View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Health Professions Education 1 (2015) 67–75

www.elsevier.com/locate/hpe

Validation Study of a General Subject-matter Interest Measure:

The Individual Interest Questionnaire (IIQ)
Jerome I. Rotgans1
National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk,
Singapore 637616, Singapore
Available online 8 December 2015

Abstract

Importance: Interest is considered a significant educational construct. A validated instrument that can reliably be used to measure
interest across different subject domains is however not available.
Objective: To report the findings of two studies that were conducted to test the validity and reliability of a newly designed
Individual Interest Questionnaire (IIQ).
Design: Study 1 was a construct validation study involving three independent high school samples from different disciplines. In
Study 2 the predictive validity of the IIQ was tested by examining how well the IIQ predicts cognitive engagement and on-task
behaviors and attitudes of students.
Participants: A sample of 230 chemistry, geography, and history high school students (Study 1) and 82 biology high school
students (Study 2).
Setting: High schools in Singapore.
Main outcome measures: Confirmatory factor analysis, Hancock's coefficient H, test of multi-group invariance, cognitive
engagement and on-task behaviors and attitudes (i.e., curiosity, enjoyment, self-efficacy, attention, and boredom).
Results: Confirmatory factor analysis for the three samples suggest adequate fit of the data with the hypothesized model: History:
χ2/df¼ 1.47; p¼ .13, RMSEA ¼.08, CFI ¼.96; Chemistry: χ2/df¼ 1.41; p ¼.17, RMSEA¼ .07, CFI ¼.98; and Geography: χ2/
df ¼ 1.51; p ¼ .11, RMSEA ¼.09, CFI ¼.94. Reliability analysis revealed high levels of reliability of the IIQ: coefficient H History:
.81; coefficient H Chemistry: 85; and coefficient H Geography: .85. The test for multi-group invariance was ns, suggesting that the
factor structure of the IIQ was invariant across the three subjects. The data fitted the predictive path model well: χ2/df¼ 1.60;
p ¼ .11, CFI ¼.98, RMSEA ¼.09 and the standardized regression weights of individual interest for the outcome measures ranged
from: .69 (po .001) cognitive engagement to .24 (p ¼.03) boredom.
Conclusion and relevance: The results suggest that the IIQ is a reliable and valid instrument to measure individual interest across
different disciplines and demonstrated adequate predictive validity for cognitive engagement and on-task behaviors and attitudes.
The IIQ fills the gap in the literature for a generic instrument to measure individual interest.
& 2015 King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences. Production and Hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access
article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords: Individual Interest Questionnaire; Validation; Confirmatory Factor Analysis; Individual Interest; Predictive Validity

Peer review under the responsibility of King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences.
E-mail address: rotgans@gmail.com
1
Tel.: þ 65 91725213.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hpe.2015.11.009
2452-3011/& 2015 King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences. Production and Hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access
article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
68 J.I. Rotgans / Health Professions Education 1 (2015) 67–75

1. Introduction conceptualization of what interest constitutes and

associated to this, how interest is measured. For
Most people would tend to agree that interest drives instance in a recent review, Renninger and Hidi11
learning; students who are interested in say biochem- commented that advances in interest research are
istry, are more engaged during class, spent more hours significantly obstructed by different conceptualizations
studying it, and have typically more knowledge about and operationalization of interest. Indeed, this problem
the topic than students with less interest in the topic.1–5 is witnessed by the large variety of questionnaires used
Indeed, a meta-analysis by Schiefele and Krapp,6 invol- across different studies. In fact, it appears that there is
ving 121 studies showed that the average correlation not one established instrument that was consistently
between interest and academic achievement was .31. used across studies and by different researches. This we
Interest has also been described as a powerful predictor believe is the first major limitation of the existing
of study success in college and can predict future study instruments.
choices.3,7 For instance, Harackiewicz et al.8 conducted Taking a closer look at the studies, the reason for
a study with high-school students who just entered an using different instruments seems to be less an issue of
introductory psychology course at university. The results conceptualization, but rather practicality dictated by the
of the study suggest that students’ interest, together with contextual conditions of these studies. Although most
prior performance, predicted their study choices (e.g., studies carry generalizable titles about interest and how
choosing for a major in psychology) and study success it affects student learning, the operationalization of the
in general. studies is typically less generalizable and boils down to
Following from the above, interest can be consid- individually devised specific questionnaires that fit into
ered a construct of considerable educational signifi- a very narrowly defined subject domain or educational
cance. Despite the general agreement among context. This makes it difficult to use these instruments
educators and researchers about its importance,9,10 a for other studies and by different researchers.
reliable and valid instrument that is capable of For instance, Lawless and Kulikowich,1 conducted
measuring interest across a variety of educational a study to investigate the impact of domain knowl-
settings and contexts is still missing.11 To address edge and individual interest on learning. The study
this shortcoming, the objective of the present study was conducted within the educational context of
was to devise and test a new interest questionnaire that applied statistics and psychology. As a consequence,
can generically be used in diverse educational dis- the items of their individual interest measure were
ciplines. Before we further elaborate on the concep- rather context-specific, which makes it difficult to
tualization and operationalization of the new apply the measure to other disciplines (e.g., “I am
instrument, we will first provide a brief summary of interested in designing experiments with interven-
the interest literature and highlight two potential tions"; "I am interested in the testing of research
shortcomings of the existing instruments. hypotheses"; and “I am interested in the study of the
Interest is not a unitary concept and the literature brain and its functions"; "I am interested in learning
distinguishes between individual interest9,12 and situa- about language acquisition"). A similar example is
tional interest.13,14 Individual interest refers to a more or the study by Albin and Benton21 in which they
less stable type of interest, such as a deep-seated interest examined individual differences in interest and
in physiology, in science, in music, sports, or travel.15 narrative writing about baseball and soccer. For this
This interest develops over time and is considered a study two Individual Interest Questionnaires were
predisposition to engage and reengage with particular used to measure students’ interest in soccer and
content over time.16 Situational interest on the other baseball. Again, the items are rather specific and
hand is considered a fleeting type of interest, which is restricted to the sports context (e.g., “Would you ever
aroused by environmental conditions and stimuli, such be interested in playing baseball?”; “Does anyone in
as puzzles, authentic problems, surprising or unexpected your family play softball/baseball/slowpitch?”; and
phenomena, and is thus more easily manipulated and “What is your degree of interest in the game of
under the control of teachers.17–20 The present study is baseball?”). Although the measures were validated
about the former, individual interest, being a general, and showed adequate levels of reliability, these
deep-seated interest of a person, which develops slowly Individual Interest Questionnaires are of little use
over time and is not easily manipulated. to researchers who would like to use them
According to a number of recent publications, for other disciplines or subject domains, for instance
interest research is challenged by a lack of a unifying physiology, or cardiology. And, although the above
 J.I. Rotgans / Health Professions Education 1 (2015) 67–75 69

questionnaires were adequately validated, the major- was to test the construct validity of the IIQ. We
ity of them were not subjected to an adequate selected three samples from different high school
construct validation procedure, which may be an student populations spanning across different disci-
additional contributing factor why a general measure plines, such as Life sciences, Geography, and History.
of individual interest did not emerge. We selected participants from high school because at
A second limitation of the existing instruments is this stage dispositional preferences for certain subjects
quite the opposite than what we have discussed so far. seem to emerge and are potentially significant predic-
There are many researchers who operationalized indi- tors of study selection once they enter university.32,33
vidual interest simply by using only one single item.22 Confirmatory factor analyses were carried out to test
For instance, in a study by Dotterer et al.,23 about the the construct validity of the IIQ. In addition, reliability
development of academic interest one item was used to tests for latent variable systems were carried out to
measure individual interest: “How interested are you assess the reliability of the instrument. The IIQ was
in…?” In another study by Kalender and Berberoglu,24 administered for three independent samples. Tests of
in which individual interest was reported as a predictor multi-group invariance using structural equation mod-
for science achievement, also only one single item was eling were carried out to establish the external validity
used: “How interested are you in science?” In yet of the measure.
another study by Reeve25 about the “interest-enjoyment The objective of the second study was to test the
distinction of intrinsic motivation, also one item was predictive validity of the IIQ. To that end, it was
used to measure individual interest: “How interesting investigated to which extent the IIQ can predict
are the anagrams?” students’ cognitive engagement and “on-task beha-
Admittedly, there is some consensus in the literature viors and attitudes” for a biology course. On-task
that if the construct being measured is sufficiently behaviors and attitudes are behaviors and attitudes
narrow and unambiguous to the respondent, a single that emerge when working on an instructional task,
item measure can be used. Considering however that the for instance a lab assignment or a medical case. We
conceptualization of individual interest is much broader, selected five on-task variables—curiosity, enjoyment,
we argue that more items are needed to capture the full self-efficacy, attention, boredom—from which it is
essence of the construct. Take for instance the following known that they have a profound influence on
definition of individual interest that frequently emerged students’ task involvement and learning outcomes.
in the literature: “individual interest develops over time For instance, Rotgans and Schmidt,34 demonstrated
and is a relatively enduring predisposition to attend to that cognitive engagement in a problem-based learn-
objects, events, ideas, etc., and to reengage with ing environment was a significant predictor of how
particular content. Moreover, this process is considered much students learned during a task. Curiosity has
to be associated with positive feelings, increased value been linked, not only to exploratory behavior in
and knowledge”.1,10,12,14,16,26–31 To do justice to this school,35 but also to diagnostic competence and
broader definition of individual interest, the instrument patient care.36,37 Enjoyment has been associated with
should measure at least the following three key compo- superior self-regulated learning behaviors,38 task
nents of the definition: (a) willingness to reengage with valued and interest39, and predicted learning out-
particular content, (b) positive feelings, and (c) increased comes.40 Attention is a significant cognitive factor
value for the topic. To capture these key components we that facilitates task engagement and performance.41
devised seven items that can be administered in different Self-efficacy is considered an important person char-
educational contexts, e.g. for different subject domains acteristic that leads to mastery performance.32,42,43
and with different student populations, ranging from Considering that these on-task variables seem to
primary school to university. Before the actual validation have a positive effect on learning behavior and out-
study was carried out we conducted an item analysis by comes, it would be beneficial if one could adequately
asking a selected group of students to give us feedback predict these variables with another more stable (“trait-
on the clarity of the items. The complete questionnaire like”) measure that does not require frequent adminis-
with all items can be found in the Appendix. tration. With the present study we examined whether
To test the validity and reliability of the newly the IIQ is a good candidate to do this job. A biology
devised individual interest questionnaire, or IIQ, two course was chosen in which students learned about the
studies were conducted. The purpose of the first study human digestive system. We expected to find positive
70 J.I. Rotgans / Health Professions Education 1 (2015) 67–75

associations, except for boredom, since interest can be Table 1

considered the opposite of boredom. Sample size, age, and gender from three different validation samples.

Sample N Gender Age (SD)

2. Study 1: construct validation of the IIQ
History 72 50% female 14 (.03)
Chemistry 93 46% female 13 (.00)
2.1. Method
Geography 65 48% female 14 (.00)

2.1.1. Participants
The construct validation study was conducted with Chi-square accompanied by degrees of freedom, sam-
three independent samples from three different high ple size, p-value and the root mean square error of
schools. From each school we selected one study approximation (RMSEA) were used as indices of
subject for which in turn two classes were randomly absolute fit between the models and the data. The
selected. See Table 1 for an overview of the demo- Chi-square is a statistical measure to test the closeness
graphics of the three samples. of fit between the observed and predicted covariance
matrix. A small Chi-square value, relative to the
2.1.2. Materials and procedure degrees of freedom, indicates a good fit.44 A Chi-
2.1.2.1. Individual Interest Questionnaire. The IIQ square/df ratio of less than 3 is considered to be
consists of seven items that all load on one single factor indicative of a good fit. RMSEA is sensitive to model
and measures students’ predisposition and willingness to specification and is minimally influenced by sample
engage with a school subject, their positive affect size and not overly affected by estimation method.45
towards the subject, and their willingness to re-engage The lower the RMSEA value, the better the fit. A
with the subject over time. The items are as follows2: (1) commonly reported cut-off value is .06.46 In addition to
“I am very interested in Chemistry”; (2) “I always look these absolute fit indices, the comparative fit index
forward to my Chemistry lessons, because I enjoy them (CFI) was calculated. The CFI value ranges from zero
a lot”; (3) “I am interested in Chemistry since I was to one and a value greater than .95 is conventionally
young”; (4) “Later in my life I want to pursue a career considered a good model fit.47
in Chemistry or a Chemistry-related discipline”; (5) Hancock's coefficient H was calculated as a measure
“Outside of school I read a lot about Chemistry”; (6) “I of the construct reliability for latent variable systems
watch a lot of Chemistry-related TV programs (e.g., which represents an adequate alternative to the con-
discovery channel)”; and (7) “When I am reading ventional Cronbach's alpha. According to Hancock and
something about Chemistry, or watch something about Mueller,48 the usefulness of Cronbach's alpha and
Chemistry on TV, I am fully focused and forget every- related reliability measures is limited to assessing
thing around me.” All items were scored on a 5-point composite scales formed from a construct's indicators,
Likert scale: 1 (not true at all), 2 (not true for me), 3 rather than assessing the reliability of the latent
(neutral), 4 (true for me), and 5 (very true for me). construct itself as reflected by its indicators (see also
At the beginning of a History, Chemistry, or 49,50). The coefficient H is the squared correlation
Geography class respectively, the regular teacher between a latent construct and the optimum linear
administered the IIQ to his/her own class. The teacher composite formed by its indicators. Unlike other
read out the instructions and emphasized that when reliability measures the coefficient H is never less than
responding to the questionnaire the students should the best indicator's reliability. In other words, a factor
think about the school subject in general. The admin- inferred from multiple indicator variables should never
istration took less than five minutes. be less reliable than the best single indicator alone.
Hancock recommended a cut-off value for the coeffi-
2.1.3. Data analysis cient H of .70.
Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFAs) were con- As a last step, a test of multi-group invariance was
ducted to test the construct validity of the IIQ. First, conducted to examine if the factorial structure of the
individual CFAs were generated for each of the three IIQ was not different between the three subject
samples separately. Parameter estimates were generated domains.44 To that end, the models representing the
using maximum likelihood and tests of goodness of fit. three subjects were tested with both unconstrained and

2
Note: These are the items to measure individual interest for the subject Chemistry. For the other subjects, “Chemistry” was replaced by
“Geography” and “History”.
 J.I. Rotgans / Health Professions Education 1 (2015) 67–75 71

Table 2 Overall, the results of Study 1 provide empirical

Results confirmatory factor analysis and coefficient H for history, support for the validity and reliability of the IIQ. The
chemistry, and geography individual interest measure. objective of Study 2 was to further explore how well
Sample Model Fit Indices Coefficient H the IIQ can predict cognitive engagement and related
on-task behaviors/attitudes.
History (N¼ 72) χ2/df¼ 1. 47; p ¼.13 .81
RMSEA¼.08
3. Study 2: predictive validity of the IIQ
CFI ¼.96
Chemistry (N ¼93) χ2/df¼ 1.41; p¼ .17 .85
RMSEA¼.07 3.1. Method
CFI ¼.98
Geography (N¼ 65) χ2/df¼ 1.51; p¼ .11 .85 3.1.1. Participants
RMSEA¼.09
The second study was conducted with 82 high
CFI ¼.94
school students (45% female) enrolled in a biology
course on the human digestive system. The partici-
pants’ average age was 13 years (SD ¼ .64).
Table 3
Results of the test for multi-group invariance between the subjects 3.1.2. Materials and procedure
history, chemistry, and geography. 3.1.2.1. Individual Interest Questionnaire. The IIQ
Model χ2 df Δχ2 Δdf Statistical was used in the analysis as a measure of students’
Significance individual interest in science. The coefficient H
was .87.
Unconstrained 128.00 42 – –
model
Constrained model 148.69 54 20.69 12 n.s. 3.1.2.2. Cognitive engagement. In order to measure
students’ cognitive engagement during the biology
course, the Situational Cognitive Engagement (SCE)
constrained factor loadings. Significant differences in measure was administered. The SCE is a validated
Chi-square value between the constrained and uncon- instrument developed by Rotgans and Schmidt.34 The
strained models in relation to the difference in degrees instrument consists of five items (example item: “I was
of freedom reveals the extent to which the IIQ is engaged with the topic at hand”), and is scored on 5-point
capable of validly measuring across different subject Likert scale. The coefficient H for this measure was .88.
domains.
3.1.2.3. On-task variables. To determine a variety of
on-task behaviors and attitudes, we administered six
2.2. Results and discussion single-item measures to determine students' curiosity
(“I want to know more about this topic”), enjoyment (“I
The results of the CFAs for the three subjects enjoy working on this topic”), self-efficacy (“I expect to
History, Chemistry, and Geography revealed that the master this topic well”), attention (“I am fully focused
data fitted the hypothesized models well. All factor on this topic; I am not distracted by other things”), and
loadings of the individual items were statistically boredom (“I feel bored”). All items were scored on a 5-
significant and thus adequately contribute to explaining point Liter scale.
the latent construct. The coefficient H values for the Prior to the biology course, participants’ individual
three models were adequate and all were well above the interest for science was measured by administering the
.70 cut off. See Table 2 for an overview of the results. IIQ. The biology course consisted of two 1-h online
To further test the external validity of the IIQ, we sessions in which students were presented texts and videos
conducted a cross-validation by means of a test of that explained how the human digestive system works.
multi-group invariance between the three subject During the first session, the on-task variables were
domains. The Δχ2 (df ¼ 12) value was 20.69 (ns.), administered. The administration was done online towards
which suggests that the underlying factor structure of the second half of the session. A pop-up window appeared
the IIQ was non-significantly different between the and participants responded to the individual items. Toward
three subject domains. See Table 3 for an overview. the end of the second session, the cognitive engagement
This outcome suggests that the IIQ can reliably and measure was administered to determine how engaged the
validly be used in a variety of subject domains. participants were during the course.
72 J.I. Rotgans / Health Professions Education 1 (2015) 67–75

Table 4
Zero-order correlations and descriptive statistics for the biology course on the human digestive system.

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1.Individual interest –
2.Cognitive engagement .69nnn –
3.Curiosity .64nnn .59nnn –
4.Enjoyment .63nnn .54nnn .71nnn –
5.Self-efficacy .44nnn .47nnn .43nnn .48nnn –
6.Attention .51nnn .57nnn .41nnn .39nnn .47nnn –
7.Boredom  .24n  .27n .55nnn .42nnn  .13 .08 –
Mean 3.27 3.50 3.65 3.56 3.70 3.18 2.85
SD .74 .63 .79 .77 .84 .80 1.09
n
po.05.
nnn
po .001.

3.1.3. Data analysis Cognitive

To examine how the IIQ predicts cognitive engage- Engagemen
.69***
ment and the on-task variables, a path analysis was
carried out in which individual interest in science was Curiosity
regressed on the remaining six measures: cognitive .63***
engagement, curiosity, enjoyment, self-efficacy, atten- Enjoyment
tion, boredom, and knowledge. The path analysis was .63***

carried out using structural equation modeling.44 Individual .44***

Interest Self- On-task
(IIQ) efficacy measures
.52***
Attention
3.2. Results and discussion -.24*

Boredom
As a first step in the analysis descriptive statistics
and zero-order correlations were generated. See Table 4
for an overview. Fig. 1. Path model displaying standardized regression weights
between Individual Interest (IIQ) cognitive engagement and on-task
Next, the path model was tested using a structural
measures for the biology course on the human digestive system. Note:
equation modeling approach. The data fitted the model *p o.05. ***po.001.
reasonably well: χ2/df ¼ 1.60; p¼ .11, CFI ¼ .98,
RMSEA ¼ .09. All factor loadings were statistically
significant, which suggests that the IIQ is an adequate variables), but also how much attention students exerted
predictor of all the variables included in the model. See during the course (standardized β¼ .52, po.001). The
Fig. 1 for an overview. IIQ was also a relatively strong predictor of self-efficacy
Although the IIQ was a significant predictor of all (standardized β¼ .44, po.001), a more trait-like disposi-
measured variables, the results of the path analysis tion of one's perceived mastery capabilities, of which
revealed that the IIQ was a particularly strong 19% of the variance could be explained.
predictor of cognitive engagement (standardized A negative factor loading was observed between
β ¼ .69, p o .001), explaining 48% of the variance. individual interest and boredom (standardized β¼  .24,
This outcome suggests that the individual interest p¼ .03), explaining 6% of the variance. This negative
students have in a subject, such as biology, is a relationship was expected, suggesting that interest and
relatively strong predictor of how willing they are to boredom are inversely related.
engage with the subject during a class activity.
Besides cognitive engagement, the IIQ was also a 4. General Discussion
relatively suitable predictor for the other five on-task
measures. It explained 40% of the variance in curiosity The objective of this paper is to report the findings of
and enjoyment (standardized β¼ .63, po.001 for both two studies that were conducted to test the validity and
 J.I. Rotgans / Health Professions Education 1 (2015) 67–75 73

reliability of a newly developed Individual Interest addition, we provided reliability evidence and demon-
Questionnaire (IIQ). The instrument is different from strated that the instrument can be used across various
existing instruments in the sense that it was (a) devised in disciplines. As such, we believe to have demonstrated
a top-down manner based on the contemporary definition that the IIQ has sound psychometric properties to be
of the construct individual interest and (b) it can used as a measure of individual interest.
generically be administered for diverse subject domains
across different educational contexts. The first study Author contributions
involved three confirmatory factor analyses and a test of
invariant factorial structures. The results suggest that the Jerome Rotgans had full access to all the data in the
IIQ is a valid instrument to measure individual interest study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the
reliably across the three subject domains. Having estab- data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
lished the construct validity and external validity of the Study conception and design: Jerome Rotgans.
measure, the objective of the second study was to explore Preparation of materials: Jerome Rotgans.
how well the IIQ can predict a range of task-relevant
measures including cognitive engagement, curiosity, Financial support
enjoyment, self-efficacy, attention, and boredom. The
results revealed that the IIQ was a significant predictor This study was partially funded by the National
for all these on-task behaviors and attitudes. Besides the Institute of Education (Nanyang Technological Uni-
hypothesized positive associations, a negative correlation versity) Singapore (ERFP Grant No: OER56/12IJR).
was observed between interest and boredom, which
suggests that the instrument was sufficiently sensitive to Conflicts of interest
discriminate between positive and negative on-task atti-
tudes. This outcome substantially adds credibility to the None.
findings of the predictive validity analysis. Another
interesting finding is that the IIQ was particularly strong Acknowledgment
in predicting participants’ cognitive engagement with the
task-at-hand (standardized β¼ .69). This is a first, since The author would like to thank the teachers and
most existing studies that used trait-like variables to management of the participating schools for their
predict cognitive engagement typically failed to produce support in collecting the data.
strong correlations. For instance in a study by Dupeyrat
and Mariné,51 measures such as implicit theories of
intelligence and goal orientation did not predict cognitive Appendix. The Individual Interest Questionnaire
engagement very well (ro.30). Similarly, Meece et al.,52 (IIQ)
conducted a study in which intrinsic motivation was used
to predict cognitive engagement, among other variables.
As with the previous study, they found a weak correlation Please indicate below, on a scale from 1 (not true at
(standardized β¼ .12). Compared to these studies, the IIQ all for me) to 5 (very true for me), how true are the
performed much better as a dispositional measure to statements for you in general.
predict contextual variables, effectively doubling the
amount of variance that could be explained in students’ 1 I am very 1 2 3 4 5
cognitive engagement. Considering this outcome, it interested in Not Not Neutral True Very
appears appropriate to consider using individual interest biochemistry true true for true
in future studies as a predictor of on-task measures and at for me for
student performance. In particular, it would be interesting all me me
to conduct a follow-up study with health sciences students 2 Outside of school 1 2 3 4 5
to examine if there are individual and group differences in I read a lot about Not Not Neutral True Very
interest with regard to various medical topics and whether biochemistry true true for true
the IIQ predicts study success for these topics. at for me for
In conclusion, the findings of the two studies all me me
reported in this paper provide empirical support for 3 I always look 1 2 3 4 5
the validity (construct validity, external validity, and forward to my Not Not Neutral Very
predictive validity) of the newly devised IIQ. In biochemistry true true true
74 J.I. Rotgans / Health Professions Education 1 (2015) 67–75

lessons, because I at for True for 4. Schubiner H, Mullan PB. Medical student interest in combined
enjoy them a lot all me for me internal medicine-pediatrics. J Gen Intern Med 1990;5(3):
me 225–228.
5. Schwartz MD, Linzer M, Babboff D, Divine GW, Broadhead
4 I am interested in 1 2 3 4 5
WE. The impact of an ambulatory rotation on medical student
biochemistry Not Not Neutral True Very interest in internal medicine. J Gen Intern Med 1995;10(10):
since I was young true true for true 542–549.
at for me for 6. Schiefele U, Krapp A, Winteler A. Interest as a predictor of
all me me academic achievement: a meta-analysis of research. In: Rennin-
5 I watch a lot of 1 2 3 4 5 ger KA, Hidi S, Krapp A, editors. The Role of Interest in
biochemistry- Not Not Neutral True Very Learning and Development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates; 1992. p. 183–212.
related TV true true for true 7. Hauer KE, Durning SJ, Kernan WN, Fagan MJ, Mintz M,
programs (e.g., at for me for O'Sullivan, PS, et al. Factors associated with medical students'
Discovery all me me career choices regarding internal medicine. Jama 2008;300(10):
Channel) 1154–1164.
6 Later in my life I 1 2 3 4 5 8. Harackiewicz JM, Barron KE, Tauer JM, Elliot AJ. Predicting
want to pursue a Not Not Neutral True Very success in college: a longitudinal study of achievement goals and
ability measures as predictors of interest and performance from
career in true true for true
freshman year through graduation. J Educ Psychol 2002;94(3):
biochemistry or a at for me for 562–575.
biochemistry- all me me 9. Ainley M. Interest: a significant thread binding cognition and
related discipline affect in the regulation of learning. Int J Psychol 2008;43(3–4):
7 When I am 1 2 3 4 5 17–18.
reading Not Not Neutral True Very 10. Hidi S. Interest: a unique motivational variable. Educ Res Rev
something about true true for true 2006;1(2):69–82.
11. Renninger KA, Hidi S. Revisiting the conceptualization, mea-
biochemistry, or at for me for
surement, and generation of interest. Educ Psychol 2011;46(3):
watch something all me me 168–184.
about 12. Krapp A. Interest, motivation and learning: an educational-
biochemistry on psychological perspective. Eur J Psychol Educ 1999;14(1):
TV, I am fully 23–40.
focused and 13. Hidi S, Baird W. Interestingness – a neglected variable in
discourse processing. Cogn Sci 1986;10(2):179–194.
forget everything
14. Bergin DA. Influences on classroom interest. Educ Psychol
around me 1999;34(2):87–98.
15. Schiefele U. Interest, learning, and motivation. Educ Psychol
1991;26(3–4):299–323.
NOTE: The example items above measure students’ 16. Hidi S, Renninger KA. The four-phase model of interest
individual interest in “biochemistry.” If interest for development. Educ Psychol 2006;41(2):111–127.
17. Rotgans JI, Schmidt HG. The role of teachers in facilitating
another subject or discipline is to be measured, say situational interest in an active‐learning classroom. Teach Teach
“physiology,” the items need to be changed by repla- Educ 2011;27(1):37–42.
cing “biochemistry” with “physiology”. 18. Rotgans JI, Schmidt HG. Situational interest and academic
achievement in the active-learning classroom. Learn Instr
2011;21(1):58–67.
19. Schraw G, Bruning R, Svoboda C. Sources of situational interest.
References J Read Behav 1995;27(1):1–17.
20. Rotgans JI, Schmidt HG. Situational interest and learning: the
1. Lawless KA, Kulikowich JM. Domain knowledge and individual thirst for knoweldge. Learn Instr 2014;32:37–50.
interest: the effects of academic level and specialization in 21. Albin ML, Benton SL, Khramtsova I. Individual differences in
statistics and psychology. Contemp Educ Psychol 2006;31(1): interest and narrative writing. Contemp Educ Psychol 1996;21
30–43. (4):305–324.
2. Alexander PA, Jetton TL, Kulikowich JM. Interrelationship of 22. Mergendoller JR, Maxwell NL, Bellisimo Y. The effectiveness
knowledge, interest, and recall: assessing a model of domain of problem-based instruction: a comparative study of instruc-
learning. J Educ Psychol 1995;87(4):559–575. tional methods and student characteristics. Interdiscip J Probl-
3. Hauer KE, Fagan MJ, Kernan W, Mintz M, Durning SJ. Internal based learn 2006;1(2):5.
medicine clerkship directors’ perceptions about student interest in 23. Dotterer AM, McHale SM, Crouter AC. The development and
internal medicine careers. J Gen Intern Med 2008;23(7): correlates of academic interests from childhood through adoles-
1101–1104. cence. J Educ Psychol 2009;101(2):509.
 J.I. Rotgans / Health Professions Education 1 (2015) 67–75 75

24. Kalender I, Berberoglu G. An assessment of factors related to continuing interest in learning about science. Contemp Educ
science achievement of Turkish students. Int J Sci Educ 2009;31 Psychol 2011;36(1):4–12.
(10):1379–1394. 40. Gomez EA, Wu D, Passerini K. Computer-supported team-based
25. Reeve J. The interest-enjoyment distinction in intrinsic motiva- learning: the impact of motivation, enjoyment and team con-
tion. Motiv Emot 1989;13(2):83–103. tributions on learning outcomes. Comput Educ 2010;55(1):
26. Renninger KA, Ewen L, Lasher AK. Individual interest as 378–390.
context in expository text and mathematical word problems. 41. Kruschke JK. Attention in learning. Curr Dir Psychol Sci
Learn Instr 2002;12(4):467–490. 2003;12(5):171–175.
27. Ainley M, Hidi S, Berndorff D. Interest, learning, and the 42. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral
psychological processes that mediate their relationship. J Educ
change. Psychol Rev 1977;84(2):191–215.
Psychol 2002;94(3):545–561.
43. Zimmerman BJ, Bandura A, Martinez-Pons M. Self-Motivation
28. Schraw G, Lehman S. Situational interest: a review of the
for academic attainment: the role of self-efficacy beliefs and
literature and directions for future research. Educ Psychol Rev
personal goal setting. Am Educ Res J 1992;29(3):663–676.
2001;13(1):23–52.
44. Byrne BM. Structural Equation Modeling with Amos: Basic
29. Chen A, Darst PW. Individual and situational interest: the role of
gender and skill. Contemp Educ Psychol 2002;27(2):250–269. Concepts, Applications and Programming. Mahwah, N.J: Lawr-
30. Harackiewicz JM, Barron KE, Tauer JM, Carter SM, Elliot AJ. ence Erlbaum Assoc Inc; 2001.
Short-term and long-term consequences of achievement goals: 45. Fan X, Thompson B, Wang L. Effects of sample size, estimation
predicting interest and performance over time. J Educ Psychol methods, and model specification on structural equation. Struct
2000;92(2):316–330. Equ Model 1999;6(1):56–83.
31. Schiefele U. Interest and learning from text. Sci Stud Read 46. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
1999;3(3):257–279. structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives.
32. Patrick L, Care E, Ainley M. The relationship between voca- Struct Equ Model 1999;6(1):1–55.
tional interests, self-efficacy, and achievement in the prediction 47. Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
of educational pathways. J Career Assess 2011;19(1):61–74. Psychol Bull 1990;107(2):238–246.
33. Silvia PJ. Expressed and measured vocational interests: distinc- 48. Hancock GR, Mueller RO. Rethinking construct reliability within
tions and definitions. J Vocat Behav 2001;59(3):382–393. latent systems. In: Cudeck R, Sd Toit, Sörbom D, editors.
34. Rotgans JI, Schmidt HG. Cognitive engagement in the problem- Structural Equation Modeling: Present and Future – A Fes-
based learning classroom. Adv Health Sci Educ 2011;16(4): tschrift in Honor of Karl Jöreskog Lincolnwood. IL: Scientific
465–479.
Software International; 2001. p. 195–216.
35. Spielberger CD, Starr LM. Curiosity and exploratory behavior.
49. Sijtsma K. On the use, the misuse, and the very limited
In: O'Neil Jr. HF, Drillings M, editors. Motivation, Theory and
usefulness of Cronbach's Alpha. Psychometrika 2009;74(1):
Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1994. p. 221–243.
107–120.
36. Glass N, Ogle KR. Curiosity as holistic engagement: experiences
50. Green SB, Yang Y. Commentary on coefficient alpha: a
of hospitalized patients as research participantss. Holist Nurs
Pract 2013;27(5):292–302. cautionary tale. Psychometrika 2009;74(1):121–135.
37. Dyche L, Epstein RM. Curiosity and medical education. Med 51. Dupeyrat C, Mariné C. Implicit theories of intelligence, goal
Educ 2011;45(7):663–668. orientation, cognitive engagement, and achievement: a test of
38. Lee H. Effects of goal relations on self-regulated learning in Dweck's model with returning to school adults. Contemp Educ
multiple goal pursuits: performance, the self-regulatory process, Psychol 2005;30(1):43–59.
and task enjoyment. Asia Pac Educ Rev 2012;13(2):369–386. 52. Meece JL, Blumenfeld PC, Hoyle RH. Students' goal orientations
39. Ainley M, Ainley J. Student engagement with science in early and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. J Educ
adolescence: the contribution of enjoyment to students' Psychol 1988;80(4):514–523.