Germany
Reading Research Quarterly, 0(0)
pp. 117 | doi:10.1002/rrq.134
2016 International Literacy Association.
ABSTR ACT
Reading motivation has been defined consistently as a multidimensional con-
struct. However, there is some disagreement regarding the number and na-
ture of the dimensions of reading motivation. In particular, there is a lack of
studies investigating the dimensional structure and measurement invariance
(e.g., across gender) of reading motivation questionnaires. Based on earlier
instruments, qualitative findings referring to students reasons for read-
ing, and theoretical considerations, we developed the Reading Motivation
Questionnaire (RMQ). A sample of 883 sixth-grade students was presented
with 34 reading motivation items pertaining to seven dimensions. Five of
these dimensions (i.e., curiosity, involvement, grades, competition, social
recognition) referred to Wigfield and Guthries Motivations for Reading
Questionnaire, whereas two dimensions (i.e., emotional regulation, relief
from boredom) were based on recent qualitative findings. The results from
confirmatory factor analyses supported the hypothesized factor structure.
In addition, three higher order factors were identified: intrinsic, extrinsic,
and regulatory reading motivation. Moreover, strict measurement invari-
ance across female and male students and across groups with low versus
high reading competence was established. Construct validity of the RMQ was
supported by the contributions of the RMQ factors to reading amount, flu-
ency, and comprehension and by the predicted gender differences in the
dimensions of reading motivation.
T
he ability to comprehend texts represents an indispensable pre-
requisite of academic success (e.g., Chapman, Tunmer, &
Prochnow, 2000). In particular, learning at school relies to a
large extent on written materials. For that reason, it becomes impor-
tant to study those factors that facilitate the development of reading
competence. In addition to cognitive factors, such as working mem-
ory capacity, reasoning ability, or prior knowledge (e.g., Alloway &
Gregory, 2013; Kendeou & van den Broek, 2007; Kintsch, 1998; Tighe
& Schatschneider, 2014), aspects of reading motivation have been
shown to be significantly associated with various indicators of read-
ing comprehension (e.g., Guthrie & Wigfield, 1999; Park, 2011; Unrau
& Schlackman, 2006). Despite this positive evidence, previous assess-
ments of reading motivation suffer from several shortcomings.
First, there is only partial agreement on the number and nature of
the primary factors of reading motivation. For example, the influen-
tial Motivations for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ; Wigfield &
Guthrie, 1997) consists of 11 dimensions, whereas other approaches
involve fewer dimensions of reading motivation (e.g., Greaney &
Neuman, 1990; Sainsbury & Schagen, 2004; Schutte & Malouff, 2007;
1
Watkins & Coffey, 2004) or proposed one-dimensional
measures (e.g., McKenna, Kear, & Ellsworth, 1995).
Second, researchers using multidimensional question-
naires have created varying composite scores to capture
intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation without pro-
viding empirical evidence for secondary factors (e.g.,
Andreassen & Brten, 2010; Guthrie, Wigfield, Metsala,
& Cox, 1999; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). Third,
although measures of reading motivation have been
widely applied to female and male students, tests of
measurement invariance across gender have not been
conducted. This also applies to student groups with
varying ages or developmental statuses, different levels
of reading competence, and different socioeconomic
and ethnic affiliations. Fourth, qualitative studies on
reading motivation (e.g., Guthrie, Van Meter, McCann,
& Wigfield, 1996; Nolen, 2007; Schiefele & Schaffner,
2013) have suggested dimensions of reading motivation
that have not been included in previous questionnaires.
Among those dimensions, the motivations to use read-
ing as a means of coping with negative emotions and
overcoming boredom appear to be of particular
importance.
For the purpose of overcoming the deficits of previ-
ous research, we intended to develop a new multidi-
mensional questionnaire of reading motivation in a
sample of sixth-grade students, analyze its structure of
primary and secondary factors, provide tests of mea-
surement invariance across gender and groups with low
versus high reading competence, and examine its rela-
tions with various validation variables (e.g., reading
fluency).
Dimensions of
ReadingMotivation
Motivation to read can be conceptualized at the level of
current or habitual reading motivation (cf. Pekrun,
1993; Schiefele, Schaffner, Mller, & Wigfield, 2012).
Current motivation to read refers to the strength of a
persons intention to read a specific text in a given situ-
ation. For example, someone very eager to read a par-
ticular book at home shows strong current reading
motivation. In contrast, an individual who is repeatedly
motivated to read can be ascribed a certain amount of
habitual reading motivation. Thus, habitual reading
motivation denotes the relatively stable readiness of a
person to initiate reading activities (Schiefele et al.,
2012). Reading motivation inventories, such as Wigfield
and Guthries (1997) MRQ and the present Reading
Motivation Questionnaire (RMQ), usually assess
habitual forms of motivation.
Quantitative and qualitative studies suggest multi-
ple dimensions of reading motivation (e.g., Guthrie
2 | Reading Research Quarterly, 0(0)
et al., 1996; Nolen, 2007; Watkins & Coffey, 2004;
Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). These dimensions corre-
spond to different incentives of reading that may be
subsumed under two higher order categories: intrinsic
and extrinsic reading motivation (Schiefele etal., 2012;
Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). Intrinsic reading motivation
refers to the willingness to read because reading is satis-
fying or rewarding in its own right. According to a dis-
tinction suggested by Schiefele (1999, 2009), there are
two forms of intrinsic motivation to read. In the case of
object-oriented intrinsic motivation (labeled curiosity
in the MRQ and RMQ), reading is motivated by the-
matic interests. In the case of experience-oriented in-
trinsic motivation (labeled involvement in the MRQ
and RMQ), reading is motivated by positive experi-
ences, such as becoming absorbed by a story. In con-
trast, extrinsic reading motivation refers to reasons that
are external to the activity of reading and the text con-
tent. The extrinsically motivated reader strives to attain
particular outcomes of reading, such as improving ones
performance in school or being praised by ones parents
(Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997).
A further distinction refers to academic (or school-
related) and recreational reading motivation (De
Naeghel & Van Keer, 2013; De Naeghel, Van Keer,
Vansteenkiste, & Rosseel, 2012). Academic reading is
defined as reading at school and for homework, whereas
recreational reading involves reading in ones leisure
time. The RMQ is directed at recreational reading
motivation for two reasons: First, it has been repeatedly
found that out-of-school reading amount contributes
more strongly to the development of reading compe-
tence than school-related reading amount (cf. Schiefele
etal., 2012). Thus, the motivation to read in ones free
time appears to be more important for reading
comprehension than academic reading motivation.
This assumption was confirmed by De Naeghel et al.
(2012), who reported significant effects on reading
comprehension only for recreational reading motiva-
tion, not academic. A second reason for focusing on
recreational reading motivation refers to the overlap be-
tween motivation to learn and motivation to read at
school and for homework. School-related reading may
often coincide with school-related learning, and thus,
measures of academic reading motivation probably re-
flect the more general motivations of students to learn
or to achieve in school (e.g., achievement goal orienta-
tions; e.g., Elliot, 2005). Consequently, academic reading
motivation might be confounded with more general
motivational orientations pertaining to students
school-related learning.
A wide variety of dimensions of reading motivation
have been suggested (cf. Schiefele etal., 2012). The most
comprehensive approach is represented by Wigfield and
Guthries (1997) MRQ with 11 dimensions: curiosity,
involvement, grades, competition, recognition, compli-
ance, challenge, importance, work avoidance, social
reasons, and efficacy. In our view, not all of these
dimensions denote forms of reading motivation in a
more narrow sense (see also Schiefele et al., 2012).
Instead, some constructs indicate antecedents and/or
consequences of reading motivation (e.g., reading effi-
cacy, importance of reading, preference for challenging
reading materials). Moreover, Watkins and Coffey
(2004) could not identify the MRQ scales of importance
and challenge as separate factors by means of confirma-
tory factor analyses (CFAs).
According to the expectancyvalue approach (e.g.,
Heckhausen, 1991; Weiner, 1989; Wigfield & Eccles,
2000), a given motivation (e.g., striving to read a par-
ticular book) depends on expectancy beliefs (e.g., read-
ing efficacy: I will be able to understand the book)
and value beliefs (e.g., importance of reading: To be a
good reader is important to me). In the present case,
the motivation to read a particular book would be
strong if the person believes that he or she is able to
comprehend the book and that reading (or being a good
reader) is personally important. Also in accordance
with expectancyvalue theory, the preference for chal-
lenging reading materials may be regarded as an exam-
ple of choice behavior. There is a long tradition in
research that views choice behavior (e.g., choice of dif-
ficulty levels of a given task) as an important outcome
of motivation (Atkinson, 1964; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002;
Zimmerman, 2000). For example, students high in
achievement motivation have been found to choose
challenging tasks (Atkinson, 1964).
In contrast to the expectancyvalue approach, it
seems plausible to conceptualize reading efficacy and
importance of reading not only as antecedents but also
as consequences of reading motivation (pertaining to
the relation between self-efficacy and motivation, see
Schunk, 1991; Zimmerman, 2000). For example, intrin-
sic reading motivation likely enhances the amount of
reading (e.g., Becker, McElvany, & Kortenbruck, 2010),
which in turn facilitates students feelings of efficacy
and importance of reading through enhanced compre-
hension ability (Schunk, 1991). Moreover, the prefer-
ence for challenging reading tasks may be regarded not
only as an outcome but also as an antecedent of reading
motivation. Specifically, the choice of challenging read-
ing tasks is likely to contribute to comprehension ability
and feelings of efficacy, which in turn increase the
motivation to read (Becker et al., 2010). Thus, taken
together, it seems appropriate to assume reciprocal
relations among reading motivation, reading efficacy,
reading importance, and preference for challenging
reading tasks.
The status of work avoidance, social reasons, and
compliance as dimensions of (recreational) reading
Factorial and Construct Validity of aNew Instrument for the Assessment of Reading Motivation | 3
motivation seems also debatable. Inspection of the
corresponding MRQ items shows that work avoidance
refers to disliking of complex and difficult stories. As
such, strong work avoidance may be regarded as a con-
sequence of lacking motivation to read and/or of low
levels of reading efficacy beliefs. In accordance with
our view, Guthrie and Klauda (2016) conceptualized
the avoidance of reading as a negative aspect of engage-
ment that depends on motivation. For example, empir-
ical evidence suggests that students intrinsic reading
motivation is linked positively to reading engagement
(e.g., amount of reading; Becker etal., 2010) and nega-
tively to reading avoidance (Guthrie, Klauda, & Ho,
2013).
The item contents of the social reasons for reading
scale of the MRQ express both preference and frequency
pertaining to literary practices within the family and
the peer group (e.g., visiting a library, talking about
books). Four out of seven items state particular activi-
ties that refer to reading in a social context (e.g., I often
read to my brother or my sister). Because the reasons
for these activities are not addressed by the items, it
seems difficult to infer social motivations (e.g., Wentzel,
2005). For example, a child might read to his or her
younger siblings because it is an enjoyable experience or
because the parents demand it. Three items of the social
reasons scale, however, refer to preferences (e.g., My
friends and I like to trade things to read) and indicate
at least implicitly social reasons for reading. Because of
the unclear nature of both the scale and the construct of
social reasons for reading, we decided not to include
this dimension in our questionnaire.
Finally, compliance was defined by Wigfield and
Guthrie (1997) as the motivation to read because it is
required by school or a teacher. For example, students
high in compliance strive to finish every reading as-
signment or to do their reading work exactly as the
teacher wants it. Obviously, this dimension of reading
motivation addresses only reading for school but not
reading as part of leisure time activities. In that regard,
it is important to note that the dimensions of grades
and competition differ from compliance because they
ask for students motivation to read in their free time to
get better in school (or reading) and outperform their
classmates.
Thus, based on the preceding considerations, we
propose the following dimensions as facets of reading
motivation in a more narrow sense: curiosity (to learn
more about topics of ones interest), involvement (to get
lost in a story or experience imaginative actions),
grades (to improve ones grades, particularly in read-
ing), competition (to reach higher levels of school
achievement, particularly in reading, than other stu-
dents), and recognition (to get praise for good reading
performance).
 establish measurement invariance across gender to be
The Current Study able to compare mean values or correlative associations
The main goal of the present study was to develop and between female and male students. In addition, there is
evaluate a multidimensional reading motivation ques- also a need to demonstrate measurement invariance
tionnaire that should be applicable to a wide range of across groups with varying reading competence be-
students starting at the upper elementary level (grade cause poor and good readers differ in their reading mo-
4). In our view, most students at that level should have tivations and the strengths of their relations among
developed basic reading and comprehension skills reading motivation, reading behavior, and reading
(Foorman & Connor, 2011) and the cognitive ability to comprehension (Lau & Chan, 2003; Logan, Medford, &
answer specific questions regarding their own motiva- Hughes, 2011).
tion (Kuhn & Franklin, 2006). In the present study, we For the purpose of providing empirical support for
chose a sample of sixth-grade students to examine the the validity of the RMQ scales, we included measures of
questionnaire. reading amount, reading fluency, and reading compre-
The selection of seven dimensions of the RMQ was hension. Positive relations with the validation variables
based on theoretical considerations and previous quali- were expected for the intrinsic dimensions (curiosity
tative and quantitative studies (see the preceding sec- and involvement) but not for the extrinsic dimensions
tion). The dimensions of curiosity, involvement, grades, (grades, competition, and recognition). In line with
competition, and social recognition correspond con- previous findings (e.g., Schaffner et al., 2013), we
ceptually to scales of the MRQ (Wigfield & Guthrie, hypothesized nonsignificant or negative relations be-
1997; see also Schaffner & Schiefele, 2007; Schaffner, tween the extrinsic dimensions and the validation
Schiefele, & Ulferts, 2013). As sources of items for these
variables. According to Schaffner et al., reading is
dimensions, we referred not only to the MRQ but also largely a leisure time activity and as such is more
to other instruments and results from qualitative stud- strongly controlled by intrinsic incentives. Extrinsically
ies (Becker et al., 2010; Greaney & Neuman, 1990; motivated readers may tend to read only when they
Guthrie et al., 1996; Mller & Bonerad, 2007; Nolen, have to (e.g., to better achieve in school, to please their
2007; Schiefele & Schaffner, 2013; Wigfield & Guthrie, parents), and thus, the amount of leisure time reading
1997). In addition to curiosity, involvement, grades, and the development of reading skills will not be en-
competition, and recognition, we included two new di- hanced or even reduced (Becker etal., 2010). Moreover,
mensions that have not been considered before as scales it is likely that extrinsically motivated readers are more
of reading motivation instruments and were derived strongly concerned with future outcomes of their read-
from qualitative studies (Greaney & Neuman, 1990; ing activities than with understanding a given text
Guthrie etal., 1996; Nolen, 2007; Schiefele & Schaffner, (Brophy, 2005; Hulleman, Durik, Schweigert, &
2013). The findings of these studies suggest that emo- Harackiewicz, 2008). Thus, extrinsic reading motiva-
tional regulation (reading to cope with negative emo- tion may interfere with the processes necessary for in-
tions) and relief from boredom (reading to overcome depth text comprehension, such as inference making
boredom and to fill in time because more preferred and identifying main ideas (Pintrich & Schrauben,
activities are not available) represent possibly relevant 1992; Wang & Guthrie, 2004).
dimensions of reading motivation. In our own research The status and role of emotional regulation and re-
(Schiefele & Schaffner, 2013), these dimensions were lief from boredom were more difficult to determine.
rather frequently mentioned by students when asking Because of their ambiguous nature, we did not catego-
them for their motivation to read in their free time. rize these dimensions as either intrinsic or extrinsic.
The analysis of the RMQ focused on three issues: Although they possess an instrumental aspect (e.g.,
the structure of primary and secondary factors, mea- reading as a means to overcome negative emotions),
surement invariance across gender and competence they seem also closely associated with the positive expe-
groups, and construct validity. In particular, the first rience involved in reading. Specifically, both dimen-
two issues have been neglected by previous research. sions presuppose that reading is intrinsically rewarding
Specifically, researchers applying the MRQ have used and, thus, facilitates positive emotional states or averts
varying composites for intrinsic and extrinsic reading boredom. Because of their assumed close relation with
motivation (for an overview, see Schiefele et al., 2012) intrinsic reading motivation, we anticipated positive
without providing evidence for second-order factors contributions of emotional regulation and relief from
that would justify the combination of particular dimen- boredom to the validation variables.
sions. Moreover, in light of the repeatedly found gender As additional support for the construct validity of
differences in reading motivation (Chiu & McBride- the RMQ, we analyzed gender differences in reading
Chang, 2006; Logan & Johnston, 2009, 2010; Mullis, motivation. Based on previous research, it was ex-
Martin, Kennedy, & Foy, 2007), it seems important to pected that girls tend to exhibit higher intrinsic

4 | Reading Research Quarterly, 0(0)

reading motivation than do boys (Logan & Johnston,
2009, 2010; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). Whereas prior
findings do not suggest gender effects on most of
the dimensions of extrinsic reading motivation
(McGeown, Goodwin, Henderson, & Wright, 2012;
Schaffner etal., 2013; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997), there
is some evidence for boys being higher in competition-
oriented reading motivation (Stutz, Schaffner, &
Schiefele, 2016; Unrau & Schlackman, 2006; Wigfield
& Guthrie, 1997; however, see Schaffner et al., 2013;
Wang & Guthrie, 2004). Finally, qualitative findings
(Schiefele & Schaffner, 2013) suggest that reading
for the purpose of emotional regulation is more
pronounced in girls than in boys.
Method
Sample and Procedure
The present sample comprised 883 sixth-grade students
(442 girls, 441 boys) from 48 classes within 24 elemen-
tary schools1 in and around a large city in the northeast
of Germany. The schools were selected to represent the
population in the area, thereby including rural and
urban areas of different socioeconomic backgrounds.
The average age of the sample was 11.33 years (standard
deviation [SD] =0.57). Moreover, about 7% of the par-
ticipating students reported that both of their parents
were born in a foreign country. This percentage is below
the average of students in Germany with both parents
born in a foreign country (about 15%), but it is typical
for student populations in the new German states that
formerly belonged to East Germany (cf. Baumert &
Schmer, 2001; Tarelli, Schwippert, & Stubbe, 2012).
Finally, the average norm-referenced scores (T-values)
for reading fluency (mean [M] = 46.9, SD = 8.32) and
reading comprehension (M = 48.1, SD = 7.66) in the
present sample were only slightly below the population
mean for sixth-grade students in Germany across all
school tracks (M=50.0, SD =10.0).
For purposes of the present study, the total sample
was randomly divided into two subsamples. Sample 1
involved 438 students (221 girls, 217 boys; Mage=11.34
years, SD = 0.59), and sample 2 entailed 445 students
(221 girls, 224 boys; Mage=11.32 years, SD =0.56). The
two samples did not differ significantly with respect to
the included study variables.
The participants were tested during regular class
time. They first answered the questionnaires on reading
motivation and reading amount and then were pre-
sented with the tests on reading fluency and compre-
hension. The whole session took about 45 minutes.
During the session, a teacher was present. The study
was explained to the students as being concerned with
their attitudes toward reading. They were assured that
Factorial and Construct Validity of aNew Instrument for the Assessment of Reading Motivation | 5
the study was anonymous and that their results would
not be conveyed to their teachers or parents.
Reading Motivation
The RMQ comprised the following dimensions (see
Table1):
Curiosity: To learn more about topics of ones
interest
Involvement: To experience positive states of feel-
ing, such as getting lost in a story or experiencing
imaginative actions
Grades: To improve ones grades or achievement
in school
Competition: To outperform ones classmates in
school
Social recognition: To get praise for frequent
reading
Emotional regulation: To cope with negative
emotions, such as anger or sadness
Relief from boredom: To overcome boredom and
to fill in time because other, more preferred activi-
ties are not available
All items had to be answered on 4-point rating scales
ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 4 (very true). In each
case, a higher score indicates a higher level of motivation.
In a short introduction, the participants were asked
to rate possible reasons they have for reading in their
leisure time:
What are usually the reasons for you to read in your free
time when you are not at school and not doing schoolwork?
Reading activities in your free time may include reading of
books, journals or magazines, and texts in the Internet. The
following statements describe a number of possible reasons
for reading in your free time. Please, indicate to what extent
these reasons are true for you.
Validation Measures
Reading Amount
The scale to assess reading amount was based on previ-
ous instruments (e.g., Becker et al., 2010; Schaffner
etal., 2013). In accordance with Becker etal., the read-
ing amount scale addressed both the frequency and the
length of reading. To assess reading frequency, the par-
ticipants were asked how many books they read in their
spare time during the last 12 months (1 = 0 books;
2 = 15 books; 3 = 610 books; 4 = 1120 books;
5=more than 20 books), how often they read in their
spare time (1=about once a month; 2=about once a
week; 3 = several times a week; 4 = daily; 5 = several
times a day), and how often they read during school
vacations (1 = never; 2 = rarely; 3 = sometimes;
TABLE1
Reading Motivation Questionnaire: Items and Factor Loadings Resulting From Confirmatory Factor Analyses
Factor loadings
Sample 1 Sample 2
Item (I read)
a
Version 1 Version 2 Version 2 Version 3
Curiosity (factor 1)

1. because I like to think about particular topics. 0.63 0.62 0.65 0.67

2. because texts or books on particular topics are exciting. 0.80 0.80 0.81

3. because I can deal with personally important topics. 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.76

4. because I can learn more about things of interest to me. 0.79 0.79 0.77 0.78

5. because I like to be involved with particular topics 0.81 0.81 0.80 0.81

Involvement (factor 2)

6. because sometimes I can forget everything around me. 0.82

7. because I like to identify with the main character of a good story. 0.84 0.86 0.85 0.85

8. because some stories stimulate my imagination. 0.77 0.78 0.79 0.80

9. because I can experience real adventures in my mind. 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.84

10. because it allows me to imagine everything so well. 0.86 0.88 0.88 0.89

Grades (factor 3)

11. in order to get better grades in school. 0.79 0.79 0.82 0.83

12. because it helps me perform well in school. 0.82 0.82 0.86 0.86

13. because it is important for my achievement in some subjects. 0.82 0.81 0.84 0.84

14. because it helps me get better in school. 0.79 0.79 0.77 0.78

Competition (factor 4)

15. because it helps me perform better in school than my classmates. 0.77 0.78 0.75 0.75

16. because it is important to me to understand texts better than other 0.85 0.85 0.79 0.79
students.

17. because it is important to me to be among the best students. 0.76 0.76 0.77 0.77

18. because it is important to me to know more than other students. 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

Social recognition (factor 5)

19. because other people say it is important. 0.67 0.70 0.72 0.72

20. because I know that my friends also read a lot. 0.64 0.65 0.63 0.63

21. because one gets praise for frequent reading. 0.78 0.80 0.71 0.71

22. because I like it when other people think that I am a diligent reader. 0.77

23. because my parents think that it is important that I read a lot. 0.56 0.59 0.69 0.69

24. because I want my parents to be proud of me. 0.69 0.71 0.78 0.78

Emotional regulation (factor 6)

25. because it helps me when I am sad. 0.87 0.87 0.88 0.88

26. because it helps me when I am angry. 0.87 0.87 0.88 0.88

27. in order to cheer me up when I am in a bad mood. 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.89

28. in order to distract myself after a quarrel. 0.85 0.84 0.84 0.84

29. when I am furious and need to calm down. 0.88 0.88 0.83 0.83

(continued)

6 | Reading Research Quarterly, 0(0)

TABLE1
Reading Motivation Questionnaire: Items and Factor Loadings Resulting From Confirmatory Factor Analyses
(continued)
Itema (I read)
Relief from boredom (factor 7)
30. in order to avoid being bored.
31. if there is nothing better to do.
32. if there is nothing interesting on television.
33. in order to have something to do.
34. because it helps me pass the time.
Note. Version 1 = initial version, 34 items. Version 2 = adaptation of version 1, 30 items. Version 3 = adaptation of Version 2, 29 items.
a
These are translations of the German-language items. They aim to convey the content rather than serve as items for direct use in English.
4=often; 5=very often). Reading length was captured
by asking the respondents how long they usually read
every day (1 = not at all; 2 = less than 30 minutes;
3=3060 minutes; 4=between 1 and 2 hours; 5=more
than 2 hours) and how long they usually read a book
without taking a break (1=5 minutes; 2=15 minutes;
3=30 minutes; 4=60 minutes; 5=more than 60 min-
utes). The reading amount scale was highly consistent
(Cronbachs =.86).
In contrast to the Reading Activities Inventory
(Guthrie, McGough, & Wigfield, 1994), our scale
involved not only the frequency but also the length of
reading. However, it did not differentiate between dif-
ferent themes. In addition, the present scale referred
only to leisure time reading (reading for enjoyment) be-
cause this aspect of reading amount has been shown to
be more strongly associated with reading motivation
and reading comprehension than school-related read-
ing (Cox & Guthrie, 2001; Wang & Guthrie, 2004).
Significant associations with aspects of the home liter-
acy environment (e.g., number of books at home) and
intrinsic (but not extrinsic) reading motivation
(Schaffner etal., 2013) support the validity of the pres-
ent reading amount scale.
Reading Fluency and Comprehension
These variables were assessed by means of a test devel-
oped by Schneider, Schlagmller, and Ennemoser
(2007). This test is based on the maze technique that is
commonly used to measure reading fluency (Tich,
Espin, & Wayman, 2009). Respondents are asked to
read a lengthy and highly coherent narrative text (1,727
words) as quickly as possible within four minutes. In
addition, the text contains 23 blanks that have to be
filled in by selecting the correct word out of three
Factorial and Construct Validity of aNew Instrument for the Assessment of Reading Motivation | 7
Factor loadings
Sample 1 Sample 2
Version 1 Version 2 Version 2 Version 3
0.72 0.69 0.66 0.66
0.55
0.74
0.78 0.80 0.77 0.77
0.84 0.86 0.84 0.84
alternatives. After four minutes, the participants mark
the point they were able to reach in the text.
Reading fluency is captured by the number of
words read, whereas reading comprehension is indi-
cated by the number of correctly selected words. The
scoring of the word selection task is as follows: 2 points
for each correctly selected word, 0 points for not
choosing a word, and 1 point for selecting the wrong
word (as a means of correction for guessing). Schneider
et al. (2007) reported high testretest reliabilities for
both tests (reading fluency: .84; reading comprehen-
sion: .87).
It should be noted that the two indicators of
Schneider etal.s (2007) test may be alternatively inter-
preted as different aspects of decoding skills (or reading
fluency). Accordingly, the number of words read refers
to the speed of decoding, whereas the number of cor-
rectly selected words indicates the accuracy of decoding
(cf. Rasinski, Reutzel, Chard, & Linan-Thompson, 2011;
Roberts, Christo, & Shefelbine, 2011).
Individual scores for reading fluency and reading
comprehension were determined by transforming the
obtained raw scores (number of words read and number
of correctly selected words) into standardized values
(i.e., T-values; M=50, SD =10). In addition, individual
T-values were linearly transformed by dividing the
scores by 10 to reduce their absolute size. Large differ-
ences between the sizes of values of different variables
are likely to cause computational problems when apply-
ing the statistical software Mplus that we used to con-
duct the present analyses.
Missing Values
The initial sample comprised 892 students. Nine stu-
dents had large amounts of missing data (>30%) and
were thus excluded from the analyses. Apart from this
small group of students, we had only few missing data
for all variables (<1.0%). Moreover, only 17.4% of the
participants showed missing values. In these cases, the
percentage of missing values did not exceed 10%. For
the purpose of descriptive analyses, missing values were
replaced by expectationmaximization estimates
(generated by NORM 2.03; Schafer, 1997, 1999). When
conducting structural equation analyses with Mplus,
missing data were accounted for by maximum likeli-
hood estimation (Asparouhov & Muthn, 2010;
Graham, 2009).
Data Analysis
To examine the new version of the RMQ, we conducted
CFAs. Confirmatory instead of exploratory factor anal-
ysis was chosen because the assumed factor structure of
the RMQ was theoretically and empirically well
grounded (see also Baker & Wigfield, 1999). In the first
step, CFA was applied to examine the RMQ in sample 1.
The results of these analyses were then validated in
sample 2. All factor models were estimated by means of
Mplus 7.3 (Muthn & Muthn, 19982014). In addition,
individual items were defined as ordered categorical
variables instead of continuous variables (cf. Carifio &
Perla, 2007; Lubke & Muthn, 2004). Consequently, a
weighted least squares estimator (WLSMV) was used
for these analyses (default option in Mplus). Moreover,
we accounted for the multilevel structure of our data
(the students in our sample were clustered in 48 class-
rooms) by using the TYPE = COMPLEX option in
Mplus.
Results
Factor Structure of the RMQ
CFA in Sample 1
The hypothesized seven-factor model of the RMQ in-
volving 34 items showed a good fit with the data,
2 = 879.97, df = 506, p < .001, comparative fit index
[CFI]=0.964, TuckerLewis Index [TLI]=0.960, root
mean square error of approximation [RMSEA]=0.041.
To detect inappropriate items with substantial double
or multiple loadings, we consulted modification in-
dexes. For that purpose, only modification indexes>20
were considered to be critical because of the good fit of
the overall model and to reduce the risk of sample-
dependent decisions. According to this criterion, four
items (cf. Table 1) were removed from the model in a
stepwise procedure starting with the item that pro-
duced the highest modification index. As expected, the
adapted CFA model with 30 items exhibited a high level
of fit, 2 = 622.15, df = 384, p < .001, CFI = 0.976, mine groups of students with low and high levels of
8 | Reading Research Quarterly, 0(0)
TLI=0.973, RMSEA=0.038. All factor loadings were
above 0.50 (see Table1, Sample 1/Version 2).
CFA in Sample 2
The good fit of the CFA model of the RMQ in sample 1
was confirmed in sample 2, 2 = 619.31, df = 384,
p < .001, CFI = 0.973, TLI = 0.970, RMSEA = 0.037.
Inspection of modification indexes (>20) revealed one
problematic item from the curiosity factor (see Table1,
item number 2). This item showed a substantial loading
on the dimension of involvement and, therefore, was
excluded. The fit indexes of the modified RMQ scale
with 29 items were as follows: 2 = 552.67, df = 356,
p < .001, CFI = 0.977, TLI = 0.973, RMSEA = 0.035.
Again, all factor loadings were above 0.50 (see Table1,
Sample 2/Version 3).
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations
Table 2 represents mean values, standard deviations,
reliabilities, and latent correlations for the final version
of the RMQ based on the total sample. For all subscales,
acceptable or high reliabilities (Cronbachs ) were
obtained. In accordance with previous research, sub-
stantial positive correlations among the dimensions of
reading motivation were found (Schaffner et al., 2013;
Wang & Guthrie, 2004; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). Also
in line with previous research, gender was significantly
related to reading amount. Accordingly, the girls in our
sample tended to read more than boys (cf. Baker &
Wigfield, 1999; Logan & Johnston, 2009, 2010). In con-
trast, the relations between gender and reading compe-
tence were either nonsignificant (reading fluency) or
small (reading comprehension). These findings are not
unusual. Although higher scores for girls in reading
performance have often been found, these differences
tend to be rather small (for an overview, see Logan &
Johnston, 2009). In the case of the standardized test
used in our study, results based on large samples at dif-
ferent grade levels confirm negligible or small gender
differences (<1% explained variance) in reading fluency
and comprehension (see Schneider etal., 2007). This is
in line with findings pertaining to other German stan-
dardized tests of reading comprehension (cf. Lenhard,
2013).
Measurement Invariance
Because differences in reading motivation due to gen-
der and reading competence have been consistently
documented (e.g., Lau & Chan, 2003; Logan & Johnston,
2010; Logan etal., 2011; Mullis etal., 2007), it seemed
necessary to provide evidence that our measure of read-
ing motivation applies equally to female and male as
well as low-and high-competence students. To deter-
TABLE2
Latent Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for the Dimensions of Reading Motivation (Reading Motivation
Questionnaire, Final Version) and the Validation Variables
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Gendera

Reading motivation

2. Curiosity .16**

3. Involvement .27 ***

.76***

4. Grades .02 .38*** .17***

5. Competition .14** .37*** .21*** .76***

6. Social recognition .05 .37*** .24*** .79*** .80***

7. Emotional regulation .28 ***

.59 ***
.63 ***
.18 ***
.30 ***
.32***

8. Relief from boredom .05 .50 ***

.54 ***
.19 ***
.32 ***
.40 ***
.65***

Validation variables

9. Reading amount .25*** .60*** .71*** .03 .13*** .10* .55*** .50***

10. Reading fluency .01 .20 ***

.26 ***
.01 .06 .06 .18 ***
.13 ***
.39***

11. Reading comprehension .08 *

.18 ***
.23 ***
.08 *
.04 .09 *
.17 ***
.10 *
.33 ***
.44***

Mean 2.88 3.03 2.69 2.07 2.19 2.34 2.57 3.06 4.69 4.81

Standard deviation 0.76 0.89 0.83 0.80 0.74 0.98 0.82 0.93 0.83 0.77

Cronbachs .79 .87 .85 .83 .77 .91 .76 .86

Note. All variables are latent except gender, reading fluency, and reading comprehension.
a
Scoring of gender: 1 = male; 2 = female.
*p < .05, two-tailed. **p < .01, two-tailed. ***p < .001, two-tailed.

reading competence, we combined their scores in read-
ing fluency and reading comprehension and then cre-
ated two groups by means of a median split (low
competence: n=417; high competence: n=466).
The confirmation of measurement invariance
across groups represents an important prerequisite for
conducting meaningful cross-group comparisons (e.g.,
between mean values and structural path coefficients;
Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). Measurement invariance
implies that the probability of attaining a specific
observed score given a particular level of the underlying
disposition is independent of group membership (Yoon
& Millsap, 2007). The assessment of measurement
invariance typically involves four hierarchical steps
(e.g., Millsap, 2011; Vandenberg & Lance, 2000; Wu, Li,
& Zumbo, 2007). First, configural invariance represents
the lowest level of invariance and refers to whether the
general factor structure (assignment of items to latent
factors) is the same across groups. Second, metric in-
variance involves all factor loadings being equal across
groups. As a consequence of metric invariance, the unit
of measurement of the latent factor is the same for all
groups. Third, scalar invariance is tested by imposing
equality constraints on item intercepts or thresholds, in
addition to the previous restrictions. If scalar invari-
ance is established, the same observed score is trans-
formed into the same factor score in different groups.
This allows, for example, comparisons between latent
factor means across different groups. Finally, strict in-
variance involves cross-group equality constraints on
the item residuals (error variances) that are unexplained
by the latent factor. If strict measurement invariance
can be confirmed, the items of a factor model are
equally reliable across different groups of respondents.
Strict measurement invariance is only necessary when
manifest means and correlations are to be compared
across groups.
Differences between nested models are usually de-
termined by means of changes in 2 (2). However, 2
is directly affected by sample size, and thus, for larger
samples, even trivial differences between models might
become significant. This problem applies in particular
to the comparison among models representing different
levels of measurement invariance (Chen, 2007).
Therefore, it has been suggested that one should utilize
CFI and RMSEA as the main criteria for evaluating
differences between levels of measurement invariance
(cf. Chen, 2007; Cheung & Rensvold, 2002; Laverdire,

Factorial and Construct Validity of aNew Instrument for the Assessment of Reading Motivation | 9
 Morin, & St-Hilaire, 2013). Accordingly, a higher level
of measurement invariance can be regarded as con-
firmed when the model specifying a higher level of
measurement invariance does not substantially differ
from the model specifying a lower level of measurement
invariance with respect to values of CFI and RMSEA.
Specifically, the decrease in fit from the lower to the
higher level of invariance should be less than 0.01 for
CFI and less than 0.015 for RMSEA (cf. Chen, 2007).
As a precondition for testing measurement invari-
ance of the RMQ across different groups, it is necessary
to demonstrate adequate model fit separately for these
groups (Wu etal., 2007). In the present case, the results
showed a good level of fit for the seven-factor CFA
model for girls, 2 = 578.56, df = 356, p < .001,
CFI = 0.976, TLI = 0.972, RMSEA = 0.038; for boys,
2=543.20, df=356, p<.001, CFI=0.981, TLI=0.979,
RMSEA = 0.035; for students low in reading compe-
tence, 2 = 534.15, df = 356, p < .001, CFI = 0.979,
TLI=0.976, RMSEA=0.035; and for students high in
reading competence, 2 = 584.24, df = 356, p < .001,
CFI=0.980, TLI=0.977, RMSEA=0.037. Consequently,
we proceeded to evaluate the four levels of measure-
ment invariance of the RMQ across gender and compe-
tence groups. The results (see Table3) revealed that all
models specifying a particular level of measurement
invariance showed good fit indexes. In addition, the
results confirmed the highest level of measurement
invariance (i.e., strict invariance) for the seven-factor
model of the RMQ across gender and across compe-
tence groups. Interestingly, the comparison across
models in Table3 shows that the increasing amount of
restrictions did not lead to a reduction of model fit as
indicated by CFI and RMSEA. Instead, the highest
level of fit was observed for the strict invariance models.
This suggests that the latent factors of the RMQ are well
specified and that their means and interrelations can be
directly compared between girls and boys and between
low-and high-competence students.
Second-Order Factors
The pattern of correlations among RMQ dimensions
suggests the existence of second-order factors. More
specifically, two alternative models of the RMQ with
second-order factors seem possible. The first model
includes two second-order factors: One factor com-
prises intrinsic reading motivation (curiosity and in-
volvement) and regulatory reading motivation
(emotional regulation and relief from boredom), and
the other factor represents extrinsic reading motiva-
tion (grades, competition, and social recognition).
This hypothetical model corresponds closely to the
obtained correlation pattern (see Table 2). However,
from a theoretical point of view, intrinsic reading mo-
tivation should be distinguishable from motivation to
read to regulate ones feelings. Therefore, we also
examined an alternative model with three second-
order factors: intrinsic (curiosity and involvement),
extrinsic (grades, competition, and social recogni-
tion), and regulatory reading motivation (emotional
regulation and relief from boredom).

TABLE3
Measurement Invariance of the Reading Motivation Questionnaire Across Gender and Competence Groups
Model fit
Measurement Comparison
invariance model 2
df CFI TLI RMSEA of models 2 (df)a CFIb RMSEAc
Measurement invariance across gender

Configural 1,116.12*** 712 0.979 0.976 0.036

Metric 1,134.43*** 734 0.979 0.977 0.035 Metric vs. configural 23.13 (22) 0.000 0.001

Scalar 1,192.53*** 785 0.978 0.978 0.034 Scalar vs. metric 91.37 (51)*** 0.001 0.001

Strict 1,195.58 ***

814 0.980 0.980 0.033 Strict vs. scalar 38.65 (29) 0.002 0.001

Measurement invariance across students low and high in reading competence

Configural 1,111.61*** 712 0.980 0.977 0.036

Metric 1,127.64*** 734 0.980 0.978 0.035 Metric vs. configural 19.36 (22) 0.000 0.001

Scalar 1,173.06*** 785 0.980 0.979 0.033 Scalar vs. metric 65.27 (51) 0.000 0.002

Strict 1,187.12 ***

814 0.981 0.981 0.032 Strict vs. scalar 48.21 (29) *
0.001 0.001
Note. CFI = comparative fit index. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation. TLI = TuckerLewis Index.
a
For ordered categorical data, the 2 values of different models cannot be directly compared, and therefore, 2 was estimated by using the DIFFTEST
option in Mplus. bRejection of the higher level of measurement invariance if CFI 0.01. cRejection of the higher level of measurement invariance if
RMSEA 0.015.
*p < .05. ***p < .001.

10 | Reading Research Quarterly, 0(0)

 We compared the two alternative models with
each other and with a baseline model that assumed
that all dimensions of the RMQ are loading on the
same higher order factor. For these comparisons, we
relied mainly on the 2-difference test because there
are no general guidelines for the use of alternative cut-
off criteria referring to CFI or RMSEA when com-
paring nested single- g roup models (in contrast to
comparing nested multiple-g roup models involved in
testing measurement invariance). The results in
Table4 reveal that only the models with two or three
second-order factors attained acceptable fit indexes.
Accordingly, the results indicate that the model with
two second-order factors performed significantly bet-
ter than the baseline model.
However, the model with three second-order factors
showed better fit than the model with two. Thus, it
seems justified to distinguish between intrinsic and
regulatory reading motivation, although these factors
were highly associated (r latent=.82). The latent correla-
tions between extrinsic reading motivation and both
intrinsic (r latent=.37) and regulatory reading motivation
(r latent = .38) were less strong. As explained earlier, the
regulation of emotions and the avoidance of boredom
by means of reading should be mainly successful if
reading is intrinsically motivated. Accordingly, the ob-
tained overlap of intrinsic and regulatory reading moti-
vation appears to be theoretically meaningful. It should
be noted, however, that despite a significant 2 differ-
ence, the models with two and three second-order fac-
tors showed almost identical CFI values. Thus, both
models performed almost equally well, and more evi-
dence is needed to confirm their distinction.
We also examined whether the obtained structure
of the RMQ with second-order factors applied to both
female and male students and to both low-and high-
competence groups. For that purpose, the comparisons
among models with one, two, or three second-order
TABLE4
Models of the Reading Motivation Questionnaire With Second-Order Factors
Comparative
Model 2 df fit index
Model 1: One 3,033.52*** 370 0.858
second-order factor
Model 2: Two 891.68*** 368 0.972
second-order factors
Model 3: Three 835.46*** 367 0.975
second-order factors
Note. Model 2: Second-order factors are intrinsic/regulatory reading motivation (curiosity, involvement, emotional regulation, and relief from
boredom) and extrinsic reading motivation (grades, competition, and social recognition). Model 3: Second-order factors are intrinsic (curiosity and
involvement), regulatory (emotional regulation and relief from boredom), and extrinsic reading motivation (see model 2).
a
For ordered categorical data, the 2 values of different models cannot be directly compared, and therefore, 2 was estimated by using the DIFFTEST
option in Mplus.
***p < .001.
Factorial and Construct Validity of aNew Instrument for the Assessment of Reading Motivation | 11
factors were conducted separately for each group. This
procedure was chosen because it is not possible to in-
clude second-order factors in tests of measurement in-
variance. The results showed for all four groups that the
model with two second-order factors performed better
than the model with one second-order factor, for girls:
2(2) = 221.92, p < .001; for boys: 2(2) = 157.96,
p<.001, for low-competence students: 2(2)=238.96,
p < .001; and for high- competence students:
2(2) = 204.07, p < 0.001, and the model with three
second-order factors performed better than the model
with two second-order factors, for girls: 2(1)=28.77,
p < .001; for boys, 2(1) = 21.57, p < .001; for low-
competence students: 2(2) = 17.65, p < .001; and for
high-competence students: 2(2) = 28.40, p < .001.
Thus, the factor structure with three second-order fac-
tors applies equally to girls and boys and to low-and
high-competence students.
Construct Validity
To examine the construct validity of the RMQ, we first
analyzed the latent correlations between the dimen-
sions of the RMQ and reading amount, fluency, and
comprehension. Significant positive correlations with
the validation variables were expected for curiosity, in-
volvement, emotional regulation, and relief from bore-
dom. In contrast, we hypothesized nonsignificant or
significant negative correlations between the validation
variables and grades, competition, and social recogni-
tion. The findings (see Table2) were mostly in line with
the hypotheses. However, in contrast to expectations,
small but significant positive correlations between
reading amount and both competition and social rec-
ognition were observed. These positive associations
might be due to the relatively high correlations of
competition and social recognition with the intrinsic
dimensions of curiosity and involvement (see Table2).
Tucker Root mean
Lewis square error of
Index approximation Comparison 2 (df)a
0.844 0.090
0.969 0.040 Model 1 vs. 362.92 (2)***
model 2
0.972 0.038 Model 2 vs. 39.08 (1)***
model 3
In the same vein, the hypothesized significant positive
correlations between the validation variables and both
emotional regulation and relief from boredom are likely
to be explained by the rather high associations between
the intrinsic and regulatory dimensions of reading
motivation.
To determine their unique contributions, we exam-
ined the RMQ dimensions simultaneously as predictors
of the validation variables. In this case, because of the
high correlations among the dimensions of reading
motivation and to avoid artifacts due to multicollinear-
ity, we used the second-order factors of the RMQ as pre-
dictors. More specifically, a model was tested in which
the second-order factors served as predictors of reading
amount, fluency, and comprehension. The second-
order factors were indicated by their corresponding pri-
mary factors, which in turn were represented at the
item level. Reading amount was indicated by its corre-
sponding items, whereas reading fluency and compre-
hension were manifest variables. To control for gender
differences, we included direct paths from gender to all
variables in the model.
According to expectations, the results revealed sig-
nificant and substantial associations between intrinsic
reading motivation and the validation variables (see
Table5), whereas the contributions of extrinsic reading
motivation all became significantly negative. The latter
finding is in line with previous studies showing that
extrinsic reading motivation contributes negatively to
reading amount and reading competence when control-
ling for intrinsic reading motivation (e.g., Schaffner
et al., 2013; Unrau & Schlackman, 2006; Wang &
Guthrie, 2004). In contrast, the findings did not con-
firm unique contributions of regulatory reading moti-
vation. There was, however, a marginal significant
association between regulatory reading motivation and
TABLE5
Prediction of the Validation Variables by Second-Order
Factors of Reading Motivation (RM)
Reading Reading Reading
Predictor amount fluency comprehension
Gendera .02 .08 .07
Intrinsic RM .71*** .32*** .28***
Extrinsic RM .22*** .13** .19***
Regulatory RM .16 .01 .04
R2 .62 .09 .09
Note. The parameters (standardized path coefficients) were estimated
within a single model, 2 = 1,119.02, df = 604, p < .001, comparative fit
index = 0.972, TuckerLewis Index = 0.969, root mean square error of
approximation = 0.031. All variables are latent except reading fluency
and reading comprehension.
a
Scoring of gender: 1 = male; 2 = female.
**p < .01. ***p < .001. p = .052.
12 | Reading Research Quarterly, 0(0)
reading amount. Also noteworthy, the effects of gender
on the validation variables were not significant. This
finding is in line with studies showing that gender dif-
ferences in reading behavior or comprehension disap-
pear when controlling for intrinsic reading motivation
(Artelt, Naumann, & Schneider, 2010).
Additional evidence for the construct validity of the
RMQ was provided by examining assumed gender dif-
ferences in the dimensions of reading motivation.
Specifically, we expected that girls are higher in curios-
ity, involvement, and emotional regulation and lower in
competition than boys. The remaining dimensions of
reading motivation should not be affected by gender.
The correlational findings in Table 2 were in accor-
dance with our assumptions and, thus, support the va-
lidity of the RMQ.
Discussion
This study was designed to develop and evaluate the
multidimensional RMQ for students at the higher ele-
mentary and secondary school levels. Based on Wigfield
and Guthries (1997) framework, previous research (e.g.,
Greaney & Neuman, 1990; Schutte & Malouff, 2007;
Watkins & Coffey, 2004), and theoretical consider-
ations, the following dimensions of reading motivation
were proposed: curiosity, involvement, grades, competi-
tion, social recognition, emotional regulation, and relief
from boredom. The factorial structure of the RMQ was
examined by applying an item-level CFA. Also, in ex-
tending previous research, the present study (a) intro-
duced two new dimensions of reading motivation
(reading to regulate negative emotions and to avoid
boredom), (b) tested the measurement invariance of the
proposed reading motivation instrument across gender
and across competence groups, and (c) analyzed the
second-order factor structure of the RMQ for the pur-
pose of providing an empirical basis for the use of com-
posite scores (e.g., for intrinsic reading motivation).
First of all, the measurement model of the RMQ
pertaining to the primary factors showed good fit in-
dexes and thus confirmed the proposed dimensions of
reading motivation. In addition, strict measurement in-
variance for the RMQ across girls and boys and across
low-and high-competence students was established.
This suggests that the latent factors of the RMQ are in-
variant across groups referring to their conceptual
meaning, the unit of measurement, the correspondence
between observed scores and factor scores, and the item
residuals. Although strict measurement invariance is
not required when latent variables are analyzed, its con-
firmation underlines the fact that the RMQ is equally
applicable to female and male students and to students
who are low and high in reading competence.
 Another important result of the present study per-
tains to the structure of higher order or secondary
factors. Previous studies have usually created composite
scores for intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation with
varying dimensions being involved (e.g., Andreassen &
Brten, 2010; Guthrie et al., 1999; Wigfield & Guthrie,
1997). Such scores are useful to avoid multicollinearity
that is likely to occur when highly correlated variables
are simultaneously included as predictors in regression
models. However, empirical evidence for such composite
measures has not been provided (cf. Schiefele etal., 2012).
The obtained second-order factors in the present study
support the use of composite scores for intrinsic and ex-
trinsic reading motivation. Specifically, the present find-
ings confirm the use of (a) curiosity and involvement as
components of a composite score for intrinsic reading
motivation (Guthrie etal., 1999; Wang & Guthrie, 2004)
and (b) grades, competition, and recognition as compo-
nents of a composite score for extrinsic reading motiva-
tion (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). Moreover, we were able
to demonstrate that the obtained second-order structure
of the RMQ is valid across gender and competence
groups.
In addition to intrinsic and extrinsic motivation,
the present study suggests regulatory reading motiva-
tion as a third higher-order factor encompassing emo-
tional regulation and relief from boredom. Although
the higher order factors of intrinsic and regulatory
reading motivation were highly correlated, they seem
to represent distinct factors. However, because of the
small difference in the goodness of fit between the
models with and without differentiation between in-
trinsic and regulatory reading motivation, more re-
search is necessary to further substantiate the empirical
distinction between these dimensions of reading
motivation.
Our assumptions regarding the construct validity
of the dimensions of reading motivation were largely
confirmed. In line with previous studies, the analysis of
bivariate correlations revealed that girls scores for curi-
osity, involvement, and emotional regulation were
higher than boys scores (cf. Logan & Johnston, 2009,
2010; Schiefele & Schaffner, 2013; Wigfield & Guthrie,
1997), whereas boys tended to be more competitively
motivated than girls (cf. Stutz et al., 2016; Unrau &
Schlackman, 2006; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997).
Moreover, the dimensions of intrinsic reading motiva-
tion were positively correlated with the validation vari-
ables, thus confirming previous research (Andreassen
& Brten, 2010; Becker etal., 2010; Law, 2009; Unrau &
Schlackman, 2006; Wang & Guthrie, 2004). Also in line
with our assumptions, the extrinsic dimensions were
either nonsignificantly or negatively related to the vali-
dation variables (see also Law, 2009; Unrau &
Schlackman, 2006; Wang & Guthrie, 2004).
Factorial and Construct Validity of aNew Instrument for the Assessment of Reading Motivation | 13
In contrast to expectations, competition and social
recognition showed small but significant positive cor-
relations with reading amount. Previous findings, how-
ever, are not quite consistent pertaining to these
particular relations. Specifically, in line with the pres-
ent results, Wang and Guthrie (2004) and Schaffner
etal. (2013) reported a significant correlation between
competition (but not recognition) and reading amount,
whereas Wigfield and Guthrie (1997) observed a signif-
icant correlation between recognition (but not competi-
tion) and reading amount. However, all of these
associations were rather low and did not take other pre-
dictors into account.
The analysis of a structural equation model involv-
ing second-order dimensions of reading motivation as
predictors of the validation variables was only partly
consistent with the correlational findings. Whereas the
positive correlations between intrinsic reading motiva-
tion and the validation variables were clearly con-
firmed, the coefficients for the contributions of extrinsic
reading motivation all became significantly negative.
The latter finding is in accordance with the hypotheses
and demonstrates that the negative effects of extrinsic
reading motivation are more pronounced when con-
trolling for intrinsic reading motivation. This more
pronounced effect is the result of reciprocal suppression
between intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation
(Schaffner et al., 2013; Unrau & Schlackman, 2006;
Wang & Guthrie, 2004). More specifically, the positive
correlation between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
induces positive spurious effects of extrinsic motivation
and negative spurious effects of intrinsic motivation on
outcome variables such as reading amount and reading
competence. As a consequence, when testing the two
components of reading motivation as simultaneous pre-
dictors, the nonsignificant (or small positive) contribu-
tions of extrinsic motivation become significantly
negative, whereas the positive contributions of intrinsic
motivation become even more positive.
In contrast to our assumptions, the obtained posi-
tive correlations between regulatory reading motivation
and the validation variables did not hold in the struc-
tural equation model with multiple predictors. Thus, it
can be concluded that the positive bivariate correlations
between the regulatory dimensions and the validation
variables are mostly due to the strong association be-
tween regulatory and intrinsic reading motivation. The
effective variable appears to be intrinsic reading moti-
vation. Only with respect to reading amount, the find-
ings suggested a small but unique contribution of
regulatory reading motivation.
Despite the limited predictive validity of regula-
tory reading motivation, we suggest that this construct
should be followed up in the future. On the one hand,
regulatory motivation might be interesting in itself.
For example, regulatory use of reading could be stud-
ied in greater depth as a mechanism of emotion regu-
lation, thereby focusing on its effectiveness and
relation to other forms of emotion regulation
(Holodynski, & Friedlmeier, 2006; Kopp, 1989;
Mantzicopoulos, 1997). On the other hand, reading
for the purpose of regulating ones feelings may turn
out to be an effective means of increasing childrens
intrinsic reading motivation.
Limitations and Future Research
Although the present study provided evidence for the
multidimensional structure of the RMQ, its measure-
ment invariance across gender and across competence
groups, and the reliability and validity of the proposed
dimensions of reading motivation, a few limitations
have to be stated. First, it may be criticized that we de-
cided to exclude those dimensions that are likely to be
closely related to reading motivation but do not them-
selves represent forms of motivation. This refers in par-
ticular to work avoidance, challenge, importance, and
efficacy (cf. Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). We would like
to point out that we do not regard these dimensions as
unimportant. To the contrary, these dimensions repre-
sent highly relevant antecedents and consequences of
reading motivation. Therefore, it is justified and useful
to include these dimensions in questionnaires on read-
ing motivation such as the MRQ. In the case of our
questionnaire, however, we preferred to cover only
those dimensions that represent reading motivation in a
more narrow sense.
Second, the present analyses were based on sixth-
grade students only. Thus, it remains unclarified
whether the confirmed factor structure and measure-
ment invariance also apply to fourth and fifth graders
and to students above sixth grade. As a consequence,
future research should test the RMQ in other age groups
or use longitudinal designs to examine the measure-
ment invariance of the RMQ across time.
Third, there are further important goals for future
research referring to the dimensions of reading motiva-
tion. On the one hand, it seems necessary to reconsider
those dimensions that are strongly related to school
(grades and competition). Although there is some evi-
dence from qualitative research that students in fact use
their leisure time reading as a means to improve their
achievement in school and to outperform others, more
evidence is needed to show that students in fact refer
their ratings of the grades and competition scales to lei-
sure time reading and not to reading for school (e.g.,
reading of school books).
On the other hand, further relevant dimensions
that are not represented by the RMQ might exist.
14 | Reading Research Quarterly, 0(0)
Among those is certainly the dimension of social
reading motivation or social reasons for reading.
Although we have criticized the MRQ scale of social
reasons, it seems quite meaningful, in accordance
with research on social goals (e.g., Wentzel, 2000,
2005), to suggest a form of reading motivation that is
directed at social exchange or relatedness (e.g., talk-
ing about books with others, reading to others).
However, in contrast to the MRQ, items measuring
social reading motivation should take the form of di-
rectly stating social reasons for reading (e.g., I read
because it allows me to talk about it with friends) in-
stead of merely listing literacy-related activities (e.g.,
I visit the library often with my family; Wigfield &
Guthrie, 1997).
NOTES
We wish to thank Katharina Kulisz for her contribution to the col-
lection of data.
1
In most states (Bundeslnder) in Germany, elementary schools
only include four grades, whereas in a few states, such as Berlin or
Brandenburg, elementary schools comprise grades 16.
REFERENCES
Alloway, T.P., & Gregory, D. (2013). The predictive ability of IQ and
working memory scores in literacy in an adult population.
International Journal of Educational Research, 57, 5156.
doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2012.10.004
Andreassen, R., & Brten, I. (2010). Examining the prediction of
reading comprehension on different multiple-choice tests. Journal
of Research in Reading, 33(3), 263283. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817
.2009.01413.x
Artelt, C., Naumann, J., & Schneider, W. (2010). Lesemotivation und
Lernstrategien [Reading motivation and reading strategies]. In E.
Klieme, C. Artelt, J. Hartig, N. Jude, O. Kller, M. Prenzel, P.
Stanat (Eds.), PISA 2009: Bilanz nach einem Jahrzehnt [PISA
2009: Balance after a decade] (pp. 73112). Mnster, Germany:
Waxmann.
Asparouhov, T., & Muthn, B. (2010). Weighted least squares estimation
with missing data [Technical appendix]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthn &
Muthn. Retrieved from www.statmodel.com/techappen.shtml
Atkinson, J.W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ:
Van Nostrand.
Baker, L., & Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of childrens motiva-
tion for reading and their relations to reading activity and read-
ing achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(4), 452477.
doi:10.1598/RRQ.34.4.4
Baumert, J., & Schmer, G. (2001). Schulformen als selektionsbed-
ingte Lernmilieus [School forms as selection-based learning con-
texts]. In J. Baumert, E. Klieme, M. Neubrand, M. Prenzel, U.
Schiefele, W. Schneider, M. Wei (Eds.), PISA 2000:
Basiskompetenzen von Schlerinnen und Schlern im internatio-
nalen Vergleich [PISA 2000: Basic competencies of students in an
international comparison] (pp. 454467). Opladen, Germany:
Leske + Budrich.
Becker, M., McElvany, N., & Kortenbruck, M. (2010). Intrinsic and
extrinsic reading motivation as predictors of reading literacy: A
longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4),
773785. doi:10.1037/a0020084
Brophy, J.E. (2005). Goal theorists should move on from perfor-
mance goals. Educational Psychologist, 40(3), 167176.
doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4003_3
Carifio, J., & Perla, R.J. (2007). Ten common misunderstandings,
misconceptions, persistent myths and urban legends about Likert
scales and Likert response formats and their antidotes. Journal of
Social Sciences, 3(3), 106116. doi:10.3844/jssp.2007.106.116
Chapman, J.W., Tunmer, W.E., & Prochnow, J.E. (2000). Early
reading-related skills and performance, reading self-concept, and
the development of academic self-concept: A longitudinal study.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 703708. doi:10.1037/
0022-0663.92.4.703
Chen, F.F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of
measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3),
464504. doi:10.1080/10705510701301834
Cheung, G.W., & Rensvold, R.B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-f it
indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation
Modeling, 9(2), 233255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
Chiu, M.M., & McBride-Chang, C. (2006). Gender, context, and
reading: A comparison of students in 43 countries. Scientific
Studies of Reading, 10(4), 331362. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr1004_1
Cox, K.E., & Guthrie, J.T. (2001). Motivational and cognitive contri-
butions to students amount of reading. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 26(1), 116131. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1044
De Naeghel, J., & Van Keer, H. (2013). The relation of student and
class-level characteristics to primary school students autono-
mous reading motivation: A multi-level approach. Journal of
Research in Reading, 36(4), 351370. doi:10.1111/jrir.12000
De Naeghel, J., Van Keer, H., Vansteenkiste, M., & Rosseel, Y. (2012).
The relation between elementary students recreational and aca-
demic reading motivation, reading frequency, engagement, and
comprehension: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 10061021. doi:10.1037/a0027800
Eccles, J.S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and
goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109132. doi:10.1146/
annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
Elliot, A.J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal
construct. In A.J. Elliot & C.S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of compe-
tence and motivation (pp. 5272). New York, NY: Guilford.
Foorman, B.R., & Connor, C.M. (2011). Primary grade reading. In
M.L. Kamil, P.D. Pearson, E.B. Moje, & P. Afflerbach (Eds.),
Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 136156). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Graham, J.W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the
real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 549576. doi:10.1146/
annurev.psych.58.110405.085530
Greaney, V., & Neuman, S.B. (1990). The functions of reading: A
cross-cultural perspective. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(3),
172195. doi:10.2307/748001
Guthrie, J.T., & Klauda, S.L. (2016). Engagement and motivational
processes in reading. In P. Afflerbach (Ed.), Handbook of indi-
vidual differences in reading: Reader, text, and context (pp. 41
53). New York, NY: Routledge.
Guthrie, J.T., Klauda, S.L., & Ho, A.N. (2013). Modeling the relation-
ships among reading instruction, motivation, engagement, and
achievement for adolescents. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(1),
926. doi:10.1002/rrq.035
Guthrie, J.T., McGough, K., & Wigfield, A. (1994). Measuring read-
ing activity: An inventory (Instructional Resource No. 4). Athens,
GA: National Reading Research Center.
Guthrie, J.T., Van Meter, P., McCann, A.D., & Wigfield, A. (1996).
Growth of literacy engagement: Changes in motivations and strat-
egies during Concept- Oriented Reading Instruction. Reading
Research Quarterly, 31(3), 306332. doi:10.1598/RRQ.31.3.5
Guthrie, J.T., & Wigfield, A. (Eds.). (1999). How motivation fits into
a science of reading [Special issue]. Scientific Studies of Reading,
3(3).
Guthrie, J.T., Wigfield, A., Metsala, J.L., & Cox, K.E. (1999).
Motivational and cognitive predictors of text comprehension and
Factorial and Construct Validity of aNew Instrument for the Assessment of Reading Motivation | 15
reading amount. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(3), 231256.
doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0303_3
Heckhausen, H. (1991). Motivation and action. New York, NY:
Springer.
Holodynski, M., & Friedlmeier, W. (2006). Development of emotions
and emotion regulation. New York, NY: Springer.
Hulleman, C.S., Durik, A.M., Schweigert, S.A., & Harackiewicz,
J.M. (2008). Task values, achievement goals, and interest: An in-
tegrative analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 398
416. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.398
Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2007). The effects of prior knowl-
edge and text structure on comprehension processes during read-
ing of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition, 35(7), 15671577.
doi:10.3758/BF03193491
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kopp, C. (1989). Regulation of distress and negative emotions: A de-
velopmental view. Developmental Psychology, 25(3), 343354.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.25.3.343
Kuhn, D., & Franklin, S. (2006). The second decade: What develops
(and how). In D. Kuhn & R. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psy-
chology: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception, and language (pp. 953
993). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Lau, K., & Chan, D.W. (2003). Reading strategy use and motivation
among Chinese good and poor readers in Hong Kong. Journal of
Research in Reading, 26(2), 177190. doi:10.1111/1467-9817.00195
Laverdire, O., Morin, A.J., & St-Hilaire, F. (2013). Factor structure
and measurement invariance of a short measure of the Big Five
personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(7),
739743. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.06.008
Law, Y. (2009). The role of attribution beliefs, motivation and
strategy use in Chinese fifth-graders reading comprehension.
Educational Research, 51(1), 7795. doi:10.1080/001318808027
04764
Lenhard, W. (2013). Leseverstndnis und Lesekompetenz [Reading
comprehension and reading competence]. Stuttgart, Germany:
Kohlhammer.
Logan, S., & Johnston, R.S. (2009). Gender differences in reading
ability and attitudes: Examining where these differences lie.
Journal of Research in Reading, 32(2), 199214. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-9817.2008.01389.x
Logan, S., & Johnston, R.S. (2010). Investigating gender differences
in reading. Educational Review, 62(2), 175187. doi:10.1080/
00131911003637006
Logan, S., Medford, E., & Hughes, N. (2011). The importance of in-
trinsic motivation for high and low ability readers reading com-
prehension performance. Learning and Individual Differences,
21(1), 124128. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.09.011
Lubke, G.H., & Muthn, B.O. (2004). Applying multigroup
confirmatory factor models for continuous outcomes to Likert
scale data complicates meaningful group comparisons. Structural
Equation Modeling, 11(4), 514534. doi:10.1207/s15328007
sem1104_2
Mantzicopoulos, P. (1997). How do children cope with school failure?
A study of social/emotional factors related to childrens coping
strategies Psychology in the Schools, 34(3), 229237. doi:10.1002/
(SICI)1520-6807(199707)34:3<229::AID-PITS5>3.0.CO;2-J
McGeown, S., Goodwin, H., Henderson, N., & Wright, P. (2012).
Gender differences in reading motivation: Does sex or gender
identity provide a better account? Journal of Research in Reading,
35(3), 328336. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01481.x
McKenna, M.C., Kear, D.J., & Ellsworth, R.A. (1995). Childrens at-
titudes toward reading: A national survey. Reading Research
Quarterly, 30(4), 934956. doi:10.2307/748205
Millsap, R.E. (2011). Statistical approaches to measurement invari-
ance. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Mller, J., & Bonerad, E.-M. (2007). Fragebogen zur habituellen
Lesemotivation [Habitual reading motivation questionnaire].
Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 54(4), 259267.
Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Kennedy, A.M., & Foy, P. (2007). PIRLS
2006 international report: IEAs Progress in International Reading
Literacy Study in primary schools in 40 countries. Chestnut Hill,
MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School
of Education, Boston College.
Muthn, L.K., & Muthn, B.O. (19982014). Mplus users guide. Los
Angeles, CA: Muthn & Muthn.
Nolen, S.B. (2007). Young childrens motivation to read and write:
Development in social contexts. Cognition and Instruction,
25(2/3), 219270. doi:10.1080/07370000701301174
Park, Y. (2011). How motivational constructs interact to predict ele-
mentary students reading performance: Examples from attitudes
and self-concept in reading. Learning and Individual Differences,
21(4), 347358. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.02.009
Pekrun, R. (1993). Facets of adolescents academic motivation: A
longitudinal expectancyvalue approach. In M.L. Maehr & P.R.
Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 8,
pp. 139189). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Pintrich, P.R., & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students motivational beliefs
and their cognitive engagement in classroom academic tasks. In
D.H. Schunk & J.L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the class-
room (pp. 149183). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rasinski, T.V., Reutzel, D.R., Chard, D., & Linan-Thompson, S.
(2011). Reading fluency. In M.L. Kamil, P.D. Pearson, E.B. Moje,
& P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp.
286319). New York, NY: Routledge.
Roberts, T.A., Christo, C., & Shefelbine, J.A. (2011). Word recogni-
tion. In M.L. Kamil, P.D. Pearson, E.B. Moje, & P. Afflerbach
(Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 229258). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Sainsbury, S., & Schagen, I. (2004). Attitudes to reading at ages nine
and eleven. Journal of Research in Reading, 27(4), 373386.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2004.00240.x
Schafer, J.L. (1997). Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. New
York, NY: Chapman & Hall.
Schafer, J.L. (1999). NORM 2.03 for Windows 95/98/NT [Computer
software]. University Park: Department of Statistics,
Pennsylvania State University.
Schaffner, E., & Schiefele, U. (2007). Auswirkungen habitueller
Lesemotivation auf die situative Textreprsentation [Effects of
habitual reading motivation on the situational representation
of text]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 54(4),
268286.
Schaffner, E., Schiefele, U., & Ulferts, H. (2013). Reading amount as
a mediator of the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic reading moti-
vation on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly,
48(4), 369385. doi:10.1002/rrq.52
Schiefele, U. (1999). Interest and learning from text. Scientific
Studies of Reading, 3(3), 257279. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0303_4
Schiefele, U. (2009). Situational and individual interest. In K.R.
Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school
(pp. 197222). New York, NY: Routledge.
Schiefele, U., & Schaffner, E. (2013). Die Lesemotivation von
Grundschlerinnen und - schlern der sechsten Klassenstufe:
Ergebnisse einer Interviewstudie [Reading motivation of elemen-
tary school students: Results from an interview study]. Psychologie
in Erziehung und Unterricht, 60(3), 214233.
Schiefele, U., Schaffner, E., Mller, J., & Wigfield, A. (2012).
Dimensions of reading motivation and their relation to reading
behavior and competence. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4),
427463. doi:10.1002/RRQ.030
Schneider, W., Schlagmller, M., & Ennemoser, M. (2007). LGVT
612: Lesegeschwindigkeits- und -verstndnistest fr die
16 | Reading Research Quarterly, 0(0)
Klassenstufen 612 [Reading fluency and reading comprehension
test for grades 612]. Gttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Schunk, D.H. (1991). Self- efficacy and academic motivation.
Educational Psychologist, 26(3/4), 207231.
Schutte, N.S., & Malouff, J.M. (2007). Dimensions of reading motiva-
tion: Development of an adult reading motivation scale. Reading
Psychology, 28(5), 469489. doi:10.1080/02702710701568991
Stutz, F., Schaffner, E., & Schiefele, U. (2016). Relations among read-
ing motivation, reading amount, and reading comprehension in
the early elementary grades. Learning and Individual Differences,
45, 101113. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.022
Tarelli, I., Schwippert, K., & Stubbe, T.C. (2012). Mathematische
und naturwissenschaftliche Kompetenzen von Schlerinnen und
Schlern mit Migrationshintergrund [Competencies of students
with an immigration background in mathematics and science].
In W. Bos, H. Wendt, O. Kller, & C. Selter (Eds.), TIMSS 2011:
Mathematische und naturwissenschaftliche Kompetenzen von
Grundschulkindern in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich
[TIMSS 2011: Mathematical and scientific skills of primary
school children in Germany in an international comparison]
(pp.247267). Mnster, Germany: Waxmann.
Tich, R., Espin, C.A., & Wayman, M.M. (2009). Reading progress
monitoring for secondary-school students: Reliability, validity,
and sensitivity to growth of reading-a loud and maze-selection
measures. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(3), 132
142. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00287.x
Tighe, E.L., & Schatschneider, C. (2014). A dominance analysis ap-
proach to determining predictor importance in third, seventh,
and tenth grade reading comprehension skills. Reading and
Writing, 27(1), 101127. doi:10.1007/s11145-013-9435-6
Unrau, N., & Schlackman, J. (2006). Motivation and its relationship
with reading achievement in an urban middle school. The Journal of
Educational Research, 100(2), 81101. doi:10.3200/JOER.100.2.81-101
Vandenberg, R.J., & Lance, C.E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the
measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and
recommendations for organizational research. Organizational
Research Methods, 3(1), 470. doi:10.1177/109442810031002
Wang, J.H., & Guthrie, J.T. (2004). Modeling the effects of intrinsic
motivation, extrinsic motivation, amount of reading, and past
reading achievement on text comprehension between U.S. and
Chinese students. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 162186.
doi:10.1598/RRQ.39.2.2
Watkins, M.W., & Coffey, D.Y. (2004). Reading motivation:
Multidimensional and indeterminate. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 96(1), 110118. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.110
Weiner, B. (1989). Human motivation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wentzel, K.R. (2000). What is it that Im trying to achieve? Classroom
goals from a content perspective Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 25(1), 105115. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1021
Wentzel, K.R. (2005). Peer relationships, motivation, and academic
performance at school. In A.J. Elliot & C.S. Dweck (Eds.),
Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 279296). New
York, NY: Guilford.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J.S. (2000). Expectancyvalue theory of
achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
25(1), 6881. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J.T. (1997). Relations of childrens motiva-
tion for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 420432. doi:10.1037/
0022-0663.89.3.420
Wu, A.D., Li, Z., & Zumbo, B.D. (2007). Decoding the meaning of
factorial invariance and updating the practice of multi-group
confirmatory factor analysis: A demonstration with TIMSS data.
Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12(3), 126.
Yoon, M., & Millsap, R.E. (2007). Detecting violations of factorial
invariance using data- based specification searches: A Monte
 Carlo study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 435463.
doi:10.1080/10705510701301677
Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 8291. doi:10.1006/
ceps.1999.1016
Submitted April 8, 2015
Final revision received October 29, 2015
Accepted November 13, 2015
Factorial and Construct Validity of aNew Instrument for the Assessment of Reading Motivation | 17
ULRICH SCHIEFELE (corresponding author) is a professor in
the Department of Psychology at the University of Potsdam,
Germany; e-mail ulrich.schiefele@uni-potsdam.de.
ELLEN SCHAFFNER was a research scientist in the
Department of Psychology at the University of Potsdam,
Germany, at the time of this study; e-mail ellen.schaffner@
uni-potsdam.de.