In the article “Translation and validation of the perceived locus of causality questionnaire (PLOCQ) in a sample of portuguese physical education students”, published in volume 24, number 2, 2018: DOI: 10.1590/S1980-6574201800020007 and identification: e1018162.
In the page 1:
Where it was written:
This study suggests that PLOCQ with ive factors and 18 items has good psychometric proprieties and can be used to assess contextual motivation towards PE in the Portuguese context.
Should read:
This study suggests that PLOCQ with ive factors and 18 items has good psychometric properties and can be used to assess contextual motivation towards PE in the Portuguese context.
In the page 1:
Where it was written:
This instrument was initially developed by Goudas, Biddle and Fox13 through an adaptation of the Self-Regulation Questionnaire developed by Ryan and Connel14.
Should read:
This instrument was initially developed by Goudas, Biddle and Fox13 through an adaptation of the Self-Regulation Questionnaire developed by Ryan and Connell14.
In the page 2, section Method, subsection Participants:
Where it was written:
Two independent samples of PE students were used in this study to ensure the robustness of the measurement instrument in a sample of the same population.
The first set of participants consisted of 699 students and represented the calibration sample, with ages comprised between 12 and 23 years old (M=15.49; SD=1.93), and enrolled in two PE classes/week (135 min total). The validation sample was composed of 655 students, with ages between 12 and 23 years old (M=15.47; SD=1.88), and had the same amount of PE/week than previous sample. The global sample comprised 652 boys (M=15.4 years; SD=1.90) and 702 girls (M=15.47 years; SD=1.95).
Should read:
Physical education students of four Lisbon public schools were invited to participate in this study. The students were enrolled in the 3rd cycle (7th, 8th and 9th grades) and secondary cycle (10th, 11th and 12th years). Study information and permissions were sent to the schools direction board and parents. After obtaining the study permissions, the students were debriefed about the study aims and their participation previous to the questionnaires delivery. The PE teachers were informed of the requirements necessary to apply the questionnaires. A calm and peaceful environment were provided in a class room to the students before the class starts, in order to read, fill and ask any doubts regarding the questionnaires. No dropouts were reported in this stage.
Two independent samples of PE students were used in this study to ensure the robustness of the measurement instrument in a sample of the same population.
The first set of participants consisted of 699 students and represented the calibration sample, with ages comprised between 12 and 23 years old (M=15.49; SD=1.93), with 332 males and 367 females, enrolled in two PE classes/week (135 min total). The validation sample was composed of 655 students, with ages between 12 and 23 years old (M=15.47; SD=1.88), 312 males and 343 females, with the same amount of PE/week than previous sample. The global sample comprised 644 boys (M=15.4 years; SD=1.90) and 710 girls (M=15.47 years; SD=1.95), were 650 students were enrolled in the 3rd cycle (ages 12 to 17 years) and 704 in secondary cycle (ages 17 to 23 years).
In the page 3:
Where it was written:
A primary analysis of the data revealed that there were10 multivariate outliers (i.e. six in the calibration sample; four in the validation sample) (D2 = p1 < 0.01; p2 < 0.01). These participants were removed prior to conducting any further analysis, as postulated by several authors21,22.
Should read:
A primary analysis of the data revealed that there were10 multivariate outliers (i.e., six in the calibration sample; four in the validation sample) (D2 = p1 < 0.01; p2 < 0.01). These participants were removed prior to conducting any further analysis, as postulated by several authors21,22.
In the page 4
Where it was written:
In Table 2, it is possible to see that the initial model (i.e., five factor and 20 items) did not have a good adjustment to the data. An analysis of the residual values between items and the modiication indexes, allowed the identiication of some fragilities. The model was readjusted with the elimination of two items (see final models in table 2; see Figure 1), and relected an improvement in the adjustment indexes, being in line with the values adopted in the methodology for each of the analyzed samples (i.e. calibration, validation and gender).
Should read
In Table 2, it is possible to see that the initial model (i.e., five factor and 20 items) did not have a good adjustment to the data. An analysis of the individual parameters based on the modification indices revealed that two items (item 14 - intrinsic motivation, and item 2 - introjected regulation), are cross-loadings. These items were therefore removed from 13 the model, as suggested by several authors21,22. Following these modifications, the final model (re-specified) provided a good fit to the data for all samples under analysis.
In the page 4, Table 2:
Where it was written:
Should read:
In the page 7, Table 3:
Where it was written:
Internal reliability, convergent and discriminant validity and average variance extracted - Calibration and Validation samples
Should read:
Internal reliability, convergent and discriminant validity and average variance extracted - Calibration and Validation samples
In the page 7, Table 4:
Where it was written:
Fit indices for the invariance of the measurement model of the PLOCQ in the Portuguese sample across samples and gender
Should read:
Fit indices for the invariance of the measurement model of the PLOCQ in the Portuguese sample across samples, gender, 3rd cycle and secondary cycle
In the page 8:
Where it was written
Psychometric analysis of the Portuguese version of the PLOCQ showed that the initial hypothesized model (ive factors / 20 items) did not it the pre-deined values adopted in methodology21,22,23. For this matter, individual parameters were analyzed, and two items (intrinsic motivation– 14; introjected regulation – 2) were removed because they showed associations with other factors (e.g., the item 2, “Because I want the PE teacher to think I am a good student” presented an association with external regulation).
Should read:
Psychometric analysis of the Portuguese version of the PLOCQ showed that the initial hypothesized model (five factors / 20 items) did not fit the pre-defined values adopted in methodology21,22,23. For this matter, individual parameters (through the modification indexes) were analyzed, and two items (intrinsic motivation - 14; introjected regulation - 2) were removed because they showed associations with other factors (e.g., the item 2, “Because I want the PE teacher to think I am a good student” presented an association with external regulation).
In the page 8:
Where it was written:
Deci and Ryan3,30 highlight this issue, emphasizing that the SDT constructs underlying the autonomous and controlled motivation types correlate highly among themselves. Several studies in different contexts have reported the same results: exercise36,37 and Sport33,34,35.
Should read:
Deci and Ryan3,30 highlight this issue, emphasizing that the SDT constructs underlying the autonomous and controlled motivation types correlate highly among themselves. Several studies in different contexts have reported the same results: exercise36,37 and Sport33,34,35,38,39.
In the page 8:
Where it was written:
Thus, considering the assumptions from operationalized multi-group analysis in the methodology21,24, it is possible to afirm the following to both samples and gender: i) configural invariance is veriied as the same items group that explains the same factors group is maintained, independently of sample and gender; ii) the factorial weight of the items is equivalent for both samples and gender (measurement invariance), in other words, the items have the same importance regardless of the group; iii) the item intercepts are invariant (equivalents) in both samples and gender, consequently representing scale invariance (i.e., strong invariance). This type of invariance is the most important, because when this assumption is veriied, it means it is legitimate to make results comparisons in different groups, in this case across samples and genders, based on the behavioral regulation, underlying SDT38; iv) residual invariance was veriied, because the factorial weights, covariance and error of measurement model operate the same way across samples and genders21,24. Thus, these results support PLOCQp use in PE context, as the model presented cross-validation criteria and reveled to be gender invariant, supporting that the theoretical construct underlying the measurement model is interpreted in the same way between male and female students.
Should read:
Thus, considering the assumptions from operationalized multi-group analysis in the methodology21,24, it is possible to affirm the following to both samples, gender, 3rd cycle and secondary cycle: i) configural invariance is verified as the same items group that explains the same factors group is maintained, independently of sample and gender; ii) the factorial weight of the items is equivalent for both samples and gender (measurement invariance), in other words, the items have the same importance regardless of the group; iii) the item intercepts are invariant (equivalents) in both samples and gender, consequently representing scale invariance (i.e., strong invariance). This type of invariance is the most important, because when this assumption is verified, it means it is legitimate to make results comparisons in different groups, in this case across samples and genders, based on the behavioral regulation, underlying SDT40; iv) residual invariance was verified, because the factorial weights, covariance and error of measurement model operate the same way across samples and genders21,24. Thus, these results support PLOCQp use in PE context, as the model presented cross-validation criteria and reveled to be gender invariant, supporting that the theoretical construct underlying the measurement model is interpreted in the same way between male and female students.
In the page 9:
Where it was written:
Thus, we suggest that future endeavors should try to address this issue for the PE context; ii) in addition to crossvalidation, future studies should focus in longitudinal invariance analysis (e.g., throughout the school year) in order to 17 increase the robustness of the instrument; iii) analyze invariance across different age groups (e.g., middle school and high school), to understand if the instrument is interpreted in the same way despite age differences.
Should read:
Thus, we suggest that future endeavors should try to address this issue for the PE context; ii) in addition to crossvalidation, future studies should focus in longitudinal invariance analysis (e.g., throughout the school year) in order to increase the robustness of the instrument.
In the page 9:
Where it was written:
This issue is particularly important as intrinsic motivation is among the most highlighted factors to the maintenance of behavior over time39.
Should read:
This issue is particularly important as intrinsic motivation is among the most highlighted factors to the maintenance of behavior over time41.
In the page 9:
Where it was written:
38. Chen F. What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact of making inappropriate comparisons in cross-cultural research. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008; 95: 1005-1018. doi: 10.1037/a0013193
39. Pannekoek L, Piek J, Hagger M. The Children’s Perceived Locus of Causality Scale for Physical Education. J Teach Phys Educ. 2014; 33: 162-185. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2013-0095
Should read:
38. Monteiro D, Moutão J, Cid, L. Validation of the Behavioral Regulation Sport Questionnaire in Portuguese Athletes. Revista de Psicologia del Desporte, 2018; 27, 145-150
39. Clancy R, Herring M, Campbell M. Motivation Measures in Sport: A Critical Review and Bibliometric Analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 2017; 8, 1-12. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00348
40. Chen F. What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact of making inappropriate comparisons in cross-cultural research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2008; 95, 1005-1018. doi: 10.1037/a0013193
41. Pannekoek L, Piek J, Hagger M. The Children’s Perceived Locus of Causality Scale for Physical Education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2014; 33, 162-185. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2013-0095
Publication Dates
-
Publication in this collection
18 June 2018 -
Date of issue
2018
