The authors argue the factor-analytic evidence is not strong enough to rename expectancy-value theory as expectancy-value-cost theory¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q1
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? Barron and Hulleman (2015) proposed renaming the theory expectancy-value-cost theory because cost factored separately from value, but Eccles and Wigfield argue the evidence is not compelling since all value aspects form separate factors. → Jacquelynne S. Eccles · Allan Wigfield 2024

Evidence¶

Jacquelynne S. Eccles · Allan Wigfield 2024¶

Jacquelynne S. Eccles · Allan Wigfield. (2024). The Development, Testing, and Refinement of Eccles, Wigfield, and Colleagues' Situated Expectancy-Value Model of Achievement Performance and Choice. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09888-9

q1 · i? · review · r2

The authors' interpretive position in this review: they report Barron and Hulleman's (2015) proposal to add cost as a separate construct and state "the evidence is not strong enough yet to add the C to EEVT".

"In our own writings, we have argued that the evidence is not strong enough yet to add the C to EEVT (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020; Wigfield & Eccles, 2020)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Confirmatory factor analyses show students' expectancies for success factor separately from their subjective task values, while expectancies and ability self-concepts factor together — related