Full research paper

FACTOR ANALYSIS ON THE Helta Anggia1, 2*

Anita Habók3, 4, 5
MOTIVATION FOR EXTENSIVE Doctoral School of Education,
1

READING QUESTIONNAIRE University of Szeged, Hungary

2
Universitas Bandar Lampung, Bandar
ABSTRACT Lampung, Indonesia
This study examined the factors adapted from the Motivation for Reading Questionnaire.
We considered eight dimensions (Self-Efficacy, Reading Challenge, Reading Curiosity, Reading 3
Institute of Education, University of
Involvement, Importance of Reading, Recognition for Reading, Reading for Grades, and Social Szeged, Hungary
Reasons for Reading). In addition, we included some items based on the extensive reading,
principles, and technology acceptance model. The study recruited 558 undergraduate students of 4
MTA-SZTE Digital Learning Technologies
English as a foreign language in Indonesia via Google Forms. The structure of the questionnaire was Research Group, University of Szeged,
validated using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. To determine the dependability of Hungary
the instrument, internal consistency reliabilities of the instrument as a whole and per factor were
calculated. We computed the average variance extracted and the Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio of 5
Digital Learning Technologies
Correlation to determine convergent and discriminant validities. The results led to the omission Incubation Research Group, University
of six items with loading values < 0.50. The omissions included one item for Reading Involvement of Szeged, Hungary
(0.42) and five items for Social Reasons for Reading (0.47; 0.43; n/s.; n/s.; and n/s.). Lastly, the study
presented the significance of the results and directions for future studies. *
helta.anggia@edu.u-szeged.hu

KEYWORDS
Confirmatory factor analysis, exploratory factor analysis, extensive reading, motivation, reading Article history
Received
HOW TO CITE February 9, 2023
Anggia H., Habók A. (2024) ‘Factor Analysis on the Motivation for Extensive Reading Received in revised form
Questionnaire’, Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science, vol. 17, June 14, 2023
no. 3, pp. 195–204. http://dx.doi.org/10.7160/eriesj.2024.170302 Accepted
May 20, 2024
Available on-line
September 30, 2024

Highlights

• The exploratory factor analysis helps the authors to identify the factors of the adapted questionnaire and the relevant
items to the context.
• The confirmatory factor analysis ensures the validity of the 44 items of the adapted questionnaire.
• The average variance extracted (AVE) analysis indicated an acceptable convergent validity since items of the same factors
loaded significantly.
• The heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) analysis indicated a significant discriminant validity since the factors did not overlap.

INTRODUCTION primary schools and employing multidimensional factors to

In recent decades, Extensive reading has been identified as measure reading motivation, the construct of the instrument
one of the most effective strategies for motivating university requires revision. It lacks evidence of the large reading
students to read (Renandya, 2007). Although the primary program’s effects. This is understandable because Wigfield
concern of teaching extensive reading has been motivation and Guthrie’s background on reading motivation is more broad
for reading (Chanthap and Wasanasomsithi, 2019; Hagley, than specialized, such as EFL reading motivation.
2017; Hendriwanto and Kurniati, 2019; Rezaee and Farahian, Additionally, as digital learning has grown in popularity,
2020; Shurentsetseg, Nandintsesteg and Nyamsuren, 2015), extensive reading has shifted to an online format that uses
no instrument that assesses motivation for reading following technology as a medium of instruction (Cote and Milliner,
an extensive reading intervention has been explicitly 2015; Matsuda, 2020). As a result, the use of technology has
constructed under the principles of extensive reading. One become inevitable to extensive reading programs. Therefore,
of the most prominent instruments for reading motivation is one may infer that the current constructs of MRQ must be
the motivation for reading questionnaire (MRQ) developed adjusted following the technology acceptance model (TAM)
by Wigfield and Guthrie (1997). Despite being validated in proposed by Davis et al. (1989), who established the potential

ERIES Journal Electronic ISSN Printed ISSN 195

volume 17 issue 3 1803-1617 2336-2375
relationship between perceived ease of use and perceived achievement motivation. The authors also found that some
usefulness of technology and one’s motivation to use students avoided tasks due to low competency. This finding
the technology in a learning process. Meanwhile, Day (2015) reveals students’ school-year competence beliefs. Long-term
established the famous ten principles of extensive reading based analysis of university students’ EFL reading motivation will
on the motivational aspects of students in extensive reading. be fascinating because they vary in competence belief and task
The principles contain the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation value representation. Subjective task values, such as the desire
aspects that Deci and Ryan (2000) put forward. In Indonesia, to perform well (attainment value), belief in future benefits
Higher education institutions have begun to pay attention to (utility value), intrinsic motivation to do something (intrinsic
extensive reading, particularly programs that focus on English value), and self-assessment of energy required to perform
language learning. Moreover, the Indonesian government an activity (cost), play a significant role in determining
has provided support for extensive reading through Gerakan one’s future action (Wigfield and Eccles, 2000). The effect
Literasi Nasional (National Literacy Movement) (Anandari and of the diverse expectancy values of university students on
Iswandari, 2019). Consequently, the current study proposed learning motivation, particularly in EFL reading, receives little
a recontextualization of the MRQ using TAM and extensive attention and requires further studies.
reading principles to establish a robust assessment of students’ Procrastination and task avoidance are also other facets
reading motivation after an extensive reading intervention in of learning motivation that have received less scholarly
the Indonesian EFL context. attention. Ferrari et al. (1995) discussed the association
Specifically, the study aims to analyse the MRQ components in among procrastination, task avoidance, and various factors
light of Day (2015) and Davis (1989) theories to develop and such as perfectionism, low self-esteem, anxiety, achievement
validate a new measure of university students’ motivation for motivation, and intelligence. Although procrastination
reading following an extensive reading intervention. The first is intuitively associated with negative attitudes toward
step was that we described the context that prompted the design a particular task or assignment, Ferrari et al. (1995) found no
of a reconstructed measure of reading motivation, explained positive association between procrastination and the majority
the questionnaire item modification and development phase, of previously identified factors such as anxiety, negative
and subsequently validated the data and made justification. achievement motivation, and low intelligence. In EFL reading,
students’ procrastination may be due to perfectionism in
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
comprehending reading materials.
Motivation for EFL Reading Another aspect of one’s desire to engage in extensive online
Since Deci and Ryan (1985) introduced the initial concept reading is the involvement of technology. Davis (1989)
of self-determination theory (SDT), the theory of motivation proposed that perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness
has substantially advanced. Apart from the SDT scales of a particular technology influence the future actions of
and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, which evolved into individuals. Furthermore, in his comprehensive elaboration,
a meta-theory of motivation, certain areas of expansion in Davis proposed that beliefs and attitudes are co-determinants
motivation theory included expectancy value (Wigfield and of action execution. Thus, the lack of ability-related beliefs in
Eccles, 2000), task avoidance and procrastination theory using a particular technology may decrease one’s desire to read
(Ferrari et al., 1995), TAM (Davis, 1989), and self-related extensively via online technology.
beliefs (Habók et al., 2020). These concepts are pervasive The last aspect discussed is self-related beliefs. Habók et al.
and are adopted in many areas of learning motivation today, (2020) suggested that academic motivation mediates between
such as motivation for reading, particularly EFL reading self-related beliefs and academic achievement and vice versa.
motivation (Mori, 2002; Takase, 2007; Kim, 2011; Protacio, Academic motivation can boost self-esteem and academic
2012; Park, 2015; Dakhi, 2018; Pirih, 2019). Similarly, this achievement. Self-related ideas can motivate students to get
study integrated most of the theories mentioned above to good marks. This study examined how self-related beliefs
rethink the construction of the MRQ (Wigfield and Guthrie, affect online English reading. We examined how self-efficacy
1997) to create a more precise motivation for an extensive and self-concept, which construct self-related beliefs, influence
reading questionnaire following an extensive online reading academic motivation. Self-efficacy in online reading and
intervention. We discussed the related theories as follows. reading self-concept are key to understanding self-related ideas
Initially, expectancy value theory may be considered crucial influencing reading motivation. The subsequent discussion
concerning how one’s motivation is melded in relation to demonstrates the breadth of motivational theories applicable
EFL reading (Wigfield and Eccles, 2000). Like many other to reading motivation, particularly in EFL reading. We regard
subjects that involve one’s ability-related beliefs, examining them as essential aspects of the basis of this study.
the influence of the competence beliefs of students, which
have evolved over their school years, on whether or not to
Motivation for Reading Questionnaire
engage in positive reading behaviour during university is Recent instruments used to assess motivation for reading are
interesting. The findings that the competence belief of children based on the Motivation for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ) by
decreases over school years may be logical now (Wigfield, Wigfield and Guthrie (1997), who developed MRQ to predict
1994; Wolgast, 2018). Similarly, Tuominen et al. (2020) the amount and breadth of reading for elementary school
discovered that children who are transitioning from elementary pupils in grades 3 to 5. Self-efficacy, intrinsic and extrinsic
to lower secondary schools experienced a stable positive motivation and, learning goals, and social motivation were

196 Printed ISSN Electronic ISSN ERIES Journal

2336-2375 1803-1617 volume 17 issue 3
discovered from questionnaire items. Self-efficacy is pupils’ comprises five items organized into four dimensions:
ability-related beliefs about their reading abilities. Learning curiosity, value, self-efficacy, and self-improvement beliefs.
goals integrate subjective task values, whereas intrinsic and Several characteristics of the MRQ, such as recognition,
extrinsic motivation refers to internal and external influences competition, compliance, and avoidance, are omitted
that push children to read. Children read because of social due to the concentration of MORQ in online reading.
drive. Children read to socialize with friends and family. Simultaneously, the social part of motivation is ignored.
Wigfield and Guthrie (1997) identified 11 dimensions behind The second questionnaire is the Adult Reading Motivation
the three core constructs of the MRQ. Reading efficacy (three Measurement (ARMM), which is similar to the MRQ in its
items) and reading challenge (five items) are components multidimensionality (Davis et al., 2020). The hierarchical
of the self-efficacy concept. The first indicates the beliefs of dimensions of the questionnaire enable it to examine
students with respect to self-reported reading ability, whereas various characteristics of reading motivation, particularly
the second is intended to reveal the internal motivation to in adolescents. This restriction of the questionnaire can
read challenging text. Reading Curiosity (six items) and also be used to explain the limitations of the MRQ. Both
Reading Involvement (six items) are then designed to elicit questionnaires cannot distinguish between school subjects,
information about students’ intrinsic motivations due to their fiction or non-fiction, and digital or paper reading. However,
interests. Afterward, the Importance of Reading (two items) MORQ is distinguished from MRQ in that the MRQ is
reflects pupils’ perceptions of the importance of reading for geared toward secondary school students instead of those
future benefits. Although Reading Work Avoidance (four in elementary school. Teachers require an instrument for
items) elucidates the reading motivation of students beyond reading assessment that may be used a few times throughout
positive performance goals, Competition in Reading (six the semester to assist students in developing a sense of
items), Recognition for Reading (five items), and Reading for competence and proficiency in reading. MORQ and ARMM
Grades (four items) are components of extrinsic motivation, demonstrate how the present study may modify the MRQ
which elucidates the external drive that motivates students to subscales for the current questionnaire.
read. Finally, Social Reasons for Reading (seven items) and Out of the abovementioned prominent questionnaires, many
Compliance (five items) are factors of social motivation that researchers developed instruments based on the dimensions
contribute to students’ use of reading as a means of social of the MRQ. However, the MRQ continues to leave avenues
interaction. Wigfield and Guthrie (1997) viewed the MRQ for further exploration. According to Davis et al. (2020),
as a tool that is capable of eliciting information regarding the MRQ features several limitations with respect to utility
the multidimensionality of fourth- and fifth-grade elementary as an instrument for elucidating the motivation of students
school students and evaluated the success of a particular for reading, its small sample size, and the proclivity of
intervention on third-grade students. motivation researchers to replicate it using an abbreviated
SDT (Ryan and Deci, 2000) and self-efficacy theory version with 18 items instead of the original 53 items. In
(Bandura, 1977; Bandura, 1982) are two theories that support other words, the creators of other instruments identify areas
the development of the MRQ. Expanding the MRQ items for for improvement relative to MRQ and bridge the gap by
the abovementioned structures in light of current educational validating the questionnaire using larger sample sizes and
and technological developments is seemingly critical to by including the dimensions in their replication. In addition,
the field of extensive reading. (Davis et al., 2020) underlined the importance of researchers
who are developing measures for reading motivation that
Assessment Tools for Measuring Motivation for apply to printed and online reading. This notion indicates
Reading that researchers on reading motivation have begun to pay
Despite the claim that reading motivation in adults is most likely special attention to the measurement of online reading
driven by intrinsic motivation and self-regulation, reading motivation.
motivation during childhood may influence that of adults’ Additionally, Neugebauer and Fujimoto (2020) detailed several
motivation (Schutte and Malouff, 2007). Moreover, children’s criticisms of the intrinsic motivation component of the MRQ
reading motivation may impact adult reading motivation. More as being ambiguous. As many contend, the challenge subscale
research is needed to determine adult reading’s full potential. of the MRQ was separate from other components with respect
The next section discusses reading MRQ questionnaires. We to intrinsic motivation; others believe that challenge was
study the interaction between adult’s and children’s reading a precedent part of the motivation that should be excluded from
motives and a possible online reading component. The study intrinsic motivation. We also noted that Wigfield and Guthrie
criticizes the MRQ. (1997) contradicted Wigfield and Guthrie (1995)including
The first measurement is the motivation for the online reading intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for reading, perceptions
questionnaire (MORQ), which omits several MRQ aspects of reading efficacy, social aspects of reading, and reading
deemed irrelevant for online reading (Forzani et al., 2020). disincentives. Aa 82-item questionnaire was developed to
In the case of extensive online reading, where the teacher measure each dimension, with several items assessing each
controls reading, various dimensions, such as recognition dimension. The questionnaire was completed by 105 fourth-
and competitiveness, are considered due to LMS reports on and fifth-grade children in southern Maryland. Factor analyses
websites that display students’ reading progress and self- showed that some of the proposed dimensions were clearly
motivation to compete with their classmates. The MORQ defined, whereas others were not. Several of the dimensions

ERIES Journal Electronic ISSN Printed ISSN 197

volume 17 issue 3 1803-1617 2336-2375
were correlated with children’s book reading frequency in university students’ motivation for reading. We assumed that
a school-based reading program. The dimensions that appear the motivation subscales were classified into eight categories
to be the most reliable include Reading Efficacy, Reading (Self-Efficacy, Reading Challenge, Reading Curiosity,
Challenge, Curiosity, Aesthetic Enjoyment, Recognition, Reading Involvement, Importance of Reading, Recognition
Social, and Competition. A revised version of the questionnaire for Reading, Reading for Grades, and Social Reasons for
based on the statistical analyses was developed. (Contains Reading), including extensive reading principles and TAM.
48 references and five tables of data. The original version of
METHOD
the Motivations for Reading Questionnaire is attached. because
the first, but not the second, included the importance of reading Participants
to intrinsic motivation. Thus, developers of instruments The study involved 558 students from three universities in
should clarify this inconsistency, especially those who intend Indonesia (Table 1). From the total sample, 204 students
to develop instruments to measure the motivation for reading were initially instructed to fill in the questionnaire, and
among older learners. the questionnaire results were analysed using the exploratory
factor analysis (EFA). The remaining 354 students were instructed
Research Question to fill in the questionnaire, and the results were analysed using
This study established the validity of the Motivation the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The students had been
for Extensive Reading Questionnaire (MERQ) for 558 actively learning English since they enrolled in their colleges’
undergraduate students of three Indonesian universities. English education programmes 2.5 years ago. They had been
The objective was to determine whether the questionnaire’s learning English since primary school but had not used it because
structures adequately characterize the dimensions of it is a foreign language in Indonesia.

Active Year of Gender

Total
Learning English Male Female
3 200 358 558

Table 1: Characteristics of the sample

Instrument Data Analysis

The Motivation for Extensive Reading Questionnaire Before conducting the multivariate analysis, we conducted
(MERQ) was developed using a three-step process. Initially, a pre-analysis stage by checking the multivariate normality
we established a theoretical foundation for our adaptation and linearity of the data set (Byrne, 2005). This stage was
of the MRQ. Second, we reduced the subscales and items conducted to check for possible redundancy among the items
that were less correlated based on the university context in that may measure the same latent constructs of the proposed
Indonesia and the age level of the participants. Afterward, scales in the questionnaire using an inter-item correlation
we added several pertinent items in light of the extensive matrix (Cohen et al., 2013; Cohen, 1988). In the long run, if
reading principles of Day (2015) and the TAM by Davis we find correlational overlaps among items, the pre-analysis
(1989). Finally, we examined the questionnaire as a whole stage may lead to item deletion.
and fitted it to the remaining MRQ constructs relevant to In analysing the questionnaire data, exploratory factor
the study context. analysis(EFA) was employed to check the dimensionality of
the instrument, which was tested on 204 students. We used
Design the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS 25) at this
The Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the Doctoral School stage. The assumed subscales was proposed before undertaking
of Education at the University of Szeged officially approved the EFA process. EFA was used to check the rotated factor
the research. All participants provided their informed consent, matrix of the data model and displayed possible item deletion
indicating that they accepted to participate in the study. due to low factor loadings (i.e., less than 0.5).
With the assistance of individual instructors, the MERQ was To confirm the EFA result, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
delivered online to 204 students at the three universities. Given was performed to test the results obtained from another group
that the measure was developed for EFL students, we limited of 354 students. We examined the model fit criteria, such as
the sample to individuals enrolled in programs that emphasize the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI),
studying the English language. Students spent 20 minutes in and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA).
one session supervised by instructors. The sole responsibility Verifying the model fit of the data is essential to determine
of the instructors was to ensure that each student completed whether the data are plausible (Hair et al., 2018). At the same
the self-reported questionnaire within the time allotted without time, we checked the instrument’s reliability using inter-item
any interference. The instructors spent time training students on and composite reliability to determine the consistency of
completing the questionnaire and responding to any questions responses toward the items in the instrument. Simultaneously,
about the items. After that, we ran an EFA on the students’ test Discriminant and convergent validity were investigated
results. After reducing several insignificant items, we tested to ensure whether the items of the same construct build
the remaining items on another 354 students through an online on the construct itself and to explore whether the items of
questionnaire using Google Form for a CFA test. a construct did not build on other constructs.

198 Printed ISSN Electronic ISSN ERIES Journal

2336-2375 1803-1617 volume 17 issue 3
RESULTS CFA
EFA CFA was used to validate the structure of the MERQ, which resulted
To determine the dimensions of the adapted instrument, in a model fit that can be used to explain the fitness of the model.
we conducted EFA. Building on (Hair et al., 2018), we All observed items loaded significantly based on the loading
decided to eliminate items with loadings of less than 0.50 judgments’ characteristics (Hair et al., 2018). The standardized
because they were unlikely to be significant in loading estimate of the factor loadings ranged from 0.65 to 0.85 with
the factors of the questionnaire. We omitted six items from a significance level of 0.01, which indicates that all items were
the questionnaire with loading values of < 0.50. The omitted acceptable. The fit indices of the questionnaire for each factor were
items included one for Reading Involvement (I feel like I examined. Table 2 summarizes the fit indices for each factor. All
make friends with people in good books) and five for Social the items remained in the CFA because the model fitted the data
Reasons for Reading items (I often read to my brother or my well. However, the RMSEA of some of the partial models exceeds
sister; I like to make contact with the authors of my reading the recommended cut-off values, such as Reading Efficacy > 0.08,
materials; I like to help my friends with their schoolwork in Importance of Reading > 0.08, and Recognition for Reading > 0.08.
reading; I talk to my friends about what I am reading; and This happens probably because of the small sample size of the study.
My friends and I like to trade things to read). Only one of We expect that in the future, we can add more samples to refine
the previously added items was omitted (I like to make contact the root mean square error approximation and improve the fitness
with the authors of my reading materials). The rest of the five index of the models. Moreover, other than RMSEA, the other fit
items were the original ones of the adapted MRQ. In general, indices of the partial models, such as CFI and TLI indicate a good
we eliminated these items because they did not contribute model fit.
to the structure of the instrument. As a result, the remaining Finally, to ensure the fitness of the model, we checked the fit of the model
44 items belonging to 8 previously proposed sub-scales were to the structure. Table 3 displays the fit model of the questionnaire.
suitable for confirmation through CFA (Appendix 1), which Overall, the CFA test indicated a good model fit. These results indicated
is the subsequent sequential step. that overall, our instrument has a good fit index.
Constructs Chi-square df p< CFI TLI RMSEA
Reading Efficacy 8.19 2 0.01 0.99 0.97 0.09
Reading Challenge 27.9 9 0.00 0.98 0.97 0.07
Reading Curiosity 121 35 0.00 0.95 0.93 0.08
Reading Involvement 36.9 20 0.01 0.99 0.99 0.04
Importance of Reading 7.85 2 0.02 0.98 0.94 0.12
Recognition for Reading 28.2 5 0.17 0.96 0.93 0.11
Reading for Grades 0.00 0 n/s 1.00 1.00 0.00
Social Reasons for Reading 0.29 2 0.86 1.00 1.01 0.00

Table 2: Goodness of fit of questionnaire subscales

Chi-square df p< CFI TLI RMSEA Estimator
1604 874 0.001 0.935 0.930 0.048 ML

Table 3: Goodness of fit of the questionnaire

Reliability (0.97 and 0.98, respectively). At the same time, Cronbach’s alpha
The internal consistency reliabilities of the instrument were and omega coefficients for each factor were within acceptable
calculated as a whole and for each factor. Cronbach’s alpha and ranges from 0.82 to 0.97 (Table 4), which indicated satisfactory
omega coefficients of the instrument as a whole were acceptable reliabilities. All the factors suggested equal satisfactory reliabilities.
Constructs CRB CR
Reading Efficacy 0.97 0.88
Reading Challenge 0.89 0.90
Reading Curiosity 0.91 0.91
Reading Involvement 0.93 0.93
Importance of Reading 0.83 0.83
Recognition for Reading 0.90 0.90
Reading for Grades 0.82 0.82
Social Reasons for Reading 0.90 0.90

Table 4: Internal consistency reliability and composite reliability of each factor of the questionnaire

Validity convergent validity was medium, ranging from 0.51 to 0.66.

To verify the convergent validity of the scale, we ran We assume that these medium AVE values are acceptable,
average variance extracted (AVE). The results indicated that because the majority of the composite reliabilities of

ERIES Journal Electronic ISSN Printed ISSN 199

volume 17 issue 3 1803-1617 2336-2375
the factors exceed 0.60 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). As Table 5 summarizes the results. The values varied
a result, the study established convergent validity. between 0.05 and 0.94. Some of the values are more
The heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio was used to than 0.85, indicating that discriminant validity has been
determine discriminant validity (Henseler et al., 2015). partially established.

Subscales AVE RE RC RCU RI IOR RFR RFG SRFR

Reading Efficacy 0.66 0.87 0.87 0.85 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.14
Reading Challenge 0.60 0.88 0.92 0.86 0.94 0.74 0.24
Reading Curiosity 0.51 0.86 0.88 0.93 0.78 0.31
Reading Involvement 0.62 0.84 0.87 0.78 0.14
Importance of Reading 0.56 0.90 0.76 0.25
Recognition for Reading 0.52 0.72 0.37
Reading for Grades 0.61 0.05
Social Reasons for Reading 0.52

Table 5: Convergent validity and discriminant validity

DISCUSSION 2015) because the study focuses on extensive online reading

This study aimed to develop a more precise measure of derived from the concept of extensive reading. As a result,
university students’ motivation for reading in the EFL context, 16 items were added, leading to0 items on the Motivation for
with a particular emphasis on students who have undertaken Extensive Reading Questionnaire (MERQ).
extensive reading intervention. This instrument was created According to the above-mentioned theoretical foundation,
to support extensive online reading, which has increased in the initial number of factors that we proposed was eight,
popularity recently. According to the literature, the majority of with multiple items for each one: Reading Efficacy (4 items),
instructors on extensive reading adapted reading motivation Reading Challenge (6 items), Reading Curiosity (10 items),
scales from the field of psychology. Among well-known Reading Involvement (9 items), Reading for Recognition (5
motivation questionnaires for reading, many scholars have items), Reading for Social Reasons (9 items), the Importance of
referred to the MRQ. Originally composed of 11 subscales Reading (4 items), and Reading for Grades (3 items). The eight
with a total of 82 items, this questionnaire was then reduced subscales are based on three underlying constructs: self-
by its creators to 53 items. The 11 subscales are Reading efficacy, intrinsic–extrinsic motivation, and social motivation
Efficacy, Reading Challenge, Reading Curiosity, Reading for reading. According to (Wigfield and Guthrie, 1997), self-
Involvement, Reading Importance, Reading Work Avoidance, efficacy consists of reading efficacy, which indicates a belief
Reading for Recognition, Reading Competition, Reading one can be successful in reading and reading challenges
for Grades, Social Reasons for Reading, and Compliance. that lead to the enjoyment of comprehending complicated
Additionally, a brief version of the MRQ contains only 18 text (e.g., I learn more from reading than most students in
items. For validation, we adapted the questionnaire with 53 the class and I enjoy reading books about people in different
items and used 8 of the 11 subscales of the MRQ. countries). In addition, intrinsic motivation denotes the desire
We omitted reading work avoidance, competition for reading, to be good at reading (e.g., I read to learn new information
and compliance from the list of MRQ subscales in light of about topics that interest me, I find it easier to manage my
the contextualization of MRQ with the context of Indonesian reading by using online virtual library [e.g., Xreading, ER-
universities and the extensive online reading concept. Central, and ReadTheory], and it is very important to me to be
Although Davis et al. (2018) proposed that reading work a good reader). At the same time, extrinsic motivation prefers
avoidance is a dimension of students’ motivation for reading external drives that push individuals to read (e.g., I am happy
that should be validated, we refrained from using the subscale when someone recognizes my reading, and Grades are a good
because we were primarily interested in the probable way to see how well I am doing in reading). Finally, the social
beneficial effect of extensive online reading on students’ motivation for reading refers to socialization with others
motivation for reading. Although we argued that competition (e.g., I often find uninteresting reading materials turn out to
in reading is irrelevant for university students, we also propose be interesting as many people like them and keep talking and
that compliance is irrelevant for adult learners who are not discussing them). The number of items of the MERQ was
required to follow their teachers with respect to extensive nearly the same as that of the MRQ, with 50 items, which
reading. By eliminating the three subscales, the total number were then tested using EFA.
of items was reduced to 34. Afterward, we added other We used a fixed number of factors in the EFA process because
items based on the TAM concept (Davis, 1989) to determine we were confident in the theoretical foundation when
whether students’ motivation for reading was susceptible to adapting the MRQ. We assumed that eight factors would
the perceived ease of use and usefulness of the online virtual be extracted from the modified questionnaire. Subsequently,
library and any other software packages they may use for eliminating six items after the EFA process increased
extensive reading. Consequently, we added items based on the instruments’ suitability for assessing students’ motivation
the well-established 10 principles of extensive reading (Day, for extensive reading. Given that five of the omitted

200 Printed ISSN Electronic ISSN ERIES Journal

2336-2375 1803-1617 volume 17 issue 3
items were derived from the subscales measuring social and Vanijja, 2020; Rafique et al., 2020) and contextualize
reasons for reading, which were supposed to complement the ER principles to the items in the questionnaire (Day,
the scale for motivation goal, we can deduce that the social 2015). The final structure of the proposed questionnaire was
motivation of reading was relatively less reliant on face- in line with that of the Takase model for reading motivation
to-face interaction (Appendix). Two of the remaining in the second language, which included online technology,
four SRFR items elicited the use of social media among such as the Internet, to reveal the reading motivation of
students to read and express what they had recently read university students. Simultaneously, the final structure is also
in public (e.g., I find it easy to read and post comments on in line with the questionnaire developed by (Park, 2015),
certain issues posted on Instagram, Twitter, or Facebook which focused more on Korean EFL students’ intrinsic and
and Social media increases my reading motivation through extrinsic motivation for reading. Following this validation
a reading challenge from my friends). In addition, three of is relatively interesting for the current study in exploring
the deleted items that did not load to the subscales revealed whether students’ extrinsic motivation is related to their
several pieces of information. First, helping friends with use of online reading strategies. In addition, despite our
schoolwork in reading (I like to help my friends with their modification to the original MRQ, we continued to retain
schoolwork in reading) was not a social reason for university the expectancy-value aspects (Shang, Moss and Chen, 2023)
students to read. In other words, they read extensively beyond in the form of subjective task value (importance of reading),
the obligatory homework. Next, I talk to friends about what which may be perhaps represented more by expectancy
they are currently reading, as if I talk to my friends about values as in the questionnaire of (Mori, 2002), which used
what I am reading that appears already represented by social nearly all components of expectancy-value aspects, intrinsic
media. Lastly, the item My friends and I like to trade things value, attainment value, extrinsic value, and importance
to read sounded extraneous because the availability of a wide value. The MERQ also confirmed the MORQ and the ARMM
range of online reading materials has provided the students using the original MRQ scales in developing the instrument.
with abundant and accessible reading materials. However, the MERQ differs from both questionnaires in
The CFA process confirmed the final factor of the proposed terms of its ability to transfer psychological theories about
questionnaire. The remaining 44 items after EFA loaded motivation to the context of EFL reading.
significantly between 0.65 and 0.85 in the CFA. Importantly, In conclusion, the MERQ was validated to determine
this calculation did not influence the structure of the fittest measurement of students’ reading motivation after
the questionnaire. However, we checked the model fit indices the extensive online reading intervention in the EFL context.
to determine the questionnaire’s overall fitness and individual In doing so, we reduced the original subscales of the MRQ
factors. Although the outputs of the analysis indicated that without altering the remaining items. Moreover, we added
the questionnaire fit the model well as a whole, RMSEA several items based on TAM and extensive reading theories
results of the individual factor check revealed that five but remained attached to the remaining eight original subscales
factors were outside the fit model, namely, Reading Efficacy of the MRQ. Specifically, we aimed to contextualize the MRQ
(0.09), Reading Challenge (0.07), Reading Curiosity (0.08), with extensive online reading context at the university level.
Importance of Reading (0.12), and Recognition for Reading However, the MERQ has its limitations, which are as follows:
(0.11). Given that a badness-of-fit score of 0.06 is considered First, some MERQ parameters must be reassessed due to
within the close fit range (Hair et al., 2019) and a score of low RMSEA. Future subscale additions can fix this problem.
0.10 is considered negligible (Shi, Lee and Maydeu-Olivares, Second, study samples were limited to third-year college
2019), we deemed that Reading Efficacy, Reading Challenge, students with considerable reading intervention experience.
Reading Curiosity, Importance of Reading, and Recognition We may have improved the questionnaire’s generalizability if
for Reading required additional consideration. However, we had more replies from different fields and semesters. Future
RMSEA tended to decrease with the addition of the indicators studies should address this issue. Third, the validation was not
of the observed variables (Shi, Lee, and Maydeu-Olivares, followed by investigating gender, age, English competence, and
2019); we theoretically exhausted the possibilities of adding economic and social status disparities in reading motivation.
indicators in the quest to obtain a perfect model. Thus, we Future research should uncover these discrepancies. Fourth,
based our absolute fitness model on the overall RMSEA result future research needs to recruit more respondents. University
of the questionnaire, which fit perfectly. Additionally, the CFI students are adult learners; therefore, involving diverse jobs
and TLI results for individual factors and whole factors were of the same age range will raise the chance of getting more
within acceptable ranges of fit at > 0.90. Thus, we infer that replies and improve the fitness of questionnaires measuring
our hypothesized model was fit. motivation for extensive reading in Indonesia. Future studies
The validity check of the questionnaire indicated that items can increase TAM transfer to questionnaire items.
within the same subscales were built on the respective
directed latent variables. At the same time, items of different CONCLUSION
subscales could be distinguished from one another. This The study demonstrated that the subscales of the MRQ, in
fact supports our additional items to the original MRQ and conjunction with TAM and extensive reading theories, can
indicates that the current measurement of the motivation of be used to assess the motivation of students to read following
university students for extensive reading in EFL must consider extensive online reading programs. Thus, this study opened
the technological aspect of motivation (Takase, 2007; Pal possible avenues for future instructors of extensive reading

ERIES Journal Electronic ISSN Printed ISSN 201

volume 17 issue 3 1803-1617 2336-2375
to use the items in the proposed questionnaire to establish ACKNOWLEDGMENT
the positive characteristics of motivated students with This work was supported by the Research Programme for
respect to EFL reading. MERQ is distinguishable from other Public Education Development, Hungarian Academy of
questionnaires on extensive reading due to its ability to elicit Sciences (Grant KOZOKT2021-16), and by the Humanities
information about students’ motivation for reading via online and Social Sciences Cluster of the Centre of Excellence for
interfaces. Finally, but certainly not least, the questionnaire Interdisciplinary Research, Development and Innovation
may provide teachers or instructors with direct feedback of the University of Szeged. Anita Habók is a member of
regarding their students’ motivation for EFL reading. the Digital Learning Technologies Incubation Research Group.

REFERENCES

Anandari, C. L. and Iswandari, Y. A. (2019) ‘Extensive reading in Day, R. (2015) ‘Extending Extensive Reading.’, Reading in a Foreign
Indonesian schools: A successful story’, Teflin Journal, Vol. Language, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 294–301.
30, No. 2, pp. 137–152. https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal. Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M. (1985) Intrinsic Motivation and Self-
v30i2/137-152 Determination in Human Behavior, New York: Springer Science.
Bandura, A. (1977) ‘Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M. (2000) ‘The “ What “ and “ Why “ of
Behavioral Change’, Psychological Review, Vol. 84, No. 2, pp. Goal Pursuits : Human Needs and the Self-Determination of
191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191 Behavior’, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 37–41.
Bandura, A. (1982) ‘Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency’, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01
American Psychologist, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 122–147. https://doi. Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. L. and McGown. W. G. (1995)
org/10.1037/0003-066x.37.2.122 Procrastination and task avoidance - Theory, Research, and
Byrne, B. M. (2005) ‘Factor analytic models: Viewing the structure Treatment. Edited by C. R. Snyder. Kansas: Springer Science.
of an assessment instrument from three perspectives’, Journal Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. F. (1981) ‘Evaluating Structural Equation
of Personality Assessment, Vol. 85, No. 1, pp. 17–32. https://doi. Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error’,
org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8501_02 Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 39–50. https://
Chanthap, N. and Wasanasomsithi, P. (2019) ‘The effect of integration doi.org/10.2307/3151312
of a blended learning and extensive reading instructional model Forzani, E., Leu, D. J., Yujia Li, E., Rhoads, C., Guthrie, J. T. and
on Thai efl undergraduate students’ learner autonomy’, LEARN McCoach, B. (2020) ‘Characteristics and Validity of an
Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Instrument for Assessing Motivations for Online Reading to
Network, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 76–96. Learn’, Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 56, No. 4, pp. 761–
Cohen, R. J., Swerdlik, M. E. and Sturman, E. D. (2013) Psychological 780. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.337
Testing and Assessment, 8th Edition, New York: McGraw Hill. Habók, A., Magyar, A., Németh, M. B. and Csapó, B. (2020)
Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral ‘Motivation and self-related beliefs as predictors of academic
Sciences, 2nd Edition, New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. achievement in reading and mathematics: Structural equation
Cote, T. and Milliner, B. (2015) ‘Implementing and Managing Online models of longitudinal data’, International Journal of Educational
Exensive Reading: Student Performance and Perceptions’, IALLT Research, Vol. 103, p. 101634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Journal of Language Learning Technologies, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. ijer.2020.101634
70–90. https://doi.org/10.17161/iallt.v45i1.8550 Hagley, E. T. (2017) ‘Extensive graded reading with engineering
Dakhi, S. and Damanik S. I. (2018) ‘Students’ Motivation in Reading students : Effects and outcomes’, Reading in a Foreign Language,
English Text: A Qualitative Study in EFL Context’, Journal Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 203–217.
of English Teaching, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 81–92. https://doi. Hair, J. F., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E. and Black, W. C. (2019)
org/10.33541/jet.v4i2.832 Multivariate Data Analysis, 8th Edition, England: Pearson Prentice.
Davis, F. D. (1989) ‘Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and Hendriwanto and Kurniati, U. (2019) ‘Building reading fluency
user acceptance of information technology’, MIS Quarterly: with mobile assisted extensive reading’, International Journal
Management Information Systems, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 319–339. of Interactive Mobile Technologies, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp. 84–92.
https://doi.org/10.2307/249008 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v13i06.9799
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P. and Warshaw, P. R. (1989) ‘User Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015) ‘A new criterion
Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural
Theoretical Models’, Management Science, Vol. 35, No. 8, pp. equation modeling’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982 Science, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Davis, M. H., Tonks, S. M., Hock, M., Wang, W. and Rodriguez, s11747-014-0403-8
A (2018) ‘A review of reading motivation scales’, Reading Kim, K. J. (2011) ‘Reading motivation in two languages: An
Psychology, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 121–187. https://doi.org/10.1080 examination of EFL college students in Korea’, Reading and
/02702711.2017.1400482 Writing, Vol. 24, No. 8, pp. 861–881. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Davis, M. H., Wang, W., Kingston, N. M., Hock, M., Tonks, S. M. and s11145-010-9229-z
Tiemann, G. (2020) ‘A computer adaptive measure of reading Matsuda, S. (2020) ‘Sharing Reading Experiences with University
motivation’, Journal of Research in Reading, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. Students Using Goodreads’, Journal of Extensive Reading’, pp.
434–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12318 77–86.

202 Printed ISSN Electronic ISSN ERIES Journal

2336-2375 1803-1617 volume 17 issue 3
Mori, S. (2002) ‘Redefining Motivation to Read in a Foreign Schutte, N. S. and Malouff, J. M. (2007) ‘Dimensions of reading
Language’, Reading in a Foreign Language, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. motivation: Development of an adult reading motivation scale’,
91–110. Reading Psychology, Vol. 28, No. 5, pp. 469–489. https://doi.
Neugebauer, S. R. and Fujimoto, K. A. (2020) ‘Distinct and Overlapping org/10.1080/02702710701568991
Dimensions of Reading Motivation in Commonly Used Measures Shang, C., Moss, A. C. and Chen, A. (2023) ‘The expectancy-value
in Schools’, Assessment for Effective Intervention, Vol. 46, No. 1, theory: A meta-analysis of its application in physical education’,
pp. 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508418819793 Journal of Sport and Health Science, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 52–64.
Pal, D. and Vanijja, V. (2020) ‘Perceived usability evaluation https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2022.01.003
of Microsoft Teams as an online learning platform during Shi, D., Lee, T. and Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2019) ‘Understanding
COVID-19 using system usability scale and technology the Model Size Effect on SEM Fit Indices’, Educational and
acceptance model in India’, Children and Youth Services Psychological Measurement, Vol. 79, No. 2, pp. 310–334. https://
Review, Vol. 119, p. 105535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. doi.org/10.1177/0013164418783530
childyouth.2020.105535 Shurentsetseg, N. and Nyamsuren, A. (2015) ‘Implementing Extensive
Park. J. (2015) ‘Insights into Korean EFL Students’Reading Motivation, Reading through Xreading.com for Mongolian EFL Learners’.
Proficiency, and Strategy Use’, English Teaching, Vol. 70, No.1, Takase, A. (2007) ‘Japanese High School Students’ Motivation for
pp. 57–74. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.70.1.201503.57 Extensive L2 Reading’, Reading in a Foreign Language, Vol. 19,
Pirih, A. (2019) ‘Extensive reading and changes to No. 1, pp. 1–18.
readingmotivationinefl among slovene primary school pupils’, Tuominen, H., Niemivirta, M., Lonka, K. and Salmela-Aro, K.
Journal of Elementary Education, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 291–314. (2020) ‘Motivation across a transition: Changes in achievement
https://doi.org/10.18690/rei.12.4.291-314.2019 goal orientations and academic well-being from elementary to
Protacio, M. S. (2012) ‘Reading motivation: A focus on english secondary school’, Learning and Individual Differences, Vol. 79,
learners’, Reading Teacher, Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 69–77. https://doi. p. 101854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101854
org/10.1002/trtr.01092 Wigfield, A. (1994) ‘Expectancy-value theory of achievement
Rafique, H., Almagrabi, A. O., Shamim, A., Anwar, F. and Bashir, motivation: A developmental perspective’, Educational
A. K. (2020) ‘Investigating the Acceptance of Mobile Library Psychology Review, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 49–78. https://doi.
Applications with an Extended Technology Acceptance Model org/10.1007/bf02209024
(TAM)’, Computers and Education, Vol. 145, p. 103732. https:// Wigfield, A. and Eccles, J. S. (2000) ‘Expectancy-value theory
doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103732 of achievement motivation’, Contemporary Educational
Renandya, W. A. (2007) ‘The power of extensive reading’, Psychology, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/
RELC Journal, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 133–149. https://doi. ceps.1999.1015
org/10.1177/0033688207079578 Wigfield, A. and Guthrie, J. T. (1995) ‘Dimensions of Children’s
Rezaee, M. and Farahian, M. (2020) ‘Promoting university students’ Motivations for Reading: An Initial Study. Reading Research
receptive skills through extensive reading in multimedia-based Report No. 34’, Reading Research Report No. 34, pp. 9–33.
instruction’, Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, Wigfield, A. and Guthrie, J. T. (1997) ‘Relations of Children’s
Vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 1464–1489. https://doi.org/10.1108/ Motivation for Reading to the Amount and Breadth of Their
jarhe-09-2020-0304 Reading’, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 89, No. 3, pp.
Ryan, R. M. and Deci, E. L. (2000) ‘Self-Determination Theory and 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.420
the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Wolgast,A. (2018) ‘School students’beliefs about abilities and perspective-
Well-Being’, University of Dar es Salaam Library journal, Vol. taking over time’, Large-Scale Assessments in Education, Vol. 6,
55, No. 1, pp. 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-018-0065-y

ERIES Journal Electronic ISSN Printed ISSN 203

volume 17 issue 3 1803-1617 2336-2375
APPENDIX

EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS OF THE MOTIVATION FOR EXTENSIVE READING QUESTIONNAIRE

No. Code Items Loading Factor

1 RCU4 I read to learn new information about topics that interest me. 0.84
2 RCU7 I read about my hobbies to learn more about them. 0.82
3 RCU6 I find it easier to read about information I want to know on Google. 0.81
4 RCU5 I like to read about new things. 0.82
5 RCU1 If the teacher discusses something interesting, I might read more about it. 0.79
Reading Curiosity
6 RCU2 I have favourite subjects that I like to read about. 0.77
7 RCU8 I cannot stop reading a series until I reach its end. 0.76
8 RCU10 I enjoy reading a series. 0.72
9 RCU3 I enjoy reading books about people in different countries. 0.69
10 RCU9 I always choose the reading materials by myself. 0.65
I find it easier to manage my reading by using online virtual library (Xreading, ER-
11 RI7 0.82
Central, ReadTheory, etc.).
12 RI1 I enjoy a long, involved story or fiction book. 0.79
13 RI4 I like mysteries. 0.79
Reading graded readers in online virtual library (Xreading, ER-Central,
14 RI9 0.78 Reading Involvement
ReadTheory, etc.) increases my reading rate.
15 RI2 I make pictures in my mind when I read. 0.75
16 RI3 I read stories about fantasy and make believe. 0.69
17 RI8 I like to read various topics and genres. 0.69
18 RI5 I read a lot of adventure stories. 0.67
19 RC3 I like it when the questions in books make me think. 0.75
20 RC5 I like hard, challenging books. 0.75
21 RC2 If a book is interesting, I don’t care how hard it is to read. 0.73
Reading Challenge
22 RC1 I usually learn difficult things by reading. 0.72
23 RC4 If the project is interesting, I can read difficult material. 0.70
24 RC6 I always want to read reading materials which are slightly above my reading level. 0.60
25 RFR1 I am happy when someone recognizes my reading. 0.77
26 RFR4 I like to get compliments for my reading. 0.74
Reading for
27 RFR3 My friends sometimes tell me I am a good reader. 0.74
Recognition
28 RFR2 I like having the teacher say I read well. 0.74
29 RFR5 I always wait for my teacher to report our reading progress. 0.70
I often find that uninteresting reading materials turn out to be interesting
30 SRFR9 0.71
because many people like them and keep talking and discussing them.
I find it easy to read and post comments on certain issues posted in Instagram,
31 SRFR8 0.65 Social Reasons for
Twitter, or Facebook.
Reading
32 SRFR6 I like to tell my family about what I am reading. 0.65
Social media increases my reading motivation through reading challenge from
33 SRFR7 0.59
my friends.
34 IOR1 It is very important to me to be a good reader. 0.80
35 IOR2 Compared to other activities, it is very important to me to be a good reader. 0.76 Importance of
36 IOR3 I don’t mind getting bad reading scores as long as I love reading. 0.77 Reading
37 IOR4 I feel something is missing from my life if I do not read any time in a day. 0.73
38 RFG2 Grades are a good way to see how well I am doing in reading. 0.81
39 RFG3 I look forward to finding out my reading grade. 0.82 Reading for Grade
40 RFG1 I read to improve my grades. 0.78
41 RE1 I know that I will do well in reading next year. 0.78
42 RE3 I learn more from reading than most students in the class. 0.72
Self-Efficacy
43 RE2 I am a good reader. 0.73
44 RE4 I can read any reading materials. 0.62

204 Printed ISSN Electronic ISSN ERIES Journal

2336-2375 1803-1617 volume 17 issue 3