Subjective task value and cost emerge as two distinct factors in daily motivational appraisals of vocabulary learning¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? A two-factor model separating value and cost items, especially with small non-zero cross-loadings, fits multilevel daily diary data better than a one-factor model. → Breitwieser 2026

Evidence¶

Breitwieser 2026¶

Breitwieser, J., Brod, G., & Malmberg, L.-E. (2026). Testing a three-phase model of the relationship between motivational appraisals, observable engagement, and subjective engagement: Insights from combining mobile learning data and daily diaries. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0001009

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Bayesian multilevel factor analysis of value and cost diary items from 4,154 data points from 203 participants compared one-factor, two-factor, and two-factor-with-cross-loadings solutions. The article reports the cross-loading model fit best: "PPP = .090" versus PPP = .000 for one factor; both factors showed good reliability.

"Based on the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between the observed and the replicated Chi-square values and the PPP, the two-factor model (95% CI = [4.36; 74.75], PPP = .015) and even more so the two-factor model allowing for non-zero cross-loadings (95% CI = [-10.31; 56.50], PPP = .090) fit the data better than the one-factor model (95% CI = [208.72; 323.46], PPP = .000)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The three-phase model received partial support with weak self-report–behaviour correspondence in fifth graders' mobile vocabulary learning — related
• Confirmatory factor analyses show students' expectancies for success factor separately from their subjective task values, while expectancies and ability self-concepts factor together — related