Concurrent validity of approaches to study instruments

Approaches to study are key constructs in the Student Learning Framework, a body of theory and research which holds that students' approaches to study are contingent upon both their prior experiences and perceptions of current learning contexts. There is now a considerable body of evidence linking students' self-reports of their approaches to study with measures of academic achievement. However, there has been considerably less investigation of the concurrent validity of different approaches to study instruments; that is, the extent to which self-reports on the core constructs of Deep, Surface and Achieving approaches (e.g. Biggs, 1987), and Meaning, Reproducing, and Achieving orientations (e.g. Entwistle & Tait, 1990) are correlated within the same group of students.

Our study sought to test the concurrent validity of two recent versions of widely used approaches to study instruments. We administered the shortened Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ; Fox, McManus, & Winder, 2001) and the Revised Approaches to Study Inventory (RASI; Entwistle, McCune, & Hounsell, 2002) to two groups of first-year medical students located in two different learning and cultural contexts (n= 128 and 103 respectively). Using correlational analysis, we examined the extent to which students' self-ratings on similar and dissimilar scales were correlated. Our preliminary results suggest the constructs measured by the two instruments have substantial amounts in common. In the presentation, we will explain the issue of concurrent validity and how it can be measured. We will describe the results of the analyses, and discuss the issues surrounding the validation and use of such instruments.