ArticlePDF Available

Initial development of a Physics Goal Orientation survey using factor analysis


Abstract and Figures

This paper presents the first stage in the development of a Physics Goal Orientation survey -a survey identifying students' beliefs about how to be successful in physics studies. The analysis method used is exploratory factor analysis, a powerful statistical method requiring subjective decision making. Instead of taking a 'black box' approach, which can easily lead researchers to draw incorrect conclusions, we have provided the mathematical basis for principal components analysis, the most common type of exploratory factor analysis.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Symposium Presentation
UniServe Science Proceedings Visualisation 60
Initial development of a Physics Goal Orientation survey using
factor analysis
Christine Lindstrøm and Manjula D. Sharma, School of Physics, The University of Sydney,
Abstract: This paper presents the first stage in the development of a Physics Goal Orientation survey - a survey
identifying students’ beliefs about how to be successful in physics studies. The analysis method used is exploratory factor
analysis, a powerful statistical method requiring subjective decision making. Instead of taking a ‘black box’ approach,
which can easily lead researchers to draw incorrect conclusions, we have provided the mathematical basis for principal
components analysis, the most common type of exploratory factor analysis.
Goal orientation theory forms part of the motivation literature, and is perhaps the most prominent
theory today (Urdan, Kneisel and Mason 1999). It focuses on students’ reasons for engaging in
academic tasks, as these affect important educational outcomes such as types of cognitive strategies
used, and how well newly learnt material is retained (Anderman, Austin and Johnson 2002). Studies
of high school students’ motivation in the general settings of ‘classroom’ and ‘sports’ have identified
four different goal orientations, each associated with a certain belief in how success is achieved
(Duda and Nicholls 1992; Skaalvik 1997). Task orientation is associated with the belief that success
is a product of effort, understanding and collaboration. Ego orientation describes the belief that
success relies on greater ability and attempting to outperform others. Cooperation oriented students
value interaction with their peers in the learning process; and lastly, work avoidance describes the
goal of minimum effort – maximum gain. A similar study in physics, however, has not been found,
so the first aim of the paper is to develop a Physics Goal Orientation survey.
Factor analysis has become an increasingly popular statistical method over the past few decades,
primarily due to the ease of use with statistical packages such as the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS). Whereas the availability of such analysis has the potential to improve work in
science education, it is a double edged sword if a solid understanding of the underlying statistics does
not accompany its use, as shown by Preacher and MacCallum (2003). Unfortunately, however, the
literature on factor analysis is seemingly divided into the thoroughly mathematical and the purely
practical. Therefore, the second aim of this paper is to provide adequate mathematical insight to
support decision making in the process of using the most common statistical approach to exploratory
factor analysis, principal components analysis. The mathematics requires familiarity with vectors or
linear algebra.
Research method
In developing a new survey, statements are written or adapted from previous surveys and
accompanied by a Likert scale. Each underlying construct has statements, each measuring a different
aspect of the construct. Some statements will need to be removed, and a minimum of four statements
must be retained for each factor. The requirement on sample size is not clear. In general, the
conceptual basis of the statements (theory driven) and results from factor analysis (data driven) are
useful guides.
In 2006, 125 first year physics students at The University of Sydney completed the Physics Goal
Orientation survey. For each of the 20 statements students responded on a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). All statements were adapted from Duda and
Symposium Presentation
61 UniServe Science Proceedings Visualisation
Nicholls’ (1992) surveys to suit tertiary physics education (see Table 1).
Table 1. Statements on the Physics Goals Orientations Survey
I feel really successful when…
Item 1 I know more physics than other people
Item 2 what I learn in physics makes sense
Item 3 the other students in my tutorial group and I manage to solve a tutorial problem together
Item 4 I don’t have to try hard to do well in physics
Item 5 I get a high exam mark
Item 6 I solve a problem by working hard
Item 7 I do my very best
Item 8 I work in a group on physics problems
Item 9 I can complete an assignment without really having understood the answers
Item 10 others get physics problems wrong and I don’t
Item 11 I can answer more physics questions than other students
Item 12 a group of us help each other
Item 13 I learn something interesting
Item 14 I can copy an assignment off somebody else
Item 15 I am in a group and we help each other figure something in physics out
Item 16 others know more than me so they can answer the questions
Item 17 something I learn makes me want to find out more
Item 18 I do better than others in physics
Item 19 I have somebody else to discuss physics problems with
Item 20 I know I can pass the exam without studying too hard
Theory of factor analysis
Factor analysis is a data reduction method, allowing a reduction in the number of variables in a data
set, while retaining a large fraction of the information. In science education factor analysis is
commonly used with surveys that measure some psychometric construct, which cannot be measured
directly (such as self-efficacy or students’ study strategies). Respondents indicate on a Likert scale
their level of agreement with several statements that focus on different aspects of the construct.
Factor analysis is then used to evaluate whether the statements indeed measure aspects of the same
underlying construct, and finally give each individual respondent to the survey an overall score on
the construct.
Two different types of factor analysis exist. Exploratory factor analysis is used to identify
underlying structure in the data. Confirmatory factor analysis is used in hypothesis testing, and is the
only method for confirming whether modeled factor structures are compatible with the data. Only
exploratory factor analysis is discussed in this paper. Please note that normally distributed variables
are only required if the data are used to generalise findings (Field 2000). The novice user will find
Field (2000) helpful, whereas Gorsuch (1983) and Floyd and Widaman (1995) provide fine detail.
The brief discussion below bridges the gap.
The correlation matrix
The basis of factor analysis is that people show a pattern in their responses to groups of statements or
variables. From Table 1, respondents would be expected to indicate a similar level of agreement with
Items 1 and 18. A scatter plot of responses should therefore produce a strong, linear correlation. The
Pearson’s r correlation coefficients between each pair of variables are presented in the Correlation
matrix or R-matrix in the SPSS output of a factor analysis; a k × k matrix for k variables. All further
analysis of the data is based on this matrix; individual responses are no longer considered. However,
before the analysis can proceed, several assumptions on the Correlation matrix must be met.
Firstly, no two variables must correlate too strongly. Since the purpose of a factor analysis is to
Symposium Presentation
UniServe Science Proceedings Visualisation 62
identify underlying concepts using statements that target different aspects of a concept, two almost
identical statements do not satisfy this requirement. Therefore, the determinant of the Correlation
matrix is required to be greater than 10-5. If this condition is violated, correlations with r > 0.8 should
be eliminated by removing one item at the time until the determinant is satisfactory.
The second test is Bartlett’s test of sphericity, which reports how similar the Correlation matrix is
to an identity matrix. The statistical significance of the similarity is quoted, and since the Correlation
matrix is required to be considerably dissimilar to an identity matrix, which has no intervariable
correlation, the p-value must be less than 0.05.
The last test is the Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy, or KMO. This measure
predicts whether the data is expected to factor well. Its value should be greater than 0.5 for an
adequate sample, but the greater the value, the better. In the Anti-image matrix, the diagonal elements
are individual KMOs, whose average is the sample KMO. Variables with individual KMOs lower
than 0.5 should be considered removed as they show an unacceptably high level of multicollinearity
(see Hutcheson and Sofroniou 1999, for more detail).
Constructing the vector space
The remaining factor analysis will be explained invoking multi-dimensional vector spaces, where
each variable is considered a unit vector. The correlation, r, between two variables is represented in
vector space according to r12 = x1 x2 cos
12, where
is the angle between the two vectors. However,
since each variable is a unit vector, this simplifies to r = cos
. In this representation r is the fractional
length of one vector projected onto the other. Note that r2 represents the variance shared between the
two vectors.
The following procedure will build up a k-dimensional space dimension by dimension. Let x1
represent the first variable, its base defining the origin of the vector space. The direction of x1 defines
the first dimension. The second variable, x2, is placed at the origin at an angle
12 to x1 according to
r12, thus introducing the second dimension. All remaining variables are introduced in the same way,
ensuring that each new variable is positioned at the correct angle to all previously introduced
variables until a k-dimensional space is constructed (assuming each variable introduces some unique
The subsequent task is to introduce a coordinate system with k orthogonal axes. Introducing one
axis at the time, the first axis is placed in the direction which maximizes the sum of squares of all
vector projections onto the axis. The remaining axes are introduced according to the same condition,
subject to the additional requirement of being orthogonal to the previously introduced axes. That is,
the mth coordinate axis is positioned so as to maximize Em, given by
m,n is the angle and rm,n is the correlation coefficient between the nth vector and the mth axis.
Identifying and extracting factors
Much of the SPSS output in a factor analysis is direct reporting of variables described above. Each
coordinate axis represents a factor, and Em is the eigenvalue of the mth factor, which is found in the
SPSS output Total variance explained. In the same table, the Percentage of variance explained by the
mth factor is given by k
Em. The Scree plot displays eigenvalue as a function of component number
nnmm rE 1
Symposium Presentation
63 UniServe Science Proceedings Visualisation
Based on these outputs, the number of factors to extract is decided. Recall that the purpose of
factor analysis is to maximize the amount of variance explained in the data with the minimum
amount of factors. There are two methods to decide on the number of factors, which should be used
in tandem: Kaiser’s criterion and the Scree test. Kaiser’s criterion states that all factors with an
eigenvalue greater than 1 should be kept. Each factor accounts for k
1 of the information, but k
Em of
the variance in the data. Consequently, factors with Em > 1 account for a larger proportion of the
variance explained than information retained. However, the Scree plot should also be consulted
before the final decision is made. The plot consists of two parts: a steep decline at the first few
factors, and a relatively flat plateau at higher order factors. The inflection point occurs immediately
before the plateau, which represents factors containing mostly uninteresting, noisy variance. The
factors prior to the inflection point stand out as they contain more variance per factor than those in
the plateau, and we associate this with the underlying constructs. Generally both Kaiser’s criterion
and the Scree plot produce the same number of factors, but when this is not the case care should be
taken to extract a sensible number of factors based on knowledge of the data set (see the next section
for an example).
Once the number of factors or dimensions (f) has been chosen, all variables are effectively
projected onto this f-dimensional sub-space. The squared length of each projected vector is the
variance explained by the extracted factors collectively. These values are reported in the
Communalities table. The resulting ‘unexplained’ variance is therefore simply the information
discarded along with the discarded dimensions. The coordinates of each vector are referred to as the
loadings onto each factor (or axis), and are reported in the Component matrix. When the coordinate
axes are orthogonal the factor loadings correspond to the r-values for each variable-factor pair.
Generally, only factor loadings greater than 0.4 are quoted for ease of table interpretation.
The current solution is referred to as the unrotated solution. The variables loading heavily onto
one factor form a cluster of vectors intersected by the corresponding axis. However, due to the way
the coordinate system was generated, this cluster intersection may not be optimal. Therefore, to
optimize the individual factor loadings the entire f-dimensional coordinate system can be rotated. The
criterion used is that each variable should load strongly onto only one axis (that is, the variable
belongs to one underlying construct only). In an orthogonal rotation the axes are required to remain
orthogonal, whereas an oblique rotation allows the axes to move independently of each other. The
resulting angles between axes reflect correlations between the factors, which are presented in the
Component correlation matrix.
Figure 1. Scree Plot produced by SPSS for the Physics Goal Orientations survey
Symposium Presentation
UniServe Science Proceedings Visualisation 64
After rotation, the total variance explained by the factors remains the same since the projection of
each variable onto the sub-space (i.e. the communality) is unrelated to the position of the coordinate
axes. The factor loadings, however, have changed, and are presented in the Rotated component
matrix for orthogonal rotations and in the Pattern matrix for oblique rotations. Note that after an
oblique rotation the factor loadings are no longer equivalent to the variable-factor correlations. The
correlations are presented in the Structure matrix, but this is generally ignored since a correlation in a
non-orthogonal vector space includes information that is not unique to the particular variable-factor
Analysis and interpretation
From the SPSS output the data were found suitable for factor analysis (determinant = 0.001, Bartlett’s
test: p = 0.000, and KMO = 0.664). All individual KMOs were > 0.5, except for two variables which
had values of 0.484 and 0.483. However, being very close to 0.5, the variables were kept to consider
their overall contribution to the analysis.
Kaiser’s criterion initially extracted six factors. Investigation of the Scree plot (Figure 1),
however, suggested retention of five factors only. The Component matrix supported this, as the sixth
factor only contained one variable, hardly satisfying the critrion as a factor.
The analysis was therefore rerun specifying extraction of five factors. Note that the following
tables and figures were unaffected by the number of factors extracted: Descriptive statistics,
Correlation matrix, KMO and Bartlett’s test, Anti-image matrices, and the Scree plot. The Total
variance explained and Component matrix only saw the sixth factor removed. The Pattern matrix,
Structure matrix, and Component correlation matrix did change, however.
Having decided the number of factors, the type of rotation was chosen. An oblique rotation (Direct
Oblimin) was performed first to allow the data itself to reveal any correlations between factors,
which were indeed observed. Had there been none, an orthogonal rotation (Varimax) could have
subsequently been performed.
The Pattern Matrix (Table 2) revealed that variable 8 did not contribute strongly onto any of the
extracted factors since it had no factor loadings greater than 0.4. This was not surprising as the
variable showed a factor loading of 0.638 onto the initially extracted sixth factor, which was
discarded. The variable was therefore removed.
Considering that the purpose of the Physics Goal Orientation survey is to obtain statements that
collectively give indications about underlying psychological constructs, variables 1 and 4 were
problematic. By loading onto two different factors, both variables targeted elements of two constructs
simultaneously. The variables were therefore discarded.
Communalities reflect how much of the information in a variable is retained by the factors.
Generally, a sample of less than 100 is acceptable if all communalities are above 0.6, and 100-200 is
acceptable for communalities in the 0.5 range. Alternatively, if a factor has four or more factor
loadings greater than 0.6 it is reliable. With an average communality of 0.58 after extracting five
factors, the sample size was considered adequate. Since a reliable factor should have a minimum of
four factor loadings greater than 0.6, only factors 1 and 5 currently satisfy this criterion.
Symposium Presentation
65 UniServe Science Proceedings Visualisation
Table 2 The Pattern matrix showing the factor loadings after an oblique rotation
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5
Item 6 .860
Item 3 .701
Item 2 .614
Item 7 .612
Item 5 .417
Item 8
Item 11 .890
Item 10 .802
Item 18 .789
Item 1 .584 .469
Item 13 .822
Item 17 .778
Item 16 .709
Item 9 .660
Item 14 .650
Item 20 -.660
Item 19 -.646
Item 15 -.634
Item 12 -.607
Item 4 .416 -.416
As demonstrated above, factor analysis is not a clear cut process. Decisions have to be made and
these are often not presented in research articles. The subjective nature makes it even more important
that one has an understanding of the mathematical basis when practicing factor analysis or relying on
studies that use factor analysis. As seen in this paper, the factors identified by Duda and Nicholls
(1992) could not be reproduced in a physics setting. For a first trial of an adapted survey the structure
is very promising, but addition of items and a retrial of the survey are necessary before it is fully
What does Table 2 tell us? First, factor 1 reflects task or mastery orientation and this is clearly
demonstarted both conceptually and in the data. It is interesting to note that item 3 on ‘group work in
tutorials’ is in this factor reflecting the focus on constructive meaning making in learning physics.
Factor 2 represents the ego orientation and factor 4 is clearly work avoidance. We have called factor
3 the interest orientation, but having only two items more will need to be added for the second trial of
the survey. Factor 5 is the cooperation orientation, but it also contains an item (number 20) which
does not conceptually belong with the rest of the items, even though all the items group
mathematically. Item 20 will therefore be removed from the survey. This highlights one of the most
important aspects of factor analysis: the mathematical sophistication of the analysis is of little worth
if it is not accompanied by a critical mind.
This paper has demonstrated that surveys used within one area may not be directly applicable in
another area. However, certain constructs do emerge clearly despite the change in discipline area. In
our case task orientation, ego orientation and work avoidance were readily identifiable. The paper
also aimed to give an insight into principal components analysis, and how subjective decisions need
to be made when carrying out factor analysis. It is the hope of the authors that this will inspire fellow
science education researchers to develop a more profound understanding of this complex statistical
Symposium Presentation
UniServe Science Proceedings Visualisation 66
Anderman, E.M., Austin, C. and Johnson, D. (2002) The development of goal orientation. In A. Wigfield and J. Eccles
(Eds) The Development of Achievement Motivation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 197–220.
Duda, J.L. and Nicholls, J.G. (1992) Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84(3), 290–299.
Field, A. (2000) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS for Windows. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Floyd, F.J. and Widaman, K.F. (1995) Factor Analysis in the Development and Refinement of Clinical Assessment
Instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286–299.
Gorsuch, R.L. (1983) Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hutcheson, G. and Sofroniou, N. (1999) The multivariate social scientist: Introductory statistics using generalized linear
models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Preacher, K.J. and MacCallum, R.C. (2003) Repairing Tom Swift’s electric factor analysis machine. Understanding
Statistics, 2(1), 13-43.
Skaalvik, E.M. (1997) Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego orientation: Relations with task and avoidance orientation,
achievement, self-perceptions, and anxiety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 71–81.
Urdan, T., Kneisel, L. and Mason, V. (1999) Interpreting messages about motivation in the classroom: Examining the
effects of achievement goals structures. In M. Maehr and P. Pintrich (Eds) Advances in Motivation and Achievement.
Greenwich: JAI Press, 123–158.
© 2008 Christine Lindstrøm and Manjula D. Sharma
The authors assign to UniServe Science and educational non-profit institutions a non-exclusive licence to use this
document for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that the article is used in full and this copyright
statement is reproduced. The authors also grant a non-exclusive licence to UniServe Science to publish this document on
the Web (prime sites and mirrors) and in printed form within the UniServe Science 2008 Conference proceedings. Any
other usage is prohibited without the express permission of the authors UniServe Science reserved the right to undertake
editorial changes in regard to formatting, length of paper and consistency.
Lindstrøm, C. and Sharma, M.D. (2008) Initial development of a Physics Goal Orientation survey using factor analysis,
In A. Hugman and K. Placing (Eds) Symposium Proceedings: Visualisation and Concept Development, UniServe
Science, The University of Sydney, 60–66.
... Analysis Lindstrøm and Sharma (2008) ...
Full-text available
A key question in learning and teaching is: What motivates students to learn? In the second half of the 20 th century achievement goal theory emerged as a key feature of the motivation literature. This theory focuses on what motivates students toward actions that will result in learning; students have particular goals and beliefs that orient them to select particular strategies and ways of learning and planning their success. Although motivation and goal orientations influence student learning outcomes, there appear to be no studies on goal orientations in university physics. This study focused on developing a goal orientation survey specific to university physics studies. A pilot study was undertaken in 2006 (Lindstrøm & Sharma, 2008). This paper describes the continuation and conclusion of the study in 2007 and 2008 spanning five administrations, each with sample sizes between 162 and 360 students.
Full-text available
Student learning in instructional physics labs represents a growing area of research that includes investigations of students' beliefs and expectations about the nature of experimental physics. To directly probe students' epistemologies about experimental physics and support broader lab transformation efforts at the University of Colorado Boulder (CU) and elsewhere, we developed the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey for Experimental Physics (E-CLASS). Previous work with this assessment has included establishing the accuracy and clarity of the instrument through student interviews and preliminary testing. Several years of data collection at multiple institutions has resulted in a growing national data set of student responses. Here, we report on results of the analysis of these data to investigate the statistical validity and reliability of the E-CLASS as a measure of students' epistemologies for a broad student population. We find that the E-CLASS demonstrates an acceptable level of both validity and reliability on measures of, item and test discrimination, test-retest reliability, partial-sample reliability, internal consistency, concurrent validity, and convergent validity. We also examine students' responses using Principal Component Analysis and find that, as expected, the E-CLASS does not exhibit strong factors.
Full-text available
The goals of both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis are described and procedural guidelines for each approach are summarized, emphasizing the use of factor analysis in developing and refining clinical measures. For exploratory factor analysis, a rationale is presented for selecting between principal components analysis and common factor analysis depending on whether the research goal involves either identification of latent constructs or data reduction. Confirmatory factor analysis using structural equation modeling is described for use in validating the dimensional structure of a measure. Additionally, the uses of confirmatory factor analysis for assessing the invariance of measures across samples and for evaluating multitrait-multimethod data are also briefly described. Suggestions are offered for handling common problems with item-level data, and examples illustrating potential difficulties with confirming dimensional structures from initial exploratory analyses are reviewed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Both sport and academic work play large roles in school life, yet there is little comparative evidence on the nature or generality of achievement motivation across these domains. In this study, beliefs about the causes of success in school and sport of 207 high school students were found to be related in a logical fashion to their personal goals. The ego-involved goal of superiority was associated with the belief that success requires high ability, whereas task orientation (the goal of gaining knowledge) was associated with beliefs that success requires interest, effort, and collaboration with peers. These goal-belief dimensions, or theories about success, cut across sport and schoolwork. However, little cross-domain generality was found for perceptions of ability and intrinsic satisfaction. Intrinsic satisfaction in sport primarily related to perceived ability in that setting. Task orientation, not perceived ability, was the major predictor of satisfaction in schoolwork.
Recent research in motivation has identified 2 main goal orientations: task orientation and ego orientation. Two studies of 6th- and 8th-grade Norwegian students tested the prediction that there are different dimensions of ego orientation (self-defeating and self-enhancing), that they may be separated from other goal orientations, and that they relate differently to academic achievement, self-concept, self-efficacy, self-esteem, anxiety, and intrinsic motivation. Results from both studies supported the predictions. The correlation between self-defeating and self-enhancing ego orientation was small, and these constructs had different relations to other variables in the study. Self-defeating ego orientation was associated with high anxiety and was negatively related to achievement and self-perceptions. Self-enhancing ego orientation was positively related to achievement, self-perceptions, and intrinsic motivation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Proper use of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) requires the researcher to make a series of careful decisions. Despite attempts by Floyd and Widaman (1995), Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, and Strahan (1999), and others to elucidate critical issues involved in these decisions, examples of questionable use of EFA are still common in the applied factor analysis literature. Poor decisions regarding the model to be used, the criteria used to decide how many factors to retain, and the rotation method can have drastic consequences for the quality and meaningfulness of factor analytic results. One commonly used approach--principal components analysis, retention of components with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, and varimax rotation of these components--is shown to have potentially serious negative consequences. In addition, choosing arbitrary thresholds for factor loadings to be considered large, using single indicators for factors, and violating the linearity assumptions underlying EFA can have negative consequences for interpretation of results. It is demonstrated that, when decisions are carefully made, EFA can yield unambiguous and meaningful results.