Psychometric Validity and Gender Invariance of the Academic Buoyancy Scale in the Philippines: A Construct Validation Approach

Abstract

The current study examined the psychometric validity and gender invariance of the Academic Buoyancy Scale in the Philippines through a construct validation approach. In terms of within-network construct validity, our results demonstrated that the unidimensional model of academic buoyancy significantly fit the current sample and was invariant across gender. Male students scored significantly higher than female students on academic buoyancy. Regarding between-network construct validity, our results revealed that academic buoyancy was positively associated with behavioral and emotional engagement. Implications of the findings of the study are discussed.

Keywords

academic buoyancy academic engagement Filipino students

Introduction

The present research assessed the psychometric validity and gender invariance of the Academic Buoyancy Scale (ABS; Martin & Marsh, 2008a), a measure of students’ capability to deal with day-to-day academic challenges. Our study has the following objectives: (a) to examine the applicability of the unidimensional model of academic buoyancy in a collectivist setting (i.e., Philippines); (b) to assess the invariance of academic buoyancy across gender; and (c) to explore the associations of academic buoyancy with academic engagement outcomes.

Academic Buoyancy and Student Outcomes

Martin and Marsh (2008a) conceptualized the academic buoyancy construct to describe students’ ability in coping with daily or usual non-catastrophic challenges in the academic context. They propose that academic buoyancy is distinct from academic resilience as the latter involves effectively dealing with adversities in life that do not commonly happen in school (see Martin & Marsh, 2008a, for distinctions between academic resilience and buoyancy).

To assess academic buoyancy, Martin and Marsh (2008a) constructed the ABS and examined the psychometric properties and measurement invariance (across gender and year level) among Australian secondary school students. They demonstrate that the ABS is not only a valid and reliable questionnaire but also comparable across varying gender and year level.

Previous research shows that academic buoyancy is related to academic and psychological outcomes like subsequent psychological risk (e.g., academic anxiety; Martin, Ginns, Brackett, Malmberg, & Hall, 2013; Martin & Marsh, 2008a), academic achievement (Miller, Connolly, & Maguire, 2013), fear appeals (Symes, Putwain, & Remedios, 2015), and positive motivational experiences (Collie et al., 2016).

Despite the beneficial associations of academic buoyancy with a wide range of outcomes, very limited research was done to assess the psychometric properties of the ABS. To date, we only know of two studies that examined the validity of academic buoyancy in the academic context. First was the investigation of Martin and Marsh (2008a) that was reported earlier. Second was the study of Martin and Marsh (2008b) which showed that the unidimensional model of academic buoyancy was valid and reliable in the case of Australian secondary school students and employees.

Clearly, more research is warranted to assess the cross-cultural applicability of the ABS especially in non-Western contexts. This is because it seems that previous research that examined the validity of the ABS concentrated in the Australian and U.K. contexts. To the best of our knowledge, only the investigation of Yu and Martin (2014) examined academic buoyancy in the case of a non-Western sample (i.e., mainland Chinese students) that involved checking the association of buoyancy with relevant academic constructs like valuing school and engagement indices (i.e., planning, task management, and persistence). Yet, the study did not focus on assessing the psychometric validity of the ABS.

From a measurement perspective, it is important to assess the applicability of the ABS in the Philippines. Bernardo (2011) noted that it may be premature to consider that all Western-derived and English psychological questionnaires are equally applicable in the Philippine setting without carrying out validation research. Generating evidence about the psychometric properties of the ABS in the non-Western setting is a notable research direction because Martin and Marsh (2008b) argued that it can “inform substantive and intervention considerations” (p. 169). Furthermore, it is essential to examine whether or not academic buoyancy construct holds the same meaning for male and female samples (i.e., gender invariance) to allow meaningful comparison of academic buoyancy scores across gender as previous literature shows gender difference in academic buoyancy (i.e., Martin, Colmar, Davey, & Marsh, 2010; Martin & Marsh, 2008b).

The research adopted a construct validation approach in assessing the psychometric properties of the ABS. Martin (2007) proposed that this validation approach involves examining the scale’s within-network and between-network construct validity. Within-network construct validity refers to the assessment of the factor structure, invariance (across gender), and reliability of the measure. Between-network construct validity refers to the assessment of the extent to which academic buoyancy is associated with theoretically relevant constructs. We selected academic engagement and disaffection as outcome variables because a previous study indicates that academic buoyancy is related to higher school engagement (Yu & Martin, 2014). However, instead of adopting the engagement model used in the aforementioned research, we relied on the engagement model of Skinner, Kindermann, and Furrer (2009), which proposed that academic engagement is composed of behavioral engagement (actively participating in academic activities), emotional engagement (feeling good about academic tasks), behavioral disaffection (non-participation in academic tasks), and emotional disaffection (negative emotions when performing academic activities).

Method

Participants

The sample was comprised of 402 Filipino university students (M = 19.27; SD = 1.21) in a private collegiate institution in Metro Manila. The participants were recruited through cluster sampling approach. There were 242 female and 160 male participants.

Measures

Academic buoyancy

The four-item ABS (Martin & Marsh, 2008a) was used to measure students’ extent of buoyancy.

Academic engagement

The 20-item Academic Engagement and Disaffection Scale was used to gauge students’ sense of behavioral and emotional engagement, as well as behavioral and emotional disaffection. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients of the behavioral engagement, emotional engagement, behavioral disaffection, and emotional disaffection dimensions were .87, .89, .84, and .91, respectively.

The items in both measures were marked on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). We used the English version of the scales in the study because English is the official medium of instruction in the Philippines.

Data Analyses

To examine the within-network construct validity of the ABS, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) through maximum likelihood estimation approach using the 23rd version of AMOS. We also assessed gender invariance of the academic buoyancy construct through performing multi-group CFA. The first model evaluated configural invariance to assess equivalence in the number of factors and pattern of indicator-factor loadings. The second model examined equality of factor loadings across male and female participants. The third model held the factor variances and covariances invariant across gender. The fourth model assessed invariance in the error variance and covariance. Cheung and Rensvold (2002) note that a comparative fit index (CFI) difference of less than .01 indicates measurement invariance. In judging the validity of the measurement models, we referred to the criteria of Marsh et al. (2010) that proposed the following cut-off values to infer a good-fitting model: (a) Goodness of Fitness Index (GFI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI), CFI, and Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) should be greater than .95 and (b) root mean square error approximation (RMSEA) should be less than .05. Reliability and descriptive statistical analyses were conducted using the 23rd version of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). To explore between-network construct validity, we assessed the association of academic buoyancy with engagement outcomes using SPSS.

Results

Within-Network Construct Validation

The skewness (−.28-.70) and kurtosis (−.07-.70) values of the items indicated that the assumption for univariate normality was satisfactorily met. Based on Finney and DiStefano (2006), skewness and kurtosis values that do not exceed 2 and 7, respectively, suggest absence of severe violations of normality. Based on the cut-off values of Marsh et al. (2010), the unidimensional model of academic buoyancy significantly fit the sample: χ² = 15.64; df = 2; GFI = .982; CFI = .978; IFI = .978; 90% confidence interval (CI) RMSEA = .013 [.007, .194] (Figure 1). ABS had a relatively high-reliability coefficient (Table 1).

Figure 1.

Measurement model of academic buoyancy.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Reliability Coefficients of the Scales.

Variable	α	M	SD
Academic buoyancy	.83	4.65	1.30
Behavioral engagement	.87	5.51	0.96
Emotional engagement	.89	5.33	1.06
Behavioral disaffection	.84	3.71	1.37
Emotional disaffection	.91	3.07	1.46

To assess whether academic buoyancy would have the same meaning across our male and female participants, we performed multi-group CFA. Our results showed that the differences in the CFI across the four invariance models (i.e., configural, metric, scalar, and residual variance; see Table 2) were lower than .01, which indicates gender invariance of academic buoyancy based on the criterion of Cheung and Rensvold (2002). To examine gender differences in academic buoyancy, we conducted independent-sample t test. Male (M = 4.81) scored significantly higher than female (M = 4.55) participants on academic buoyancy, t(400) = 1.99, p < .05. We calculated the Cohen’s d to assess the effects of gender on buoyancy. Based on the criteria of Cohen (1988), the effect size was small as gender explained about 19.78% of the variance in academic buoyancy.

Table 2.

Invariance of Academic Buoyancy Across Gender.

Model	χ²	df	χ²/df	p	AIC	TLI	RMSEA	90% CI RMSEA	CFI	ΔCFI
Model 1: Configural	21.047	4	5.26	<.001	69.047	.917	.080	[.063, .149]	.972	—
Model 2: Metric	24.675	7	3.53	<.001	66.675	.951	.079	[.047, .115]	.971	.001
Model 3: Scalar	31.14	11	2.83	<.001	65.140	.964	.068	[.040, .096]	.967	.004
Model 4: Residual variance	37.097	15	2.47	<.001	63.097	.971	.061	[.036, .086]	.964	.003

Note. AIC = Akaike information criterion; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square error approximation; CI = confidence interval; CFI = comparative fit index.

Between-Network Construct Validation

To examine the between-network construct validity of the ABS, we conducted correlational analyses between academic buoyancy and engagement indices. Our results showed that academic buoyancy was associated with higher behavioral and emotional engagement (see Table 3). Generally, the effect sizes (measured through r²) were small as academic buoyancy explained 7.84% to 11.56% of the variance in academic engagement (i.e., behavioral and emotional engagement).

Table 3.

Correlational Analyses Among the Variables.

Variable	1	2	3	4	5
1. Academic buoyancy	—
2. Behavioral engagement	.28**	—
3. Emotional engagement	.34**	.74**	—
4. Behavioral disaffection	.09	−.25**	−.19**	—
5. Emotional disaffection	−.001	.14**	−.26**	.77**	—

p < .001.

Discussion

The study intended to assess the psychometric applicability and gender invariance of the ABS in the Philippines through a construct validation approach.

Whereas our study offers potential contributions to the academic buoyancy literature, note that there are several limitations in the research. The use of cross-sectional design was a methodological constraint that may give limited insights about the temporal stability and precedence among academic buoyancy and engagement. Reliance on self-report data may increase the likelihood of incurring common method variance. Future studies can address these limitations through conducting longitudinal validation research that utilizes alternative forms of academic buoyancy and engagement assessment (e.g., teacher report of engagement).

Results of within-network construct validation suggest that the one-factor model of academic buoyancy was applicable for Filipino university students, and ABS was comparable across gender that corroborated the results from previous research in the Australian context (Martin & Marsh, 2008a, 2008b). These findings indicate that the ABS is an equally valid questionnaire to assess students’ ability to cope with daily academic hurdles even in the Philippines. Furthermore, our study revealed that gender difference exists in academic buoyancy among male and female university students such that male scored significantly higher than female on academic buoyancy that was consistent with the results from previous research (Martin et al., 2010; Martin & Marsh, 2008b). A potential reason for this gender difference in academic buoyancy points to the greater inclinations of female to experience anxiety, which has been found to be a negative correlate of academic buoyancy (Martin & Marsh, 2008a).

Despite the convergence of our results with previous research, our study has unique contributions to the extant literature. Whereas previous literature correlated academic buoyancy with academic engagement domains (e.g., planning and task management) using the Motivation and Engagement Scale (e.g., Martin & Marsh, 2008a), our study shows that academic buoyancy is associated with higher academic engagement based on the engagement and disaffection framework of Skinner et al. (2009) that offered new insights regarding the nomological network of academic buoyancy. Indeed, academically buoyant students are likely to actively engage and feel good when accomplishing academic tasks. Our study also demonstrates that academic buoyancy is equally applicable even in a non-Western context.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Bernardo

A. B. I.

(2011). Lost in translation? Challenges in using psychological tests in the Philippines. Silliman Journal, 52, 19-42.

Cheung

G. W.

Rensvold

R. B.

(2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Collie

R. J.

Martin

A. J.

Bottrell

Armstrong

Ungar

Liebenberg

(2016). Social support, academic adversity and academic buoyancy: A person-centred analysis and implications for academic outcomes. Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/01443410.2015.1127330

Finney

S. J.

DiStefano

(2006). Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In Hancock

G. R.

Mueller

R. O.

(Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 269-314). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Marsh

H. W.

Lüdtke

Muthén

Asparouhov

Morin

A. J. S.

Trautwein

Nagengast

(2010). A new look at the big five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22, 471-491.

Martin

A. J.

(2007). Examining a multidimensional model of student motivation and engagement using a construct validation approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 413-440.

Martin

A. J.

Colmar

S. H.

Davey

L. A.

Marsh

H. W.

(2010). Longitudinal modelling of academic buoyancy and motivation: Do the 5Cs hold up over time? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 473-496.

Martin

A. J.

Ginns

Brackett

M. A.

Malmberg

L.-E.

Hall

(2013). Academic buoyancy and psychological risk: Exploring reciprocal relationships. Learning and Individual Differences, 27, 128-133.

10.

Martin

A. J.

Marsh

H. W.

(2008a). Academic buoyancy: Towards an understanding of students’ everyday academic resilience. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 53-83.

11.

Martin

A. J.

Marsh

H. W.

(2008b). Workplace and academic buoyancy: Psychometric assessment and construct validity amongst school personnel and students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 26, 168-184.

12.

Miller

Connolly

Maguire

L. K.

(2013). Wellbeing, academic buoyancy and educational achievement in primary school students. International Journal of Educational Research, 62, 239-248.

13.

Skinner

E. A.

Kindermann

T. A.

Furrer

(2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children’s behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 493-525.

14.

Symes

Putwain

D. W.

Remedios

(2015). The enabling and protective role of academic buoyancy in the appraisal of fear appeals used prior to high stakes examinations. School Psychology International, 36, 605-619.

15.

Martin

A. J.

(2014). Personal best (PB) and “classic” achievement goals in the Chinese context: Their role in predicting academic motivation, engagement and buoyancy. Educational Psychology, 34, 635-658.