61

The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment

August 2010, Vol. 5

Assessing Academic Self-Regulated Learning among Filipino College

Students: The Factor Structure and Item Fit
Carlo Magno
De La Salle University, Manila

Abstract
The present study constructed a self-report scale that measures academic self-regulated
learning. The Academic Self-Regulation Scale (A-SRL) was anchored on the framework of
self-regulated learning by Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1986; 1988). The present study
uncovered the factor structure of the A-SRL-S items and the factor structure was further
tested using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Further psychometric evidence was
established for the scale using a Polychotomous Rasch Model (Partial Credit Model) which
determined appropriateness of the scale categories and item fit. An initial 111 items were
administered to 222 college students in the National Capital Region in the Philippines.
Principal components analysis was conducted and extracted seven factors of the A-SRL-S
which explains 42.54% of the total variance (55 items had high factor loadings). The six
factors were consistent with the original framework and a new factor called learning
responsibility emerged. This seven-factor structure was confirmed using a CFA using a
2
sample of 309 college students. Adequate fit of the model was attained (χ =332.07,
df=1409, RMS=.07, RMSEA=.06, GFI=.91, NFI=.89). The seven factors attained
convergent validity as shown by significant intercorrelations of the factor scores. The step
functions are increasing monotonically for the scale where there is a high probability of
observance of the scale categories. Only 4 out of the 55 items of the A-SRL-S lacked
homogeneity with other items. Implications of the seven factors and IRT fit of the items on
self-regulation theory was further discussed.

Keywords: Academic Self-Regulated Learning, Self-Regulation, Learning

Responsibility

Effective assessment procedure needs to take place to identify if learners

can demonstrate a repertoire of thinking strategies in order to achieve complex
learning goals. The application of teaching approaches that will facilitate learners to
become self-regulated is emphasized in the classroom setting (Magno, 2009;
Magno, 2010). Coinciding with the teaching approach is to determine how well
students have developed their self-regulated skills. Determining level of self-
regulation involves the process of assessing how well students have developed the
inclusive array of skills. Assessment provides the teacher and the learner important
information at all stages of the learning process. Self-regulation is defined by
Zimmerman (2002) as self-generated thoughts, feeling, and actions that are oriented
to attaining goals. Zimmerman (2000) further explains that self-regulated learners
are characterized to be “proactive in their efforts to learn because they are aware of
their strengths and limitations and because they are guided by personally set goals
and task-related strategies” (p. 66). In order to assess self-regulation, it must be
deconstructed further to determine its underlying skills. Zimmerman (1986)
identified several subprocesss of self-regulation to achieve ones’ personal goals. The
early conception of self-regulation is deconstructed into metacognition (planning,
organizing, self-instructing, monitoring, self-evaluating), motivation (competence,

© 2010 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

 62
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August 2010, Vol. 5

self-efficacy, autonomy), and behavioral (select, structure, and optimize learning

environments) aspects of learning (Zimmerman, 1986). This triad was
conceptualized in line with the social cognitive theory that was used by Zimmerman
in identifying specific domains of self-regulation. This early aspects of self-
regulation was based on studies about the role of self-regulated learning on various
tasks. Recent conceptualizations of metacognition derived its subcomponents using
different clustering procedures (ex. Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2007). The
development of a measure of self-regulation was started by Zimmerman and
Martinez-Pons (1986; 1988) using a structured interview procedure and recently
evolved into an on-line measure of self-regulatory processes (Zimmerman &
Kitsantas, 2007). To continue the development in the process of arriving at good
measures of self-regulation, an instrument was constructed in the present study that
further studied items of self-regulation using more rigorous psychometric analysis.
A Polychotomous Item Response Theory approach specifically the one-parameter
Rasch model was used to determine scale calibrations and fit of items. This analysis
allows reduction of item variances because the influence of person ability is
controlled by having a separate calibration (Wright & Masters, 1982; Wright &
Stone, 1979).
The components of self-regulation were first identified by collecting early
studies that used this construct (Zimmerman, 1986). The conceptualizations of self-
regulation later on lead to the construction of an instrument to assess self-regulation
with a multidimensional construct (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986). The first
instrument is a structured interview of self-regulation emphasizing learning strategies
used by high school students. The interview is composed of 14 questions pertaining
to specific self-regulation skills and one additional question to determine other
strategies. Self-regulation responses were drawn in the context of classroom, home,
completing writing assignments outside of class, completing mathematic assignment
outside of class, preparing for and taking tests, and when poorly motivated. There
were 14 categories of self-regulated learning strategies identified that correspond to
each question. Reliability of the 14 categories was determined by the percentage of
agreement between two coders. Three measures were obtained for the self-
regulation strategies: Strategy use (having occurred or not), strategy frequency
(number of times a strategy was mentioned), and strategy consistency (weighted
based on the rating: seldom, occasionally, frequently, and most of the time). Some
form of discriminant validity was established in this measure where high and low
achievers were compared across the 14 categories. A discriminant function analysis
was performed and showed that students were correctly classified into high and low
achievement groups using the self-regulated learning measure. The high and low
achievement groups were significantly differentiated in most of the 14 categories.
Moreover, the high achievement group had significantly greater use of the self-
regulated learning strategies. A form of construct validity was also conducted where
the self-regulated learning scores were used to predict scores of the students in the
Metropolitan Achievement Tests (MAT) together with gender and socio-economic
status of parents. The results showed that the self-regulated learning scores
contributed largely to MAT and large variances were accounted for in the
regression.

© 2010 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

 63
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August 2010, Vol. 5

The model arrived by Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1986) was further

validated in a later study using teachers’ observations of self-regulated learning
performance. Another version of the Self-regulated Learning Interview Schedule
(SRLIS) with 12 items was constructed to assess students’ self-regulated learning as
observed by their teachers (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1988). The 12 items
were drawn from 6 self-regulated learning contexts. This instrument was called the
Rating Student Self-regulated Learning Outcomes: A Teacher Scale (RSSRL). In
this measure, students were rated using a 5-point scale (never=1 to always=5). A
principal components analysis with oblique and orthogonal rotation was conducted
with the 12 items together with the two subtests of the MAT (Mathematics and
English). A three factor structure was uncovered where most of the RSSRL items
loaded in the first factor (student self-regulated learning), organizing and
transforming strategies (novel comments from students) loaded in the second
factors (student verbal expressiveness), and the Mathematics and English subtests of
the MAT loaded on the third factor (student achievement). The three factors were
significantly correlated indicting their convergence. The SRLIS scores were
correlated with the three factors of the RSSRL using a multivariate canonical
correlation to determine the validity of the scales. The SRLIS correlated with factor
1, while the SRLIS negatively correlated with factors 2 and 3 of the RSSRL.
Zimmerman and Martine-Pons (1988) explained that “the canonical correlation
between SRLIS and factor 1 was enhanced by the elimination of the variance
attributable to factors 2 and 3” (p. 288). They further explained that the negative
canonical correlations are indicative of discriminant validity where self-regulated
learning is differentiated with verbal expressiveness and achievement.
The factors of SRLIS were further developed by Zimmerman and
Martinez-Pons (1990) where they found differences across gender and giftedness.
Females significantly had higher goal-setting and planning, and keeping records and
monitoring as compared to males. Gifted students significantly had higher
organization and planning, keeping records and monitoring, seeking teacher
assistance, and reviewing notes. A developmental pattern also occurred where 8th
graders surpassed the 5th graders on almost all strategy use. A regression was
conducted and it was found that the factors of SRLIS were significantly correlated
with mathematics efficacy and verbal efficacy. These results indicate that the factors
of the SRLIS can be discriminated by gender, giftedness, and age groups. The same
pattern was observed by Magno and Lajom (2008) where the relationship between
goal-setting and planning with performance approach is stronger for college
students than high school students.
In other studies of Zimmerman with colleagues, some factors of self-
regulation was assessed with different protocols such as the attribution scale (Cleary,
Zimmerman, & Keating, 2006; Kitsantas, Zimmerman, & Cleary, 2000;
Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997; 1999), intrinsic interest (Kitsantas, Zimmerman, &
Cleary, 2000; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1999; 2002), self-evaluation (Cleary,
Zimmerman, & Keating, 2006), adaptive inferences scale (Cleary & Zimmerman,
2001; Cleary, Zimmerman, & Keating, 2006), and perceived responsibility for
learning (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2005). These measures usually ask respondents

© 2010 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

 64
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August 2010, Vol. 5

about their feelings and beliefs about changes in their self-regulated learning which
was called microanalytic measures (see Zimmerman, 2008).
Zimmerman (2008) also reported several emergent assessment protocols of
self-regulated learning (SRL). These recorded assessment procedures are trace logs
of SRL processes in computer-assisted environments (Winne et al., 2006), think-
aloud protocols in hypermedia environments (Greene & Azevedo, 2007),
structured diary (Schmitz & Weise, 2006), observations and qualitative measures
(Perry, Vandekamp, Mercer, & Nordby, 2002), and microanalytic measures.
Winne and Perry (2000) reported seven different protocols of assessing self-
regulation. These assessment techniques are: Questionnaires, structured interview,
teacher judgments, think aloud techniques, error detection tasks, trace
methodologies, and observation of performance. These classifications are based on
Winne and Perry’s (2005) assessment of self-regulation as aptitude and event.
Magno (2009) explained that before using any of the protocols in assessing self-
regulation, users must be critical of the methods and rigors on how the tools were
established which concerns their validity and reliability. The process of establishing
the scales first involve the construction and selection of items based on a
framework, an empirical model, or grounded on some empirical data. The
underlying factors of the items are then explored using Exploratory Factor Analysis
(EFA) techniques. The underlying factors are further
tested by using a more rigorous method like Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).
On some instances, the test developer may opt to use a different approach such as
the Item Response Theory (IRT). In this approach, items are good if they have
acceptable item characteristic curves based on the logit measures. In such cases,
items with good fit (Mean Square within 0.8 to 1.2, z standard score of below 2.00),
high point biserial correlations (indicative of item discrimination for a one-
parameter Rasch model), adequate item information functions, and devoid of item
differential functioning (free of bias) are considered as acceptable items. On the
second criteria, responses to items should indicate an acceptable reliability or
consistency. Most commonly, internal consistencies of test are established using
Cronbach’s alpha, split-half, or interitem correlation. Tests and scales of self-
regulation evidenced to have acceptable validity and reliability are safe to use.
The most common scale used in some studies that measure self-regulation
is the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI, Weinstein, Shulte, &
Palmer, 1987) and the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MLSQ,
Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993). These measures reflect the learning
strategies, study practices, and metacognition that are subsumed in self-regulated
learning. However, these scales are generally measuring specific learning constructs
where LASSI is used for assessing learning strategies and the MLSQ generally
measures motivation and learning strategies as well.
There is a need to come up with a specific scale to measure self-regulation
as conceptualized by Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1986; 1988). Having a
specific scale for self-regulated learning addresses the gap posed by confounded
traits measured by the LASSI and MLSQ. Magno (2009) point the advantage of
using a scale as an economical way of administering, scoring, and interpreting

© 2010 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

 65
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August 2010, Vol. 5

information. Scales can be administered to numerous students at a single time. This

ensures consistency in the instructions given for respondents and
further control the testing condition. Scores can be obtained by computing for
means on certain factors. The numerical scores are easily interpreted by
constructing norms for groups or setting standards for interpreting scores.
Generally, high scores indicate the optimum presence of self-regulation
characteristics measured and low scores indicate less of the characteristic.
The present study constructed a scale anchored on the conceptualization
and factors of self-regulated learning by Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1986;
1988). Aside from confirming the factor structure of the scale, item functioning is
analyzed using a polychotomous item response theory which provides a more
rigorous psychometric analysis.

Method
Participants

The first set of participant in the study is composed of 222 college students
from different universities in the National Capital Region in the Philippines (100
males and 122 females). The average age of the participants is 17.8. All participants
came from a private university. All participants reported ability to read, write, and
comprehend texts written in the English language.
Another set of sample was used to confirm the factors derived in the
previous analysis. The second set of participants was composed of 309 college
students having the same characteristics of the initial sample (151 females and 158
males).

Instrument

Items were generated that measure academic self-regulated learning based

on the responses of 1454 college students on eight protocols (see Magno, 2010).
These eight protocols were based on the six self-regulated learning contexts
developed by Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1988). There were several answers
that were similar and 111 items were generated based on the responses of the
students. The items were classified according to the 14 categories of the SRLIS
(self-evaluation, organizing and transforming, goal setting and planning, seeking
information, keeping records and monitoring, environmental structuring, self-
consequences, rehearsing and memorizing, seeking peer assistance, seeking teacher
assistance, seeking adult assistance, reviewing tests, reviewing notes, and reviewing
texts). The items were reviewed by two educational psychologists doing research on
self-regulation. The items were reviewed whether they are within the scope of the
definition of the factors of self-regulation. The items were revised based on the
feedback provided in the review. Each item is answered using a four-point scale
(strongly agree=4, agree=3, disagree=2, strongly disagree=1). The items were further
reduced based on an initial principal components analysis. The factors extracted
were confirmed in another sample. Finally the items were calibrated based on the
Polychotomous Rasch Model (Partial Credit Model).

© 2010 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

 66
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August 2010, Vol. 5

Procedure

There was an initial sample of 1454 college students who were interviewed
using the revised SRLIS with eight protocols (see Magno, 2010). Students were
further probed if they are unable to provide a response indicative of self-regulation
strategy. During the interview students were asked to contextualize their answer in
the school-related activities. This is done because the instrument was limited to
assess self-regulated learning in the academic setting (or school setting or school-
related thoughts). Three educational psychology students were trained to cluster the
responses from the revised SRLIS to the 14 categories of self-regulated learning.
The specific responses were first independently clustered by each trained student.
The students were guided by the indicators provided by Zimmerman and Martinez-
Pons (1986) for the 14 categories. The percentage of consistent clusters was
obtained. There was an agreement of 92% for the responses clustered. The items
were written based on the clusters formed. The items were initially administered to
222 college students and principal components analysis was conducted to uncover
the factor structure of academic self-regulated learning for Filipino college students.
The extracted factor structure was later confirmed (using Confirmatory Factor
Analysis) to another sample composed of 309 students.
In administering the constructed scale, students were reminded to answer as
honestly as possible and not to take too much time in answering some items. The
students were reminded to answer as honestly as possible and make sure to
complete all items. Students were debriefed about the purpose of the study before
the scale was administered.
Item analysis was conducted for each factor by the estimation of Rasch
item and person fit scores. The Rasch model ensures that each factor is
unidimensional and do not contain sources of variations. The software
WINSTEPS was used for the Rasch model item analysis. The analysis determined
(a) if the difficulty levels of the items reflect the full range of respondents' trait
levels, and (b) how well the 4-point scale captures the distinctions between each
category of agreement. This software package begins with provisional central
estimates of item difficulty and person ability parameters, compares expected
responses based on these estimates to the data, constructs new parameter estimates
using maximum likelihood estimation, and then reiterates the analysis until the
change between successive iterations is small enough to satisfy a preselected
criterion value (Linacre, 2006). Although, the estimates are called difficulty which
refers to correct responses (such as ability measures), the Rasch model is applicable
for non-cognitive measures where difficulty would refer to extreme low scores in a
measure.

Results

A principal components analysis was conducted among the 111 items of the
Academic Self-Regulation Scale (A-SRL-S). An examination of the scree plot
showed that seven factors can be produced. The seven factors extracted accounts
for 42.54% of the total variance. The remaining factors extracted were not

© 2010 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

 67
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August 2010, Vol. 5

considered because the same total variances were produced and were also low. The
varimax rotation method was used because it accounted for larger factor loadings
under each of the four factors extracted. The items with factor loadings below .40
were removed and 55 items were retained. The 55 items were classified under each
of the new factor solution: 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 organizing (6 items). The six extracted
factors were in place with the categories of the original SRLIS but a new factor
emerged which was labeled as learning responsibility (e. g., I accomplish the task as
soon as the teacher gives it, I am concerned by the deadlines set by my teacher, I
finish my homework first before doing other things).
The seven factors of the A-SRL-S were confirmed in another sample
(N=309) with similar characteristics as to the first sample. A seven-factor model was
tested where all 55 items were used as indicators. The seven latent variables were
intercorrelated in the measurement model to provide evidence of their
convergence. The results of the CFA showed that all seven latent factors were
significantly correlated (p<.001) and all items that belong to each of their factor all
had significant estimates (p<.001). The model also attained adequate fit as shown by
the chi-square (χ2=332.07, df=1409), Root Means Square Standardized Residual
(RMS=.07), Root Mean Square Error Approximation (RMSEA=.06), GFI=.91, and
Bentler-Bonett Normed Fit Index (NFI=.89).

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics of the Factors of A-SRL-S
CI Cronbach's Person Item
N M CI -95% 95% SD SE alpha Reliability Reliability
Memory Strategy 309 2.53 2.48 2.59 0.50 0.03 0.82 .80 .99
Goal Setting 309 2.74 2.65 2.83 0.81 0.05 0.87 .76 .89
Self-evaluation 309 2.84 2.78 2.90 0.50 0.03 0.83 .81 .98
Seeking Assistance 309 3.12 3.07 3.18 0.49 0.03 0.74 .66 .98
Environmental
Structuring 309 2.82 2.75 2.90 0.68 0.04 0.73 .65 .97
Learning
Responsibility 309 2.96 2.89 3.02 0.59 0.03 0.75 .67 .97
Organizing 309 3.26 3.19 3.32 0.57 0.03 0.78 .61 .83
Note. The instrument used a four-point scale (strongly agree=4, agree=3,
disagree=2, strongly disagree=1)

Each item was answered using a four-point scale and high mean scores were
obtained for seeking assistance and organizing as compared to the other A-SRL-S
factors. Minimal variances were obtained among the distribution of scores for each
factor as indicated by the low standard deviations and standard errors. Very high
internal consistency was also obtained for all factors. Person and item reliability was
obtained separately in the Rasch analysis. Very high consistencies were also
obtained for both person and item responses.

© 2010 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

 68
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August 2010, Vol. 5

Table 2
Intercorrelations of the Factors of the A-SRL-S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(1) Memory Strategy ---
(2) Goal Setting .46** ---
(3) Self-evaluation .55** .32** ---
(4) Seeking Assistance .39** .27** .49** ---
(5) Environmental Structuring .26** .25** .35** .31** ---
(6) Learning Responsibility .42** .28** .48** .44** .41** ---
(7) Organizing .41** .42** .35** .41** .38** .51** ---
**p<.01

When the seven factors of the A-SRL-S were intercorrelated, all

correlations were significant, p<.01. The moderate correlation coefficients (.25-.55)
indicate that the factors are not multicollinear to each other. The positive direction
indicates the convergence of the seven A-SRL-S factors. The significant
intercorrelations were consistent with the correlations found in the CFA.
To investigate the functioning of the items in the A-SRL-S, the one-
parameter Rasch model was used. The scale categories (4-point scale) were first
analyzed in the process to determine the threshold. Higher scale categories must
reflect higher measures and low values for lower scales, thereby producing a
monotonic increase in threshold values.
The average step calibrations for memory strategy are, -1.57, .25, 1.71, and
3.41, for goal setting, -3.19, -.92, 1.37, and 3.61, for self-evaluation, -2.71, -.59, 1.25,
and 3.15, for seeking assistance, -2.70, -1.06, .41, and 2.30, for environmental
structuring, 2.32, -.42, 1.40, and 3.47, for responsibility, -3.43, -1.20, .98, and 3.98,
and for organizing, -2.88, -.95, .79, and 2.76. All average step functions are
increasing monotonically indicating that a 4-point scale for each item attained “scale
ordering” where there is a high probability of observance of certain scale categories.
To determine if the items under each factor has a unidimensional structure,
item fit mean square (MNSQ) was computed. MNSQ INFIT values within 1.2 and
less than 0.8 are acceptable. High values of item MNSQ indicate a “lack of
construct homogeneity” with other items in a scale, whereas low values indicate
“redundancy” with other items (Linacre, 2006). Four Rasch analyses were
conducted separately for each factor. Most of the items fitted the Rasch model.
Very few items turned out to have a bad fit (see Appendices A-G). For memory
strategy, all items had a good fit except for one item which is almost marginal with
infit MNSQ of 1.2 (I use note cards to write information I need to remember). All
other items for goal setting, self-evaluation, seeking assistance, and learning
responsibility fitted the Rasch Model. For environmental structuring, one item (I
can’t study nor do my homework if the room is dark) with an infit of 1.65 also lacks
construct homogeneity. For organizing, two items also lacked construct
homogeneity (I put my past notebooks, handouts, and the like in a certain
container; I study at my own pace). Items that lack construct homogeneity do not

© 2010 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

 69
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August 2010, Vol. 5

share a similarity with the pool of items in the factor. These items can either be
removed or revised.
Discussion

The study developed an Academic Self-Regulated Learning Scale (A-SRL-

S) which is a self-report measure anchored on the conceptualization and factors of
Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons’ (1986; 1988) framework. The factor structure of
the scale was uncovered and later confirmed. The items were also calibrated using a
partial credit model (polychotomous Rasch model). An item response theory
approach was applied for the items to provide better evidence of the scales’
psychometric property. It was found that the items of the A-SRL-S loaded under
seven factors (memory strategy, goal setting, self-evaluation, seeking assistance,
environmental structuring, learning responsibility, and organizing). The six factors
were consistent with the original framework of Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons
(1986; 1988) and a new factor which is learning responsibility emerged. Good
evidence of validity and reliability was obtained for the A-SRL-S. The CFA showed
that all 55 items had significant parameter estimates for each latent factor, all the
seven factors were significantly correlated, and adequate goodness of fit of the
model was well-represented by the observations (N=309). The obtained good fit of
the model supports a seven-factor structure of the A-SRL-S. The CFA and
correlations of the seven factors of the A-SRL-S is indicative of convergent validity
of the scale. The results of the IRT using a partial credit model showed that there
was a valid observance of the 4-point scale categories. Out of the 55 items, only 4
items showed to have lack of construct homogeneity. All the rest of the items fitted
the Rasch model.
It was initially argued at the onset of the study that using a scale to measure
self-regulated learning was efficient which justifies its usefulness. Because of the
consistency and control as an advantage of administering self-report scales, the
influence of error variances were minimal. This was evident in the estimation of
confidence intervals (see Table 1), standard errors of the factor score distribution
(see Table 1), and standard errors of item calibration (see Appendices A-G).
Minimizing standard errors is one of the primary concerns in both classical test
theory and item response theory approach. The IRT that was used in the study was
more advantageous in minimizing standard errors for each item because the item
difficulties (logit measure) were calibrated separately with the person ability. This
technique renders the items of the A-SRL-S sample free and ability free. As
compared to previous techniques in establishing the reliability and validity of the
self-regulation measures, probability and reliability estimations were not devoid of
the error terms.
A new model of academic self-regulated learning composed of seven factors
was derived in the study. The composition of the factors derived in the study is
similar with the framework of Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1986; 1988).
However, a new factor emerged from the initial factor analysis. A factor on learning
responsibility was extracted and this is composed of items on rechecking homework
if it is done correctly, doing things as soon as the teacher gives the task, having
concern with deadlines, prioritizing schoolwork, and finishing all homework first.

© 2010 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

 70
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August 2010, Vol. 5

The items reflect learners’ liability, accountability, and conscientiousness of the

learning task and learning experience. This emergent factor is supported in the
previous studies of Zimmerman and Kitsantas (2005; 2007). Zimmerman and
Kitsantas (2005) developed a perceived responsibility for learning scale in their
previous study and it was used in a later study with another form of a self-efficacy
measure (see Zimmeman & Kitsantas, 2007). The items in their scale identified
who is more responsible (student or teacher) on three learning context: Student
motivation, deportment, and learning process. The perceived responsibility scale
they have developed also had acceptable validity and reliability indices. It can be
argued that responsibility for learning is part of self-regulation. First, the items in the
scale of Zimmerman and Kitsantas (2005) are reflective of self-regulated learning.
In the example of items they provided, learning strategies such as taking notes in
class, interest in school, and remembering information are indicative of self-
regulation strategies. Second, perceived responsibility significantly correlated with
the RSSRL which indicates their convergence and possibly their amalgamation.
Both conceptual and psychometric evidence on the role of learning responsibility
as part of the of self-regulated learning is justified. Further studies need to be
developed to prove its conjoint relationship with the rest of the original factors.
Self-regulated learning originally is composed of 14 categories. In the
present study, seven factors of self-regulated learning were extracted. This shows
that the factors extracted in the study which as consistent in the original framework
are strong indicators of academic self-regulated learning. These factors that are
considered as strong indicators are self-evaluation, organizing, goal setting, seeking
assistance, environmental structuring, and memory strategy. The other components
that did not emerge as separate factors are seeking information, keeping records,
self-consequence, and reviewing. It was expected that the 14 or possibly more
factors will emerge considering that more contexts were asked among the students
in the initial interview. There were 8 learning contexts asked as compared to the 6
learning context used by Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1988). The items on the
remaining components were mixed with other factors. It can be considered that
specific skills such as seeking information, keeping records, and reviewing are all
used in other learning strategies such as organizing, setting goals, environmental
structuring, and memory strategy. These skills when joined with the seven factors
mean that they are specific skills that manifest other self-regulation factors. It can
also be noted that the components are not independent in terms of their utility for
Filipino college learners. For example, a typical college student in the Philippines
when reviewing uses memory strategies. When a learner organizes their learning
materials, they keep record for future or immediate use. The relationship among
the seven indicators of self-regulated learning with the four other factors needs
further investigation to fully explain their pattern of independence.
The seven-factor structure of A-SRL-S was confirmed having a good fit. The
factorial validity of the seven factors of self-regulation is further proven to be
adequate for the Filipino college sample. This indicates that the seven factors which
are convergent with each other are represented well by the Filipino college students
who answered the items in the scale. This also indicates the usefulness of the six
strong indictors of self-regulation with the complement of learning responsibility as

© 2010 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

 71
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August 2010, Vol. 5

another factor. This shows that the Filipino college student (in a private university)
in learning a task makes sure that they are responsible for their learning which
coincide with their use of other learning strategies. The specific items used in the
study supports the goof fit found in the CFA. The item analysis in the Rasch model
showed that almost all items had a good fit. The learning contexts manifested by the
items to measure self-regulated learning were appropriate across the learners.

References

Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Self-regulation differences during athletic

practices by experts, nonexperts, and novices. Journal of Applied Sports
Psychology, 13, 185-206.
Cleary, T. J., Zimmerman, B. J., & Keating, T. (2006). Training physical education
students to self-regulate during basketball free throw practice. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 77(2), 251-262.
Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Adolescents’ use of self-regulatory processes
and their relation to qualitative mental model shifts while using hypermedia.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36, 125-148.
Kitsantas, A., Zimmerman, B. J., & Cleary, T. (2000). The role of observation and
emulation in the development of athletic self-regulation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 92(4), 811-817.
Linacre, J. M. (2006). Rasch analysis of rank-ordered data. Journal of Applied
Measurement, 7(1), 1-11.
Magno, C. (2009). Assessing and developing self-regulated learning. The
Assessment Handbook, 1, 26-42.
Magno, C. (2010). Activating and inhibiting self-regulated learning. Saarbrucken,
Germany: Lambert Academic Publishing.
Magno, C., & Lajom, J. (2008). Self-regulation, self-efficacy, metacognition, and
achievement goals in high school and college students. Philippine Journal of
Psychology, 41, 1-23.
Perry, N. E., Vanderkamp, K. O., Mercer, L. K., & Nordby, C. J. (2002).
Investigating teacher-student interactions that foster self-regulated learning.
Educational Psychologist, 37, 5-15.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability
and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire
(MLSQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801-813.
Schmitz, B., & Wiese, B. S. (2006). New perspectives for the evaluation of training
sessions in self-regulated learning: Time-series analyses of diary data.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 64-96.
Weinstein, C. E., Schulte, A. C., & Palmer, D. R. (1987). LASSI: Learning and
study strategies inventory. Clearwater, FL: H & H.
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.

© 2010 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

 72
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August 2010, Vol. 5

Winne, P. H., et al. (2006). Supporting self-regulated learning with gstudy software:
The learning kit project. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning,
3, 105-113.
Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis. Chicago: MESA
Press.
Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. H. (1979). Best test design. Chicago: MESA Press.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy
model of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology,
80, 284-290.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Becoming self-regulated learner: Which are key
subprocesses? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 307-313.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attainment of self-regulation: A social cognitive
perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.),
Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-19). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory
into Practice, 41, 64-72.
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
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2002). Acquiring writing revision and self-
regulatory skill through observation and emulation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 94(4), 660–668.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2007). Acquiring writing revision skill: Shifting
from process to outcome self-regulatory goals. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 91(2), 241-250.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2007). Reliability and validity of self-efficacy for
learning form (SELF) scores of college students. Journal of Psychology,
215(3), 157–163.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitstantas, A. (1997). Developmental phases in self-
regulation: Shifting from process goals to outcome goals. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 89(1), 29-36.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-
regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and
strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 51-59.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). Homework practices and academic
achievement: The mediating role of self-efficacy and perceived
responsibility beliefs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 397–417.
Zimmernman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Developing of a structured
interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies.
American Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 614-628.

© 2010 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

 73
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August 2010, Vol. 5

Appendix A
Memory Strategy
Infit Outfit
MS
Items Measure SE Z MSQ Z PB
Q
I use note cards to write information I
1 0.96 0.08 1.20 2.64 1.22 2.63 0.43
need to remember.
I make lists of related information by
2 -0.4 0.08 0.83 -2.33 0.83 -2.37 0.64
categories.
I rewrite class notes by rearranging the
3 -0.2 0.07 1.01 0.1 1.01 0.21 0.57
information in my own words.
I use graphic organizers to put abstract
4 0.52 0.08 0.95 -0.64 0.94 -0.75 0.58
information into a concrete form.
I represent concepts with symbols such as
5 0.09 0.07 1.01 0.22 1.02 0.32 0.56
drawings so I can easily remember them.
6 I make a summary of my readings. -0.61 0.08 0.86 -1.97 0.84 -2.19 0.64
I make outlines as guides while I am
7 -0.75 0.08 0.9 -1.42 0.88 -1.59 0.62
studying.
I summarize every topic we would have in
8 0.01 0.08 0.84 -2.39 0.82 -2.53 0.66
class.
I visualize words in my mind to recall
9 -1.31 0.09 1.22 2.68 1.17 2.02 0.39
terms.
I recite the answers to questions on the
10 -0.2 0.07 1 0.03 1 0.01 0.56
topic that I made up.
11 I record the lessons that I attend to. 1.75 0.09 1.18 1.49 1.92 3.97 0.37
I make sample questions from a topic and
12 0.74 0.07 0.89 -1.56 0.88 -1.51 0.62
answer them.
I recite my notes while studying for an
13 -0.67 0.07 1.05 0.68 1.07 0.86 0.53
exam.
I write messages for myself to remind me
14 0.06 0.07 1.12 1.69 1.2 2.59 0.51
of my homework.
Note. Measure=Logistic Measure for item difficulty, MSQ=Mean Square,
PB=Point Biserial

Appendix B
Goal Setting
Infit Outfit
MS
Items Measure SE Z MSQ Z PB
Q
I make a detailed schedule of my daily
1 0.22 0.1 0.89 -1.37 0.88 -1.42 0.83
activities.
I make a timetable of all the activities I
2 0.29 0.1 1.12 1.48 1.11 1.28 0.79
have to complete.
3 I plan the things I have to do in a week. -0.19 0.1 0.99 -0.04 1 0.04 0.8
I use a planner to keep track of what I am
4 0.19 0.09 0.98 -0.22 0.97 -0.32 0.8
supposed to accomplish.
I keep track of everything I have to do in
5 -0.51 0.1 0.99 -0.09 1.01 0.15 0.79
a notebook or on a calendar.
Note. Measure=Logistic Measure for item difficulty, MSQ=Mean Square,
PB=Point Biserial

© 2010 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

 74
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August 2010, Vol. 5

Appendix C
Self-Evaluation
Infit Outfit
MS
Item Measure SE Z MSQ Z PB
Q
If I am having a difficulty, I inquire
1 0.29 0.08 1.17 2.18 1.19 2.32 0.53
assistance from an expert.
I welcome peer evaluations for every
2 0.45 0.08 1.18 2.35 1.26 3.1 0.52
output.
I evaluate my accomplishments at the
3 0.54 0.08 0.99 -0.04 1.02 0.24 0.6
end of each study session.
I ask others how my work is before
4 0.58 0.08 0.99 -0.13 0.97 -0.3 0.63
passing it to my professors.
I take note of the improvements on
5 0.67 0.08 0.93 -1 0.92 -1.07 0.65
what I do.
I monitor my improvements in doing
6 0.25 0.09 0.91 -1.21 0.9 -1.26 0.65
certain task.
I ask feedback of my performance from
7 0.25 0.08 0.87 -1.76 0.89 -1.37 0.66
someone who is more capable.
I listen attentively to people who
8 -0.83 0.09 1 -0.01 0.98 -0.2 0.55
comment on my work.
I am open to feedbacks to improve my
9 -1.11 0.1 1.01 0.1 0.95 -0.46 0.51
work.
I browse through my past outputs to see
10 -0.16 0.09 0.92 -1 0.93 -0.9 0.62
my progress.
I ask others what changes should be
11 0.05 0.08 0.88 -1.6 0.88 -1.61 0.65
done with my homework, papers, etc.
I am open to changes based from the
12 -0.99 0.1 1.11 1.37 1.18 1.94 0.47
feedbacks I received.
Note. Measure=Logistic Measure for item difficulty, MSQ=Mean Square,
PB=Point Biserial

Appendix D
Seeking Assistance
Infit Outfit
MS
Item Measure SE Z MSQ Z PB
Q
I use a variety of sources in making my
1 -0.28 0.09 0.98 -0.26 0.98 -0.12 0.55
research papers.
I use library resources to find the
2 -0.7 0.1 0.94 -0.7 0.9 -0.88 0.54
information that I need.
3 I take my own notes in class. -0.76 0.09 1.22 2.5 1.35 2.97 0.41
I enjoy group works because we help
4 0.03 0.08 0.99 -0.07 1.03 0.34 0.58
one another.
I call a classmate about the homework
5 -0.22 0.09 0.87 -1.66 0.9 -0.94 0.59
that I missed.
I look for a friend whom I can have an
6 0.04 0.09 0.89 -1.52 0.87 -1.63 0.65
exchange of questions
7 I study with a partner to compare notes. 1.09 0.08 1.13 1.66 1.11 1.4 0.6
I explain to my peers what I have
8 0.8 0.08 0.98 -0.23 0.98 -0.27 0.64
learned.
Note. Measure=Logistic Measure for item difficulty, MSQ=Mean Square,
PB=Point Biserial

© 2010 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

 75
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August 2010, Vol. 5

Appendix E
Environmental Structuring
Infit Oufit
MS
Item Measure SE Z MSQ Z PB
Q
I avoid watching the television if I have a
1 0.52 0.08 0.96 -0.49 0.94 -0.7 0.71
pending a homework.
I isolate myself from unnecessary noisy
2 -0.32 0.09 0.78 -3.04 0.79 -2.81 0.74
places.
I don’t want to hear a single sound when
3 0.6 0.08 0.99 -0.1 0.96 -0.45 0.71
I’m studying.
I can’t study nor do my homework if the
4 -0.69 0.08 1.65 6.55 1.76 5.07 0.46
room is dark.
I switch off my TV for me to concentrate
5 -0.11 0.08 0.71 -4.2 0.68 -4.31 0.78
on my studies.
Note. Measure=Logistic Measure for item difficulty, MSQ=Mean Square,
PB=Point Biserial

Appendix F
Learning Responsibility
Infit Outfit
MS
Items Measure SE Z MSQ Z PB
Q
I recheck my homework if I have done
1 -0.15 0.09 0.96 -0.5 1 0.03 0.7
it correctly before passing.
I do things as soon as the teacher gives
2 0.83 0.1 0.91 -1.12 0.91 -1.13 0.76
the task.
I am concerned with the deadlines set
3 -0.85 0.1 0.99 -0.09 0.9 -0.76 0.64
by the teachers.
I prioritize my schoolwork over other
4 -0.34 0.1 1.19 2.12 1.21 2.23 0.63
activities.
I finish all my homework first before
5 0.5 0.1 0.94 -0.68 0.94 -0.79 0.75
doing unnecessary things.
Note. Measure=Logistic Measure for item difficulty, MSQ=Mean Square,
PB=Point Biserial

Appendix G
Organizing
Infit Outfit
MS
Item Measure SE Z MSQ Z PB
Q
I highlight important concepts and
1 -0.07 0.1 0.83 -2.01 0.84 -1.76 0.7
information I find in my readings.
I picture in my mind how the test will look
2 0.08 0.09 0.91 -1.06 0.85 -1.57 0.68
like based on previous tests.
I put my past notebooks, handouts, and
3 0.26 0.09 1.22 2.46 1.28 2.96 0.61
the like in a certain container.
4 I study at my own pace. -0.46 0.1 1.24 2.54 1.25 2.51 0.55
5 I fix my things first before I start studying. -0.02 0.1 0.8 -2.59 0.77 -2.87 0.74
I make sure my study area is clean before
6 0.22 0.09 1 -0.01 0.98 -0.22 0.69
studying.
Note. Measure=Logistic Measure for item difficulty, MSQ=Mean Square,
PB=Point Biserial

© 2010 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

 76
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment
August 2010, Vol. 5

Author Note

I would like to acknowledge my two self-regulated practicum students Ms. Sheena

Morales and Ms. MR Aplaon for their assistance and effort in all aspects in the
completion of this study.
I also like to acknowledge the University Research and Coordination Office
(URCO) of De La Salle University, Manila for providing the grants for this study.

About the Author

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

Psychology Department at De La Salle University, Manila. He teaches courses in
quantitative research, statistics, psychometric theory, and assessment of learning.
His research interest includes self-regulation, metacognition, language learning,
parenting, scientific thinking, epistemological beliefs, and parenting all using
quantitative analysis.

© 2010 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734