56

The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment

May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

Validating the Academic Self-regulated Learning Scale with the Motivated Strategies
for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) and Learning and Study Strategies Inventory
(LASSI)

Carlo Magno
De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

Abstract

The present study further established the construct validity of the Academic Self-regulated
Learning Scale (A-SRL-S, Magno, 2010) through its functional correlation with the
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) and Learning and Study
Strategies Inventory (LASSI). The three questionnaires were administered to 755 college
students from different universities in the National Capital Region in the Philippines. All
subscales of the three instruments had significant intercorrelations ( p<.001). Three
measurement models, using Confirmatory Factor Analysis were tested to determine which
best explains the construction of the A-SRL-S. A two factor model where the A-SRL-S was
combined with MLSQ with LASSI on a separate factor turned to have a bad fit
( =2648.02, df=89, RMSEA=.26, SRMR=.20, AIC=3.39, SBC=3.78, BCCVI=3.60).
2

Another two-factor model where A-SRL-S was combined with LASSI with MSLQ this time
on a separate factor improved its fit as compared to the first model ( =1052.99, df=89,
2

RMSEA=.13, SRMR=.09, AIC=1.47, SBC=1.66, BCCVI=1.48). The last three-factor

model where A-SRL-S, MSLQ, and LASSI are structured as separate correlated factors
turned to have the best fit ( =473.47, df=87, RMSEA=.08, SRMR=.04, AIC=.71,
2

SBC=.92, BCCVI=.71). Implications about the usefulness and validity of the A-SRL-S in
research were discussed.

Keywords: self-regulation, Academic Self-regulated Learning Scale, Motivated Strategies for

Learning Questionnaire, Learning and Study Strategies Inventory

Introduction

When self-regulation is measured in quantitative studies, it requires the use

of a direct instrument that captures its conceptualizations, dispositions, and skills.
Researchers find it important to assess self-regulation among learners because they
are concerned at determining what thinking processes and strategies does students
use when engaged in a cognitive task such as memorizing, problem solving, focusing
one’s attention on a stimuli, and answering tests. Having determed the level of self-
regulation of a learner allows researchers to predict how well students can succeed
in a task or achieve in an academic pursuit. Learners and students who are
academically self-regulated are independent in their studies, diligent in listening
inside the classroom, focused on doing their task inside the classroom, gets high
scores in tests, able to recall teacher’s instruction and facts lectured in class, and
submits quality work (Magno, 2009). There are even several studies that established
the successful outcomes and consequences of self-regulation (e. g., Blakey &
Spencer, 1990; Collins, 1982; Corsale & Ornstein, 1980; Kluwe, 1982; Lopez,
Little, Oettingen, Baltes, 1998; Rock, 2005; Schneider, 1985).

© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

 57
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

There are several direct measures of self-regulation that were developed

such as the use of the structured interviews like the Self-regualtion Interview
Schedule (SRLIS), Questionnaires, teacher judgments, think aloud techniques,
error detection tasks, trace methodologies, and observation of performance (see
Winne & Perry, 2005; Zimmerman, 2008). One instrument that was recently
developed to measure self-regulation in an academic context is the Academic Self-
regulated Learning Scale (A-SRL-S, Magno, 2010). The A-SRL-S is a scale where
items are classified under seven factors of self-regulation: Memory strategy, goal
setting, self-evaluation, seeking assistance, environmental structuring, learning
responsibility, and planning and organizing. These factors were first uncovered
using principal components analysis that classified a seven factor solution. Then the
factor solution was confirmed in another sample (n=309) by testing a seven factor
model using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The CFA confirmed the seven
factor model with adequate fit (χ2=332.07, df=1409, RMS=.07, RMSEA=.06,
GFI=.91, and NFI=.89). Aside from these findings, the items showed high internal
consistency using Cronbach’s alpha. High Cronbach’s alpha values were still
obtained even when the items were separated by factor.
What is new in the analysis of the A-SRL-S is the precision determined
using the Item Response Theory that cannot be determined using a Classical Test
Theory Approach. Through the IRT, the item functioning of the A-SRL-S was
further investigated. Specifically, a Graded Response Model (GRM) was used to
test the calibration of the items with polychotomous responses. The GRM features
estimation of an ogive curve for every category of the scale used for each item. In a
regular IRT model for tests’ with right and wrong answer, the probability of
answering an item correct given the ability of respondents is estimated with an ogive
curve known as Item Characteristic Curve (ICC). In a GRM, the estimates of each
items’ probability of response for each scale (like a Lickert scale) is represented by
ogive curves. The results of the GRM analysis made by Magno (2010) showed that
the step calibrations for each factor were adequate where values were monotonicall
increasing from negative values to positive values. Lower scale categories generally
had negative estimates while higher scale categories reached a positive value. All
items also showed adequate fit where mean square values for each item ranged
within 0.8 to 1.2. The Test Information Function (TIF) covers five standard
deviations below and on top of the 0 which covers a large spectrum of behavior.
This showed the tool’s precision in measuring self-regulation. Since the IRT
features independent calibration for the items and ability, the obtained item and
person reliability for each scale was also very high (see Magno, 2010).
To further validate the construction of self-regulation, the A-SRL-S needs to
be studied with other measures of self-regulation. The two most common measures
of self-regulated learning in literature reviews within the field of education and
psychology are the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ,
Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991, 1993) and the Learning and Study
trategies Inventory (LASSI, Weinstein, Palmer, & Schulte, 1987). These two
instruments are commonly used in studies that involve the measurement self-
regulation. The selection of the LASSI and MSLQ to validate self-regulation

© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

 58
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

behavior is based on the classification of common scales for self-regulation by

Olaussen and Braten (1999).
The MSLQ was designed by Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, and McKeachie in
1991 to assess college students on two aspects: Their motivational orientation and
use of different strategies. The motivational orientation consists of measurement for
values, expectancies, and affective components. The values include intrinsic goal
orientation, extrinsic goal orientation, and task value. The expectancies are
composed of control of learning beliefs and self-efficacy for learning and
performance. The affective is composed of test anxiety. The learning strategies
include cognitive and metacognitive and resource management strategies. The
cognitive and metacognitive strategies are composed of rehearsal, elaboration,
organization, critical thinking, and metacognitive self-regulation. The resource
management is composed of time and study environment, effort regulation, peer
learning, and help seeking. The scale correlations were adequate and the factors
were also confirmed with adequate fit (2/df=3.49, GFI=.77, RMR=.07) for the
motivation part and use of strategies (2/df=2.26, GFI=.78, RMR=.08). There are
also several studies that tested the reliability and validity of the MSLQ.
There is strong evidence that the MSLQ measures self-regulation. There
are numerous studies that use this instrument to assess self-regulation behaviors
from domain-general to domain specific areas. Example of studies using the MSLQ
for domain-specific subject areas are conducted by Malmivuori (2006) for
mathematics, Lee, Lim, and Grabowski (2009) and Yoon (2009) for science, Joo,
Bong, and Choi (2000) for web-based instruction, Chen (2002) for an information
systems course, Moos and Azevedo (2006) for a hypermedia learning tasks, Yusri
and Rahimi (2008) for language, and Mullen (2006) for a nursing program. The
other studies used MSLQ to measure self-regulation as domain general skills such
as Guvenc (2010), Sungur and Tekkaya (2006), Graner (2009), Eden (2009), Kesici
and Erdogan (2009), Kitsantas, Winsler, and Huie (2008), Bembenutty (2007),
Ertmer, Newby and MacDougal (1996), and Moos and Azevedo (2006).
The LASSI was devised by Weinstein and Palmer in 1990 to assess
students’ awareness about and use of learning and study strategies. These strategies
are said to be related to skill, will and self-regulation components of strategic
learning. The tool is intended to help students develop awareness of the strengths
and weaknesses in studying. The LASSI measures general domains on study skill,
will, and self-regulation. The three domains of study skills are information
processing, selecting main ideas, and test strategies. The subscales of will are
anxiety, attitude, and motivation. The self-regulation includes concentration, self-
testing, study aids, and time management. Very high coefficient alphas were
obtained for each of the scales. In the initial development of the LASSI, test-retest
reliability with an interval of 3 to 4 weeks was conducted and obtained a coefficient
of .88 for the whole scale (Weinstein & Palmer, 1990). Adequate scale correlations
were also obtained. The LASSI scales were validated by comparing it with
measures of similar learning behaviors and measures of ability (Eldrege, 1990;
Schutz, 1997).
There are also several studies that used the LASSI to measure self-
regulation. Dembo (2001) recommends the use of the LASSI when structuring a

© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

 59
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

course to develop self-regulation behaviors of students. Assessing self-regulation

through the LASSI helps to teach students to become better learners. The LASSI
was used to assess students’ self-regulation with learning disabilities (Abrue-Ellis,
Ellis, & Hayes, 2009; Kirby, Silvestri, Allingham, Parilla, & La Fave, 2008). Other
studies focused on determining self-regulatory outcomes (Downing, Chan,
Downing, Kwong, & Lam, 2008; Hamman, 1998; Sizoo, Agusa, & Iskat, 2005;
Wadsworth, Husman, Duggan, & Peninton, 2007).
Given that the MSLQ and LASSI are strong indicators of self-regulatory
functioning, the present study established the construct validity of the A-SRL-S with
these two other measures. Construct validity can be established by correlating a new
scale with similar earlier scales. The procedure approximates the validity of a new
scale with the same general area of behavior as other tests are designed (Anastasi &
Urbina, 2002). Construct validation of the A-SRL-S allows to generalize in a
broader class of measures that legitimately employ the same construct such as the
MSLQ and LASSI (Nunnaly & Bernstein, 1994). More specifically, the present
study established a measurement model where the A-SRL-S together with the
MSLQ and LASSI are structured as latent factors that are correlated (common
factor model). The structured common factor model was assessed whether there
are adequate fit and significant correlations to support for the construct validation of
the A-SRL-S.

Method

Participants

The participants in the study are 755 college students from different
universities in the National Capital Region of the Philippines. These students were
all enrolled in a degree course who is already taking up their major courses. In the
Philippines major courses are taken from second year college until the last year.
There is much evidence of self-regulation behavior because these students are
already experienced several academic tasks and requirements in school.

Instruments

Academic Self-Regulated Learning Scale (A-SRL-S). The A-SRL-S was

developed by Magno (2010) to measure self-regulation of college students that is
within the context of their learning in higher education. Each item is responded by
a four-point Lickert scale (Strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree).
The scale is composed of seven factors: Memory strategy (14 items), goal-setting (5
items), self-evaluation (12 items), seeking assistance (8 items), environmental
structuring (5 items), learning responsibility (5 items), and planning and organizing
(5 items). The seven factors were uncovered using an initial principal components
analysis with varimax rotation. Uisng another sample, the seven factor structure was
confirmed using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and adequate fit was achieved
(χ2=332.07, df=1409, RMS=.07, RMSEA=.06, GFI=.91, and NFI=.89). There is
evidence of convergent validity where all seven factors were highly intercorrelated.

© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

 60
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

High interbal consistencies were also attained for each factor (.73 to .87). Using an
IRT Graded Response Model, the scale showed appropriate step calibration where
the responses are monotonically increasing. The Test Information Function curve
showed precision for the overall instrument. Almost all items showed to have good
fit and the few items that did not fit the GRM were revised.

Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). The Motivated

Strategies for Learning Questionnaire by Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, and McKeachie
(1991) was used as another measure for self-regulation. The questionnaire is
composed of two sections: The motivation and learning strategy section. The
motivation assesses student values (intrinsic and extrinsic goal orientation and task
value), expectancies (control of learning beliefs, self-efficacy for learning and
performance), and affective beliefs (test anxiety). The learning strategies section
assesses cognitive and metacognitive strategies (rehearsal, elaboration, organization,
critical thinking, metacognitive, and self-regulation) and resource management
strategies (time and study environment, effort regulation, peer and learning help
seeking). All items are responded using a seven-point Likert scale (from 1 – Not at
all true of me to 7 – Very true of me). In general, if students score above three on
the questionnaire, then it means that they are using effective learning strategies.
However, students who score below three mean that they are not using effective
learning strategies (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991). The scale is valid
having a significant relationship with all the factors being assessed. It was shown in
the confirmatory factor analysis that the learning strategies are under one latent
factor. Furthermore, the scale is reliable having a Cronbach's Alpha value ranging
from .52 to .93. The Cronbach’s Alpha was recomputed from the scores of
students in the sample.

Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI). The short version of the
LASSI (with a 5-point scale and 77 items) was used which is a prescriptive and
diagnostic assessment of “student’s awareness” about the use of learning and study
strategies. The three components cover: (1) Skill - learning strategies, skills and
thought processes that help prepare and demonstrate new knowledge on tests or
other evaluative procedures (subscales include information processing, selecting
main ideas, and test strategies), (2) Will - worry to academic performance,
receptivity to learning new information, attitudes and interest in college, diligence,
self-discipline, and willingness to exert the effort necessary to successfully complete
academic requirements (subscales include anxiety, attitude, and motivation), and (3)
Self- Regulation - manage, or self-regulate and control, the whole learning process
through time management, maintaining concentration, checking learning demands,
and using study aids (subscales include concentration, self-testing, study aids, and
time management) (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002). Participants answered the learning
and study strategies inventory on how often they do the given case/scenario through
the response format “not at all like me, not very much like me, somewhat like me,
fairly much like me, and very much like me.” The reliability of LASSI indicates a
Cronbach’s Alpha of .84, .89, and .80 for Information Processing, Selecting Main
Ideas and Test Strategies scales for the “Skill” component respectively. For the

© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

 61
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

scales of the “Will” component, Anxiety, Attitude and Motivation indicate a

Cronbach’s Alpha score of .87, .77 and .84, respectively. The Cronbach’s alpha
scores of Concentration, Self- Testing, Study Aids, and Time Management for the
“Self- Regulation” component obtain .86, .84, .73, and .85 respectively. Also, a test-
retest correlation of .88 was computed for the total instrument. There were
different approaches the author used to determine the validity of learning and study
strategies inventory: (1) The scale scores were compared to other tests or subscales
which are measuring related factors; (2) some scales were validated adjacent to
performance measures; and (3) the learning and study strategies inventory had
repeated tests of user validity (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002).

Procedure

All the participants were briefed about the guidelines in answering the
questionnaires. They were asked if they are willing to participate in the study by
answering a series of questionnaires. The participants were guided accordingly on
how they answered the forms: (1) The researcher gave the rationale of the study, (2)
read the questions carefully; (2) instructed that there are no right or wrong answers
for the questionnaires. The researcher informed the participants that the study
needs to get authentic answer for more accurate result. The participants were also
made aware that their answers will not affect their class standing in school and
failure to follow the guidelines will be forfeited on the participation in the study.
The researchers administered to the participants all the questionnaires during their
class time. The researchers then scored the questionnaires for each subscale. Each
participant was assigned with a call number used for the purpose of identifying and
recording all the instruments.

Data Analysis

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to provide factor

validity of the A-SRL-S with the MSLQ and LASSI. A measurement model was
constructed composed of a three-factor model. There were seven indicators for the
A-SRL-S (Memory strategy, goal setting, self-evaluation, seeking assistance,
environmental structuring, learning responsibility, and planning and organizing),
five indicators for the MLSQ (values, expectancies, affective, cognitive and
metacognitive, and resource management), and three indicators for the LASSI
(skill, will, and self-regulation). The three latent constructs were intercorrelated to
establish factor convergence and construct validity. Significant parameter estimates
should be produced to establish the relationship among the latent constructs. The
components should have significant estimates as well in order to provide proofs of
inclusion of for their respective latent constructs.
The fit of the hypothesized four-factor model was assessed by examining
several fit indices including three absolute and one incremental fit index. The
minimum fit function chi-square, the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) are absolute fit
indices. The chi-square statistic (χ2) assesses the difference between the sample

© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

 62
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

covariance matrix and the implied covariance matrix from the hypothesized model
(Fan, Thompson, & Wang, 1999). A statistically non-significant χ2 indicates
adequate model fit. Because the χ2 test is very sensitive to large sample sizes (Hu &
Bentler, 1995), additional absolute fit indices were examined. The RMSEA is
moderately sensitive to simple model misspecification and very sensitive to complex
model misspecification (Hu & Bentler, 1998). Hu and Bentler (1999) suggest that
values of .06 or less indicate a close fit. The SRMR is very sensitive to simple
model misspecification and moderately sensitive to complex model
misspecification (Hu & Bentler, 1998). Hu and Bentler (1998) suggest that
adequate fit is represented by values of .08 or less. In addition, two incremental fit
indices, the comparative fit index (CFI) and the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) were
examined. The CFI and the TLI are moderately sensitive to simple model
misspecification and very sensitive to complex model misspecification (Hu &
Bentler, 1998). Hu and Bentler (1998) recommend a cutoff of .95 or greater for
both the CFI and the TLI.
Results
The scores obtained from the three questionnaires were summarized
according to their factors. The seven scores were obtained from the A-SRL-S, five
scores for MSLQ, and three scores for the LASSI. Descriptive statistics were
reported including their internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha.
The mean scores for the A-SRL-S were still within the confidence interval
level of the means in the previous study (see Magno, 2009). However, the standard
deviations for this sample are lower than the previous study. The Cronbach’s alpha
for the A-SRL-S are still within the same range (.70-.84). The reported means
scores of the MSLQ and LASSI had higher means for this sample as compared
with the previous samples in the study of Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, and McKeachie
(1991) and Weinstein and Palmer (2002).

© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

 63
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Confidence Intervals, and Internal Consistency
N M Confidence Confidence SD Cronbach’s
-95.00% 95.00% alpha
A-SRL-S
Memory Strategy 755 2.80 2.76 2.84 0.56 .84
Goal-setting 755 2.83 2.78 2.88 0.69 .74
Self-evaluation 755 2.81 2.77 2.85 0.54 .82
Seeking Assistance 755 2.90 2.86 2.94 0.54 .71
Environmental
755 2.84 2.79 2.89 0.66 .70
Structuring
Learning Responsibility 755 2.95 2.90 2.99 0.64 .72
Planning and
755 2.99 2.95 3.03 0.60 .71
Organizing
MSLQ
Values 755 4.43 4.35 4.52 1.19 .92
Expectancies 755 4.33 4.25 4.41 1.12 .90
Affective 755 4.07 3.99 4.15 1.15 .80
Cognitive and
755 4.33 4.25 4.40 1.03 .95
Metacognitive
Resource Management 755 4.37 4.30 4.45 1.08 .93
LASSI
Skill 755 3.13 3.09 3.18 0.65 .75
Will 755 3.12 3.08 3.17 0.64 .74
Self-regulation 755 3.14 3.10 3.18 0.59 .72

To further establish the convergence of the factors of the A-SRL-S with the
MSLQ and the LASSI, Pearson correlation was conducted. The results of the
correlation showed that all coefficients are significant below .001 alpha levels. The
significant correlations indicate that convergence was attained among the factors of
A-SRL-S, MSLQ, and LASSI.
Three measurement models were constructed to determine which structure
best explains the relationship of the A-SRL-S with the MSLQ and LASSI.
The first measurement models include A-SRL-S combined with MSLQ factors and
this is structured in a two factor model. A second measurement model consisting
of a two-latent factor model where A-SRL-S was combined with LASSI factors
structured with MSLQ. And lastly, a three-factor model was constructed where the
A-SRL-S, MSLQ, and LASSI were placed as separate latent factors that are
correlated.

© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

 64
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

Table 2
Correlation Matrix for the A-SRL-S, MSLQ, and LASSI
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)

A-SRL-S

(1) Memory Strategy --

(2) Goal-setting .60 --

(3) Self-evaluation .57 .57 --

(4) Seeking assistance .56 .58 .66 --

(5) Environmental
(6) Structuring .51 .43 .47 .50 --
(7) Learning
Responsibility .51 .46 .53 .58 .61 --
(8) Planning and
Organizing .46 .45 .56 .60 .51 .60 --

MSLQ

(9) Values .10 .17 .20 .24 .20 .30 .33 --

(10) Expectancies .15 .20 .21 .25 .20 .27 .30 .85 --

(11) Affective .12 .23 .19 .23 .10 .20 .19 .57 .63 --
(12) Cognitive and
Metacognitive .17 .20 .23 .30 .21 .30 .33 .77 .82 .64 --
(13) Resource
Management .15 .20 .20 .29 .19 .30 .34 .77 .80 .56 .87 --

LASSI

(14) Skill .35 .25 .30 .28 .26 .31 .27 .31 .33 .23 .30 .27 --

(15) Will .29 .29 .24 .25 .26 .30 .29 .36 .37 .29 .34 .35 .51 --

(16) Self-regulation .38 .27 .31 .31 .33 .35 .35 .35 .36 .26 .34 .32 .66 .57 --
Note. All correlation coefficients are significant at p<.001

The results show that the three-factor model is best fitting model indicting
further support for the convergence of A-SRL-S with the MSLQ and LASSI
(2=473.97, df=87, RMSEA=.08, PGI=.93, GFI=.92, NFI=.94, CFI=.95, and
TLI=.95). What is common in all the three models are the significant paths of all
manifest variables and significant correlations among latent factors. However, in the
model where A-SRL-S was combined with the two other measures, the model did
not reach adequate fit. The second model where A-SRL-S was combined with the
LASSI, the SRMR (.09) showed adequate fit. It was also observed that the path
estimates of the factors of A-SRL-S increased when it was combined with the
LASSI factors in one latent construct. The third model also showed that the
relationship between A-SRL-S and LASSI is stronger (.47) than the relationship
between A-SRL-S and MSLQ (.35). This indicates that the A-SRL-S has some
degree of equivalence with the LASSI where both are strong indicators of learning
strategies.

© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

 65
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

Table 3
Comparison of Fit Indices
Model A-SRL-S + MSLQ A-SRL-S + LASSI with 3 Factor Model
with LASSI (2 Factor MSLQ (2 Factor Model)
Model)
2 2648.02 1052.99 473.97
Df 89 89 87
RMSEA .26 .13 .08
SRMR .20 .09 .04
AIC 3.39 1.47 .71
SBC 3.78 1.66 .92
BCCVI 3.60 1.48 .71

Discussion

The present study established the construct validity of the A-SRL-S with the
MSLQ and LASSI. This was done by first correlating the factors of the three scales
in a zero order correlation. Three measurement models were tested to determine
how the A-SRL-S is best related to MSLQ and LASSI.
It was found in the study that all subscales of the A-SRL-S, MSLQ, and
LASSI were significantly related. The low p values obtained in the correlation
coefficients indicate that there is a small chance that the correlations are influenced
with some random error. This further proved the relationship of each A-SRL-S
subscale with the other established two measures. This initial analysis proved
evidence about the similarity of the A-SRL-S with the two other established
measures.
In the zero order correlations, higher convergence is observed when the
subscales of the A-SRL-S are intercorrelated among each other. There is also
slightly higher correlation among the A-SRL-S subscales with the LASSI subscales
as compared to the MSLQ subscales. This shows there is a closer similarity
between A-SRL-S factors and LASSI factors. More specifically, the self-regulation
component of the LASSI (concentration, self-testing, study aids, and time
management) had stronger correlations with all factors of the A-SRL-S.
The results of the zero order correlation was further strengthened by the
results of the CFA. The CFA first showed that there was improvement in the fit of
the model (using SRMR, AIC, SBC, and BCCVI) when the A-SRL-S factors were
combined with the LASSI factors under one latent factor. Second, the path
estimates of the factors of A-SRL-S increased when joined with the factors of
LASSI under one latent variable. Third, the correlation of A-SRL-S and LASSI as
latent constructs was stronger (.47) in the three-factor model. These results
generally suggest that there is closer similarity and equivalence in the measurement
of self-regulation between the A-SRL-S and the LASSI. The kind of self-regulation
measured by the LASSI is approximated by the A-SRL-S.

© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

 66
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

 67
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

 68
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

 69
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

Both the A-SRL-S and LASSI are strong indicators of specific learning
strategies. The A-SRL-S deals with six learning strategies that include memory
strategy, goal-setting, self-evaluation, seeking assistance, environmental structuring,
and planning and organizing. On the other hand, the LASSI’s skill and self-
regulation aspects also specify specific strategies such as information processing,
selecting main ideas, test strategies, concentration, self-testing, study aids, and time
management. These strategies are commonly used by students when studying
materials and preparing for exams. The manual of the LASSI even described
explicitly that “The LASSI scales related to the self-regulation component of
strategic learning are: Concentration, Self-Testing, Study Aids, and Time
Management” (p. 5). This was further supported in the present study where A-SRL-
S is strongly related to the LASSI scales. The LASSI scales cover self-regulation of
the “learning process by using time effectively, focusing attention and maintaining
concentration over time, checking to see if learning demands are met for a class, an
assignment or a test, and using study supports such as review sessions, tutors or
special features of a textbook” (p. 5) that are similar with the contexts covered in the
A-SRL-S. Examples of these scenarios in the A-SRL-S include taking notes, reading
aloud, making schedules, asking for assistance and feedback, checking ones
progress, avoiding distractions, and marking important concepts.
The similarity between the as A-SRL-S and the LASSI as evidenced in the
correlations and the CFA means that the A-SRL-S is a strong indicator of specific
aspects of learning strategy measured by the LASSI. These aspects include
measurement of how students study and learn and how they feel about studying and
learning (see Eldrege, 1990).
In the previous studies that developed the A-SRL-S, the validity of the tool
is constructed using only the scale without other measures. The present study now
used external and prior measures of self-regulation (such as the MSLQ and LASSI)
that provide proof to its precision in measurement. This step in the development of
the A-SRL-S is necessary to build evidence that the tool has some degree of
similarity in the constructs measured by other scales (such as the MSLQ and
LASSI).
Since the construct validity of the A-SRL-S is now established with the
LASSI and MSLQ, there is evidence about the precision of the A-SRL-S as a
measure of self-regulation in general with specific learning strategies. The
theoretical conception of self-regulation is clarified as a tool that covers aspects of
learning strategies and study skills. It is safe to assume that the A-SRL-S covers
specific learning strategies that help learners achieve specific learning goals.
Given the established construct validity of the A-SRL-S, the tool is
recommended to be used as alternative to the MSLQ and LASSI when academic
self-regulation is needed to be measured. The tool can provide evidence about
skills and characteristics of learners that will lead to better learning. The next step in
establishing the tool is to provide a predictive validity to determine is consequences
to learning that includes criterion such as students’ achievement and other learning
strategies and metacognition.

© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

 70
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

References

Abreu-Ellis, C., Ellis, J., & Hayes, R. (2009). College preparedness and time of
learning disability identification. Journal of Developmental Education,
32(3), 28-38.
Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (2002). Psychological testing (7th ed.). NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bembenutty, H. (2007). Self-regulated learning and academic delay of gratification:
Gender and ethnic differences among college students. Journal of
Advanced Academics, 18(4), 586-618.
Blakey, E. & Spencer, S. (1990). Developing metacognition. ERIC Digest,
ED327218.
Chen, C. S. (2002). Self-regulated learning strategies and achievement in an
introduction to information systems course. Information Technology,
Learning and Performance Journal, 20(1), 11-29.
Collins, J. L. (1982, March). Self-efficacy and ability in achievement behavior.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New York.
Corsale, K. & Ornstein, P. A. (1971). Developmental changes in children’s use of
semantic information in recall. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
30, 231-245.
Dembo, M. H. (2001). Learning to teach is not enough-future teachers also need to
learn how to learn. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(4), 23-35.
Downing, K., Chan, S., Downing, W., Kwon, T., & Lam, T. (2008). Measuring
gender differences in cognitive functioning. Multicultural Education and
Technology Journal, 2(1), 4-18.
Edens, K. M. (2009). The interaction of pedagogical approach, gender, self-
regulation, and goal orientation using student response system technology.
Journal of Research in Technology Education, 41(2), 161-177.
Eldrege, J. L. (1990). Learning and study strategies inventory--high school version
(LASSI-HS). Journal of Reading, 34(2), 146-149.
Ertmer, P. H., Newby, T. J., & MacDougal, M. (1996). Students responses and
approaches to case-based instruction: The role of reflective self-regulation.
American Educational Research Journal, 33(3), 719-752.
Fan, X., Thompson, B., & Wang, L. (1999). Effects of sample size, estimation
methods, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit
indexes. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 56-83.
Garner, J. K. (2009). Conceptualizing the relations between executive functions and
self-regulated learning. The Journal of Psychology, 143(4), 405-426.
Guvenc, H. (2010). The effects of cooperative learning and learning journals on
teacher candidates’ self-regulated learning. Educational Sciences: Theory
and Practice, 10(3), 1477-1487.
Hamman, D. (1998). Preservice teachers’ value for learning-strategy instruction.
The Journal of Experimental Education, 66(3), 209-221.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.),
Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76-
99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

 71
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling:
Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological
Methods, 3, 424-453.
Joo, Y., Bong, M., & Choi, H. (2000). Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning,
academic self-efficacy, and internet self-efficacy in web-based motivation.
Educational Technology, Research and Development, 48(2), 5-17.
Kesici, S., & Erdogan, A. (2009). Predicting college students’ mathematics anxiety
by motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning strategies. College Student
Journal, 43(2), 361-370.
Kirby, J. R., Silvestri, R., Alklingham, B. H., Parrilla, R., & La Fave, C. B. (2008).
Learning strategies and study approaches of postsecondary students with
dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disability, 41(1), 85-96.
Kitsantas, A., Winsler, A., & Hui, F. (2008). Self-regulation and ability predictions
of academic success during college: A predictive validity study. Journal of
Advanced Academics, 20(1), 42-68.
Kluwe, R. H. (1982). Cognitive knowledge and execution control: Metacognition.
In D. R. Griffin (Ed.), Animal mind – human mind (pp. 201-224). New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Lee, H. W., Lim, K. Y., & Grabowski, B. (2009). Generative learning strategies and
metacognitive feedback to facilitate comprehension of computer science
topics and self-regualtion. Journal of Educational Multimedia and
Hypermedia, 18(1), 5-25.
Lopez, D.F., Little, T. D., Oettingen, G., & Baltes, P. B. (1998). Self-regulation and
school performance: Is there optimal level of action-control?. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 70, 54-75.
Malmivuori, M. (2006). Affect and self-regulation. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 63, 149-164.
Magno, C. (2009). Assessing and developing self-regulated learning. The
Assessment Handbook, 1, 24-26.
Magno, C. (2010). Assessing academic self-regulated learning among Filipino
college students: The factor structure and item fit. The International Journal
of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 5(1), 61-78.
Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2006). The role of goal structure in undergraduates’
use of self-regulatory process in two hypermedia learning tasks. Journal of
Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 15(1), 49-87.
Mullen, P. A. (2006). Use of self-regulated learning strategies by students in the
second and third trimesters of an accelerated second-degree baccalaureate
nursing program. Journal of Nursing Education, 46(9), 406-412.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. NY: MacGraw
Hill.
Olaussen, B. D., & Braten, R. (1999), Students' use of strategies for self-regulated
learning: Cross-cultural perspectives. Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research, 43(4), 409-433.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. (1993). Reliability
and validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
(MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801-813.

© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

 72
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T. & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A Manual

for the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
(MSLQ). Michigan, WI: National Center for Research to Improve
Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
Rock, M. L. (2005). Use of strategic self-monitoring to enhance academic
engagement, productivity, and accuracy of students with and without
exceptionalities. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7, 3-18.
Schneider, W. (1985). Developmental trends in the metamemory-memory
behavior relationship: An integrative review. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E.
MacKinnon, & T. G. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition, Cognition, and Human
Performance, Vol. 1 (pp. 57 – 109). New York: Academic.
Schutz, P. A. L. (1997). Educational goals, strategies use and the academic
performance of high school students. The High School Journal, 80(3), 193-
202.
Sizoo, S. L., Agrusa, J. P., & Iskat, W. (2005). Measuring and developing the
learning strategies of adult career and vocational education of students.
Education, 125(4), 527-538.
Sungur, S., & Tekkaya, C. (2006). Effects of problem-based learning and traditional
instruction on self-regulated learning. The Journal of Educational Research,
99(5), 307-317.
Wadsworth, L. M., Husman, J., Duggan, M., & Pennington, M. N. (2007). Online
mathematics achievement : Effects of learning strategies and self-efficacy.
Journal of Developmental Education, 30(3), 6-14.
Weinstein, C. E., & Palmer, D. (1990). LASSI-HS user's manual. Clearwater, FL:
H & H Publishing.
Weinstein, C. E., Palmer, D. R., & Schulte, A. C. (1987). LASSI-Learning and
Study Strategies Inventory. Clearwater, FL: H & H Publishing.
Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2005). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M.
Bokaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of Self-regulation
(pp. 532-564). New York: Academic Press.
Yoon, C. (2009). Self-regulated learning and instructional factors in the scientific
inquiry of scientifically gifted Korean middle school students. The Gifted
Child Quarterly, 53(3), 203-216.
Yusri, G., & Rahimi, N. K. (2008). Self-regulated learning strategies among students
of Arabic language course and intensive Arabic course in Mara University of
Technology Malaysia, IJAES, 8(1), 57-67.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical
background, methodological developments and future prospects. American
Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166-183. DOI:
10.310/0002831207312909

© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

 73
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
May 2011, Vol. 7(2)

About the Author

Dr. Carlo Magno is presently a faculty of the Counseling and Educational

Psychology Department of De La Salle University, Manila. His research interest
includes self-regulation, learning strategies, student achievement, metacognition,
and language learning. Further correspondence can be addressed to him at
carlo.magno@dlsu.edu.ph

Special thanks to Ms. MR Aplaon for the help in gathering literature reviews and
my educational psychology students for the assistance in the data gathering.

© 2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734