Content uploaded by José Berríos-Riquelme
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by José Berríos-Riquelme on Dec 02, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
1Límite | Revista Interdisciplinaria de Filosofía y Psicología
Límite
Revista Interdisciplinaria de Filosofía y Psicología ISSN 0718-5065
revistalimite.uta.cl
2024 | 19: 24 | DOI: 10.4067/s0718-50652024000100224
The University Student Engagement Inventory (USEI) has shown good psychometric
properties in studies with different university students and diverse cultural contexts.
Previous adaptation and evaluation studies in Chilean college students showed good
validity and reliability results. Nevertheless, invariance studies have not been carried
out in this population. This study aimed to evaluate the invariance properties of USEI in
the Chilean university population. A study with an instrumental and cross-sectional
type design was conducted using a sample of 468 Chilean university students. Analy‐
sis was prepared by performing a Confirmatory Factor Analysis, evaluation of configu‐
ral, scalar, and strict invariance measures, criterion validity, and reliability evaluation. A
three-factor structure was observed, with adequate fit, reliability, and criterion validity
indices. The invariance examination by gender obtained positive results for configural,
metric, scalar, and strict invariance measures. These results show that the University
Student Engagement Inventory has good psychometric properties for use in the Chi‐
lean university population.
Keywords: student engagement, invariance, validity, reliability, higher education
El University Student Engagemet Inventory (USEI) ha mostrado buenas propiedades
psicométricas en estudios con diferentes estudiantes universitarios y en diversos con‐
textos culturales. Estudios previos de adaptación y evaluación en estudiantes universi‐
tarios chilenos mostraron buenos resultados de validez y confiabilidad. Sin embargo,
no se han realizado estudios de invarianza en esta población. El presente estudio tuvo
como objetivo evaluar las propiedades de invarianza USEI en población universitaria
chilena. Se realizó un estudio con diseño de tipo instrumental y transversal utilizando
una muestra de 468 estudiantes universitarios chilenos. El análisis se realizó mediante
Análisis Factorial Confirmatorio, evaluación de medidas configurales, escalares y de
invarianza estricta, así como evaluación de validez de criterio y confiabilidad. Se ob‐
servó una estructura de tres factores, con adecuados índices de ajuste, confiabilidad y
validez de criterio. El examen de invarianza por género obtuvo resultados positivos
para medidas de invarianza configural, métrica, escalar y estricta. Este resultado
muestra que el University Student Engagement Inventory tiene buenas propiedades
psicométricas para su uso en población universitaria chilena.
Palabras clave: engagement académico, invarianza, validez, confiabilidad, educación
superior
1. Universidad de Concepción,
Concepción, Chile
2. Universidad San Sebastián,
Concepción, Chile
3. Universidad de Tarapacá, Arica,
Chile
Autor correspondiente /
Correspondence:
Jorge Maluenda-Albornoz
jorgemaluenda@udec.cl
Recibido: 13 de Agosto 2024
Aceptado: 26 de Octubre 2024
Publicado: 29 de Noviembre 2024
Received: August 13, 2024
Accepted: October 26, 2024
Published: November 29, 2024
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License
Measuring invariance of the university student
engagement inventory in chilean university
students
Medición de la invariancia del inventario de
participación de estudiantes universitarios en
estudiantes universitarios chilenos
Jorge Maluenda-Albornoz1 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8148-4948
Juan Lira-Munizaga2 https://orcid.org/0009-0001-2071-2473
José Berríos-Riquelme3 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2947-4739
Matías Zamorano-Veragua2 https://orcid.org/0009-0000-3475-997X
Rodrigo Díaz-Sepúlveda2 https://orcid.org/0009-0007-1647-711X
Límite | Revista Interdisciplinaria de Filosofía y Psicología 2
Measuring invariance of the university student engagement inventoryMaluenda-Albornoz et al.
2024 | 19: 24 | DOI: 10.4067/s0718-50652024000100224
1. INTRODUCTION
Academic Engagement is a complex and multidi‐
mensional construct that has been approached from va‐
rious perspectives (Fredricks et al., 2016). Although there
is consensus about its relevance to students' educational
process, its definition has generated a considerable divi‐
sion of opinions and positions regarding measurement
(Medrano et al., 2015) (Fredricks et al., 2016).
It is a positive predictor of academic performance
(Acosta-Gonzaga & Ramírez-Arellano, 2020; Delfino,
2019; Dunn & Kennedy, 2019; Lei et al., 2018; Maluenda-
Albornoz et al., 2022a; Maluenda-Albornoz et al., 2023;
Ribeiro et al., 2019) and a greater sense of academic be‐
longing (Maluenda-Albornoz et al., 2022a; Maluenda-Al‐
bornoz et al., 2022b; Maluenda-Albornoz et al., 2023;
Wong et al., 2019). It has also been shown to positively
predict motivation in students with greater resilience, per‐
sistence, emotional connection, and self-efficacy (Abreu-
Alves et al., 2022). Furthermore, it is positively related to
the perception of positive academic emotions and acade‐
mic adaptability (Zhang et al., 2020a), favoring the perma‐
nence and completion of studies in higher education (Kor‐
honen et al., 2019). Along the same lines, it has shown an
inverse relationship with dropping out of studies (Maluen‐
da-Albornoz et al., 2021; Maluenda-Albornoz et al., 2022;
Maluenda-Albornoz et al., 2022a; Maluenda-Albornoz et
al., 2023; Nickerson & Shea, 2020; Zhang et al., 2020b;
Díaz-Mujica et al., 2018). On the other hand, a negative
relationship has been observed between Academic Enga‐
gement and disruptive variables of the university process
such as burnout and academic procrastination (Abreu-Al‐
ves et al., 2022; Aspeé et al., 2019; Liebana-Presa et al.,
2018; Marôco et al., 2020; Morales-Rodríguez et al.,
2019; Paloș et al., 2019; Rahmatpour et al., 2019).
The main approach in the academic context arises
from the Self-Determination Theory, which proposes the
emergence of intrinsic motivational states when the basic
psychological needs of human beings are satisfied: auto‐
nomy, competence, and relationship (Deci & Ryan, 2018).
From this approach, Academic Engagement is unders‐
tood as a three-dimensional meta-construct comprised of
three interrelated dimensions: behavioral, emotional, and
cognitive commitment (Allen & Boyle, 2023; Fredricks et
al., 2016). Academic Engagement is a high motivation
state that manifests itself in effects in these three dimen‐
sions (Maluenda-Albornoz et al., 2023).
In the academic context, autonomy is satisfied
when a student feels that he can make decisions and is
motivated by intrinsic rather than extrinsic factors, compe‐
tition is stimulated when the structure of the class allows
the achievement of the results expected by the student
and the need for relationship is covered when training oc‐
curs in an environment of support and concern between
teachers and peers (Fredricks et al., 2016).
Based on this conceptual approach, Marôco et al.
(2016) developed an operationalization of Academic En‐
gagement called University Student Engagement Inven‐
tory (USEI). Its self-report instrument integrates behavio‐
ral, emotional, and cognitive aspects, inviting students to
measure their commitment to the teaching-learning pro‐
cess. The cognitive dimension of the USEI addresses the
thoughts, strategies, and efforts that students make to ac‐
quire new knowledge and skills. The emotional dimension
refers to the positive and negative feelings and emotions
experienced during the learning process concerning
classroom activities, classmates, and teachers. The beha‐
vioral dimension includes the actions associated with in‐
volvement carried out in learning spaces (Marôco et al.,
2016).
The instrument comprises fifteen items, with five
items for each factor, and has shown an adequate factor
structure for the three-factor structure in the Portuguese
population with favorable indicators of criterion validity [χ²/
df=2.26; CFI=.97; TLI=.97; RMSEA=.06] (Marôco et al.,
2016). Another study with a Portuguese population also
obtained favorable results for the three-factor structure [χ²
(87) = 286.665; p<.001; RMSEA= .051 (90%CI.045-.058);
CFI=.987; TLI=.985; NFI=.982]. Additionally, invariance
was found in terms of gender and degree areas (Sinval et
al., 2021).
A cross-cultural study carried out in nine countries
on four continents with Portuguese, English, Finnish, Ser‐
bian, and Chinese languages through a Confirmatory
Factor Analysis found that the instrument has the same
factorial structure proposed by the original authors with a
second-order factor. The study also found strong measu‐
rement invariance for gender and study area and weak in‐
variance for country (Assunção et al., 2020).
In a population of Italian university students stud‐
ying Psychology and Biology, previous research findings
are reaffirmed, obtaining a factorial structure of 3 compo‐
nents with good test-retest reliability. However, the instru‐
ment showed weak invariance for gender and area of
study, which may be due to the poor cultural appropriate‐
ness of the instrument (Esposito et al., 2022); these fin‐
dings are similar to those obtained in a previous investi‐
gation in that country (Assunção et al., 2020).
The version adapted and validated for Iran also ob‐
tained a good factor structure composed of behavioral,
emotional, and cognitive engagement, retaining the 15
items of the original version (Sharif Nia et al., 2022). In
another study with an English-language Arab population,
the original version of the instrument was used, obtaining
similar results with a good 3-component factor structure
and measurement invariance by sex (Sharif-Nia et al.,
2023).
A recent study in the Chinese population, found
that the USEI has good construct validity, internal consis‐
tency, and reliability with a 3-factor structure despite the
elimination of item 6 (worded in the negative) due to its
low factor loading. Gender invariance was additionally ob‐
served (She et al., 2023).
Límite | Revista Interdisciplinaria de Filosofía y Psicología 32024 | 19: 24 | DOI: 10.4067/s0718-50652024000100224
Measuring invariance of the university student engagement inventoryMaluenda-Albornoz et al.
In an effort to obtain a Spanish adaptation of the USEI,
Maluenda-Albornoz et al. (2020) carried out a study of
adaptation to Spanish with cultural adaptations for use in
the Chilean university context with a sample of enginee‐
ring students, obtaining the same factorial structure with
good adjustment indices [χ² (75) = 210.276, p< .001; RM‐
SEA= .047 (95%CI: .040-.055); CFI= .967; TLI= .954],
good indicators of reliability and criterion validity.
Finally, to obtain a Spanish version for different
Spanish-speaking countries, the research evaluated the
psychometric properties of a unified version of the USEI
in 3 Spanish-speaking countries, finding similar outcomes
to previous works. The instrument presented optimal in‐
ternal consistency with a 3-factor structure and a second-
order factor (Freiberg-Hoffmann et al., 2022).
The previously reviewed research shows progress
in the study of instruments adapted to measure Engage‐
ment in the Spanish-speaking university context. These
efforts are developed due to the lack of valid and reliable
instruments in said context to use with validity and reliabi‐
lity (Guzmán-Arellano et al., 2024; Maluenda-Albornoz,
2021a).
There are instruments for the Spanish-speaking
university context, but they arise from adaptations from
other contexts, not from a specific design for university
students. For example, the Classroom Engagement In‐
ventory (Leal-Soto et al., 2023), the School Engagement
Instrument (González et al., 2022), or the Utrecht Work
Engagement Scale (Guerra y Jorquera, 2021).
Despite their availability in Spanish, these instru‐
ments do not necessarily consider adequate adaptations
for measurement in university students; this increases the
importance of having an instrument designed for this con‐
text with good psychometric properties for its reliable and
valid use.
1.1. The present study
As has been reported, evidence supports favorable
metric properties for the USEI in various cultural contexts
and even with indicators of cross-cultural invariance. In
the case of the Spanish-speaking context and specifically
in the Chilean university context, the studies replicate the
three-factor structure with their respective items.
However, no studies have been observed that test its in‐
variance. Consequently, the objective of the present re‐
search was to evaluate the invariance of the instrument
by sex in the Chilean first-year university population to
contribute to the analysis of the metric properties of the
USEI in said context.
2. METHODS
A convenience sample comprised 468 first-year
university students, 174 male (37.2%) and 294 female
(62.8%). Ages ranged from 17 to 28 years (M=19 years;
SD=4.5 years).
2.1. Design
The study was conducted with an instrumental de‐
sign in a cross-section of time (Ato et al., 2013). The ver‐
sion of the USEI used was its adaptation to the Chilean
university context, which consists of fifteen items with five
items per factor (Maluenda-Albornoz et al., 2020). First,
construct validity was evaluated through a Confirmatory
Factor Analysis considering the aforementioned factorial
structure. The correlation matrices, factor loadings of
each item to the corresponding factor, and the fit indices
of the analyzed model were analyzed. The WLSMV
(Weighted Least Squares Mean Variance) method was
used to extract factors. The fit indices considered to eva‐
luate the factor model were the root mean error of appro‐
ximation (RMSEA), the non-normative fit index (NNFI),
the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), the comparative fit index
(CFI), and the non-normalized fit index (NNFI). The cut-off
values used as reference were Chi-Square (X2), not sig‐
nificant p>.05 (Hu et al., 1999); RMSEA less than .08 ac‐
ceptable; CFI, TLI, and NNFI higher than .90 (Hair et al.,
2014).
To examine the factorial invariance of the instru‐
ment, multisample confirmatory factor analyses were ca‐
rried out with JASP program version 0.17.2, using the
WLSMV (Weighted Least Squares Mean Variance) met‐
hod. The factorial invariance contrast was carried out by
examining the goodness of fit of the structure of each ins‐
trument in each of the samples of men and women (base‐
line). Next, configural invariance (Model 1), equivalence in
factor loadings (Model 2), and equivalence in intercepts
(Model 3) were examined. The comparison of Models 2
and 3 indices with those obtained in Model 1 was consi‐
dered an indicator of non-significant practical difference.
As statistical criteria, the evaluation of the good‐
ness of fit of each model was used with the same cut-off
points indicated above (RMSEA, NNFI, CFI, TLI). Additio‐
nally, because the comparison between the different nes‐
ted models using the maximum likelihood ratio is very
sensitive to the sample size and the lack of normal distri‐
bution of the data (Hair et al., 2014), Cheung & Rensvold
(2002) proposed using the increase of the CFI to determi‐
ne if the compared models are equivalent. When the diffe‐
rence between the CFI of the two models is less than .01,
equivalence is considered to exist. Additionally, it is possi‐
ble to compare the increase in RMSEA between the diffe‐
rent models where values less than .015 indicate equiva‐
lence between models (Putnick & Bornstein, 2016).
Finally, the estimate of the correlation between the
scores of the global inventory and each factor of the Multi‐
dimensional School Engagement and Disengagement
Sale (Wang et al., 2017) was incorporated as a measure
of criterion validity. A strong positive correlation with the
“Engagement” factor and a strong negative correlation
with the “Disengagement” factor of said instrument were
considered favorable criterion validity indicators.
Límite | Revista Interdisciplinaria de Filosofía y Psicología 42024 | 19: 24 | DOI: 10.4067/s0718-50652024000100224
Measuring invariance of the university student engagement inventoryMaluenda-Albornoz et al.
2.2. Procedure
The recruitment of students was carried out th‐
rough the career chair to obtain permits and manage the
applications, which were carried out in the rooms where
the students regularly carried out their activities before the
start of one of their classes through paper questionnaires.
Before distributing the questionnaire, every participant
signed the informed consent, which incorporated all the
ethical aspects necessary for research in the human
sciences. It is essential to indicate that the University of
Concepción’s Ethics Committee evaluated and approved
the project and related materials.
No incentive was provided for participation. The in‐
formation was collected during the first semester of 2021
(the first academic semester in Chile).
3. RESULTS
The descriptive statistics (Table 1) show similar
mean values and standard deviations for men and women
on the global scale and each subscale. The skewness
and kurtosis indices have values between 0 and 2 that
are acceptable to assume a distribution of values approxi‐
mate to the normal distribution (Bollen & Long, 1993).
The confirmatory factor analysis was carried out
considering the three factors proposed by the original ins‐
trument and its adaptation to the Chilean context. The
analysis showed factor loadings between .555 and .933,
appropriate following the cut-off point established in the li‐
terature (Table 2).
The fit indices showed results within the parame‐
ters accepted by the literature (Hu and Bentler, 1999).
The RMSEA index showed a value of .034 (95% CI:
.022-.045), the CFI index value was .997, the TLI index
was .997, the NNFI index was .997, and the NFI was
.997. .993. Although the χ² index showed a significant va‐
lue [χ² (87) = 134.170; p<.001], this tends to overestimate
with high sample sizes, so, as a complement, the χ²/df ra‐
tio was calculated to obtain a value within the values ac‐
Valid
Missing
Global USEI
Female
294
0
Male
174
0
Behavioral
Female
294
0
Male
174
0
Affective
Female
294
0
Male
174
0
Cognitive
Female
294
0
Male
174
0
Mean
5.566
5.431
5.790
5.641
5.148
5.079
5.759
5.572
Std. Deviation
.617
.679
.806
.875
.630
.625
.866
1.021
Skewness
-.818
-.365
-.717
-.779
-.983
-.912
-.599
-.500
Kurtosis
.844
-.702
.463
.319
2.000
1.489
.139
-.564
Minimum
3.333
3.667
3.000
2.600
2.200
2.800
2.800
3.000
Maximum
6.667
6.667
7.000
7.000
6.800
6.400
7.000
7.000
Table 1
Descriptive statistics for USEI by gender
Factor
Behavioral
Item
U1
U2
Beta
.633
.666
Est. error
.021
.023
z-value
29.862
29.275
p
< .001
< .001
95% Interval
Infer.
.591
.621
Confidence
Sup.
.675
.710
U3
.622
.022
28.720
< .001
.580
.664
U4
.629
.021
29.504
< .001
.588
.671
U5
.555
.022
24.935
< .001
.511
.598
Affective
U6
.819
.013
61.630
< .001
.793
.845
U7
.879
.012
-70.742
< .001
-.904
-.855
U8
.900
.013
-70.841
< .001
-.925
-.875
U9
.933
.013
-74.445
< .001
-.957
-.908
U10
.520
.020
-26.165
< .001
-.559
-.481
Cognitive
U11
.622
.020
31.143
< .001
.583
.661
U12
.616
.020
30.098
< .001
.576
.657
U13
.569
.020
28.220
< .001
.529
.609
U14
.848
.019
43.827
< .001
.811
.886
U15
.793
.019
41.792
< .001
.756
.830
Table 2
Factorial loadings
Límite | Revista Interdisciplinaria de Filosofía y Psicología 52024 | 19: 24 | DOI: 10.4067/s0718-50652024000100224
Measuring invariance of the university student engagement inventoryMaluenda-Albornoz et al.
cepted in the literature (χ²/df = 1.54).
When evaluating the Pearson correlation, as a
measure of criterion validity, between the global scale of
the USEI and the Engagement dimension of the Multidi‐
mensional School Engagement and Disengagement Sale,
a significant, positive, and strong correlation was obser‐
ved (r=.834, p<.001). The Disengagement measure obtai‐
ned a significant, negative, and strong correlation with the
USEI scale (r=-.626, p<.001).
The reliability measures tested for the USEI global
scale showed values higher than the cut-off point accep‐
ted in the literature in both the Cronbach's Alpha index
(α=.758) and the McDonald's Omega index (Ω=. 760).
The analysis of invariance between men and wo‐
men for the USEI scale followed the standard procedures
proposed in the literature: the study of configural, metric,
scalar, and strict invariance as previously indicated. The
analysis of all levels of invariance showed fit indices wit‐
hin the parameters accepted by the literature, the only ex‐
ception being the examination of strict invariance because
the ∆NNFI, ∆CFI, and ∆TLI values exceeded the accep‐
ted limit, set at a maximum variation of .01 (Table 3).
4. DISCUSSION
Measuring the invariance of psychometric instru‐
ments is valuable since it provides complementary evi‐
dence to examine whether the theories and instruments
developed to evaluate human beings in one culture are
applicable in another (Spontón et al., 2018).
Measurement invariance is defined concerning a
group or form of a test so that the formal and substantive
meaning of the measurement is independent of them
(Elosua, 2005). Configural Invariance assumes that the
same indicators in all groups measure the latent
construct; Metric Invariance restricts the factor loadings
so that they are the same in all groups; Scalar Invariance
implies that the difference in means of the latent factor
captures all the mean differences in the shared variance
between items; and Strict Invariance implies that the spe‐
cific variance (what is not shared with the factor) and the
error variance (measurement error) are similar in the
comparison groups (Elosua, 2005).
Evaluating based on the erroneous assumption that
the scale measures the same construct in the same way
in all groups (Byrne & van de Vijver, 2010) can lead to in‐
correct results and decisions. Suppose the equivalence or
invariance of an assessment instrument is not met. In that
case, the validity of inferences and interpretations drawn
from the data may be flawed (Byrne, 2008), and conclu‐
sions based on group comparisons may not be valid.
The present research sought to contribute to this
direction regarding the University Student Engagement
Inventory in the Chilean population. The study’s main ob‐
jective was to evaluate the instrument’s invariance and
psychometric properties in Chilean university students.
The results found allow us to add evidence in favor
of preliminary studies that have shown evidence of vali‐
dity for a three-factor structure (Assunção et al., 2020; Es‐
pósito et al., 2022; Sharif et al., 2022; She et al., 2023)
and those who have studied this same composition in the
Spanish-speaking population (Freiberg-Hoffmann et al.,
2022; Maluenda-Albornoz et al., 2020). Additionally, favo‐
rable results were found for criterion validity and reliability
in ranges similar to preliminary studies (Freiberg-Hoff‐
mann et al., 2022; Maluenda-Albornoz et al., 2020). The‐
se results imply the possibility of evaluating student enga‐
gement compared to academic activity at a global level
and disaggregated by subscale, contributing to a more
detailed analysis of the various academic situations. The
above allows, in practical terms, to advance in concrete
actions to promote actions aimed at improving Engage‐
ment levels according to the specific needs of each edu‐
cational system.
In global terms, the multigroup analysis that compa‐
red the factor models between men and women showed
favorable evidence for configural, metric, and scalar inva‐
riance in Chilean university students. Both the goodness-
of-fit indices, such as ∆RMSEA and ∆CFI, showed evi‐
dence in favor of invariance.
The strict invariance analysis showed good overall
*: P < .001
Config
Metric
Escalar
χ²
339.017*
336.415*
369.667*
df
189
186
198
RMSEA
.058
95% IC [.048-.068]
.059
95% IC [.049-.069]
.061
95% IC [.051-.070]
NNFI
.935
.934
.929
CFI
.942
.942
.933
TLI
.935
.934
.929
∆RMSEA
.001
.003
∆NNFI
.001
.006
Estrict
419.910*
213
.064
95% IC [.055-.073]
.921
.920
.921
.006
.014
∆CFI
.000
.009
.022
∆TLI
.001
.006
.014
Table 3
Invariance testing for USEI
Límite | Revista Interdisciplinaria de Filosofía y Psicología 62024 | 19: 24 | DOI: 10.4067/s0718-50652024000100224
Measuring invariance of the university student engagement inventoryMaluenda-Albornoz et al.
fit indices, a good indicator for ∆RMSEA, but, by a small
margin, did not meet the criterion for ∆CFI. Although this
may indicate some variation in the measurement parame‐
ters between the groups, this variation is not significant
enough to invalidate comparisons made with the USEI.
Furthermore, since scalar invariance is sufficient to make
statistical comparisons between group means and pat‐
terns of covariates, the level of strict invariance is often
not estimated (Beaujean, 2014; Davidov et al., 2014). In
this way, evidence is provided in favor of the use of the
USEI regardless of the sex of the participants.
The joint results allow us to appreciate that, similar
to preliminary studies (Sharif-Nia et al., 2023), favorable
results are observed for invariance in the multigroup
analysis by sex, and good psychometric properties obtai‐
ned from Confirmatory Factor Analysis, validity judgment,
and reliability. These characteristics would allow the mea‐
surement of Engagement in its three dimensions, beha‐
vioral, affective, and cognitive, in addition to the measure‐
ment of global Engagement in both populations in the
Spanish-speaking context.
A relevant limitation of the present study is that the
sample is limited to first-year students, and differences
specific to different degrees students take are not esta‐
blished because this variable was not recorded and, con‐
sequently, not analyzed. Additionally, due to the cross-
sectional nature of the research, causality should not be
inferred from the results, and it is suggested that causal
interpretations of the results should be avoided, as is typi‐
cal of longitudinal and experimental methods. Thus, the
correlation between USEI scores and criterion variables
should be analyzed cautiously.
As projections, it is suggested that the analysis of
the invariance between various cultures of the Spanish-
speaking context be advanced to avoid interpretive errors
when there are relevant cultural differences between va‐
rious contexts. Likewise, it would be relevant to examine
possible differences between the degrees being studied
that may add differentiating components to the use of this
instrument.
5. CONCLUSIONS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
This article contributes new evidence about the va‐
lidity of this inventory by using invariance (by gender),
construct, and criterion validity tests. It also presents evi‐
dence about the reliability of the global scale and by di‐
mension. All these results confirm previous research that
showed its quality and contribute to consolidating know‐
ledge that allows scholars, educational managers, and ot‐
hers to use it in university students to measure Engage‐
ment during the educational process.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
FUNDING
The author declares no sources of funding for this re‐
search.
ETHICAL APPROVAL
The study conforms to the ethical principles of the Decla‐
ration of Helsinki and was authorized by the Ethical Re‐
search Committee of the University of Concepción.
INFORMED CONSENT
Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was
sought from each participant itself.
REFERENCES
Abreu Alves, S., Sinval, J., Lucas Neto, L., Marôco, J.,
Goncalves Ferreira, A. & Oliveira, P. (2022). Bur‐
nout and dropout intention in medical students: The
protective role of academic engagement. BMC Me‐
dical Education, 22(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/
10.1186/s12909-021-03094-9
Acosta-Gonzaga, E. & Ramírez-Arellano, A. (2020). Estu‐
dio comparativo de técnicas de analítica del apren‐
dizaje para predecir el rendimiento académico de
los estudiantes de educación superior.
CienciaUAT, 15(1), 63-75. http://dx.doi.org/
10.29059/cienciauat.v15i1.1392
Allen, K-A. & Boyle, C. (2023). School belonging and stu‐
dent engagement: the critical overlaps, similarities,
and implications for student outcomes. En S. L.,
Christenson, A. L., Reschly & C. Wylie, C. (Eds.),
Handbook of Research on Student Engagement
(2a ed., pp. 133-154). Springer. http://www.doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-031-07853-8_7
Aspeé, J., González, J. & Cavieres-Fernández, E. (2019).
Instrumento para medir el compromiso estudiantil
integrando el desarrollo ciudadano, una propuesta
desde latinoamérica. Revista Complutense de Edu‐
cación, 30(2), 399-421. http://dx.doi.org/10.5209/
RCED.57518
Assunção, H., Lin, S-W., Sit, P-S., Cheung, K-C., Harju-
Luukkainen, H., Smith, T., Maloa, B., Campos, J. A.
D. B., Ilic, I. S., Esposito, G., Freda, M. F. & Marô‐
co, J. (2020). University Student Engagement In‐
ventory (USEI): Transcultural Validity Evidence
Across Four Continents. Frontiers in Psychology,
10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02796
Ato, M., López-García, J. J. & Benavente, A. (2013). Un
sistema de clasificación de los diseños de investi‐
gación en psicología. Anales de Psicología, 29(3),
Límite | Revista Interdisciplinaria de Filosofía y Psicología 72024 | 19: 24 | DOI: 10.4067/s0718-50652024000100224
Measuring invariance of the university student engagement inventoryMaluenda-Albornoz et al.
1038-1059. https://doi.org/10.6018/
analesps.29.3.178511
Beaujean, A. A. (2014). Latent variable modeling using R:
A step-by-step guide. Routledge.
Bollen, K. A. & Long, J. S. (1993). Testing structural
equation models. Sage.
Byrne, B. (2008). Testing for multigroup equivalence of a
measuring instrument: A walk through the process.
Psicothema, 20(4), 872-882. https://www.re‐
dalyc.org/pdf/727/72720455.pdf
Byrne, B. M. & van de Vijver, F. (2010). Testing for mea‐
surement and structural equivalence in large-scale
cross-cultural studies: Addressing the issue of no‐
nequivalence. International Journal of Testing,
10(2), 107-132. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/15305051003637306
Cheung, G. W. & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating
goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement in‐
variance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2),
233-255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SE‐
M0902_5
Davidov, E., Meuleman, B., Cieciuch, J., Schmidt, P. & Bi‐
lliet, J. (2014). Measurement equivalence in cross-
national research. Annual Review of Sociology,
40(1), 55-75. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-so‐
c071913-043137
Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Self-determination
Theory. Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation,
Development, and Wellness. The Guilford Press.
Delfino, A. P. (2019). Student Engagement and Academic
Performance of Students of Partido State Univer‐
sity. Asian Journal of University Education, 15(3),
42-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v15i3.05
Guerra, F. y Jorquera, R. (2021). Análisis psicométrico de
la Utrecht Work Engagement Scale en las versio‐
nes UWES-17S y UWES-9S en universitarios chile‐
nos. Revista Digital de Investigación en Docencia
Universitaria, 15(2). https://dx.doi.org/10.19083/
ridu.2021.1542
Díaz-Mujica, A., García, D., López, Y., Maluenda, J., Her‐
nández, H., & Pérez-Villalobos, M. (2018). Media‐
ción Del Ajuste Académico Entre Variables Cogniti‐
vo-Motivacionales y la Intención de Abandono en
primer año de Universidad. Congresos CLABES.
Recuperado a partir de https://revistas.utp.ac.pa/in‐
dex.php/clabes/article/view/1934
Dunn, T. J. & Kennedy, M. (2019). Technology Enhanced
Learning in higher education; motivations, engage‐
ment and academic achievement. Computers and
Education, 137, 104-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.‐
compedu.2019.04.004
Esposito, G., Marôco, J., Passeggia, R., Pepicelli, G. &
Freda, M. F. (2022). The Italian validation of the
University Student Engagement Inventory. Eu‐
ropean Journal of Higher Education, 12(1), 35-55.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2021.1875018
Elosua, P. (2005). Evaluación progresiva de la invarianza
factorial entre las versiones original y adaptada de
una escala de autoconcepto. Psicothema, 17(2),
356-362.
Fredricks, J. A., Filsecker, M. & Lawson, M. A. (2016).
Student engagement, context, and adjustment: Ad‐
dressing definitional, measurement, and methodo‐
logical issues. Learning and Instruction, 43, 1-4.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.002
Freiberg-Hoffmann, A., Romero-Medina, A., Curione, K. &
Marôco, J. (2022). Adaptación y validación trans‐
cultural al español del University Student Engage‐
ment Inventory. Revista latinoamericana de psico‐
logía, 54, 187-195. https://doi.org/10.14349/
rlp.2022.v54.21
González, L., Oñate, V., Longos, M., Espinoza, L., Lema,
C., Pérez-Salas, C. y Sáez-Delgado, F. (2022).
Análisis Psicométrico del Instrumento de Compro‐
miso Escolar (SEI) en Estudiantes Secundarios en
Chile. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y
Evaluación – e Avaliação Psicológica. RIDEP,
65(4), 47-60. 2 https://doi.org/10.21865/RIDE‐
P65.4.04
Guzmán Arellano, C., Solar-Alveal, B., & Maluenda-Albor‐
noz, J. (2024). Engagement agéntico: un análisis
sobre su uso en el contexto educativo hispanoha‐
blante. Wimb Lu, 19(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/
10.15517/wl.v19i1.55260
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. & Anderson, R. E.
(2014). Multivariate Data Analysis. (7a ed.), Pear‐
son Education.
Hu, L., Bentler, P. M. & Hu, L. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit
indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conven‐
tional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural
Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,
6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10705519909540118
Korhonen, V., Mattsson, M., Inkinen M. & Toom, A.
(2019). Understanding the multidimensional nature
of student engagement during the first year of hig‐
her education. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://
www.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01056
Leal-Soto, F., Cuadros Jiménez, O., Ferrer-Urbina, R., &
Dávila, J. (2023). Adaptación y validación del In‐
ventario de Compromiso con la Clase en estudian‐
tes secundarios y universitarios de Argentina, Boli‐
via y Chile. Revista Liminales. Escritos Sobre Psi‐
cología y Sociedad, 12(24), 149-168. https://
doi.org/10.54255/lim.vol12.num24.780
Límite | Revista Interdisciplinaria de Filosofía y Psicología 82024 | 19: 24 | DOI: 10.4067/s0718-50652024000100224
Measuring invariance of the university student engagement inventoryMaluenda-Albornoz et al.
Lei, H., Cui, Y. & Zhou, W. (2018). Relationships between
student engagement and academic achievement: a
meta-analysis. Social Behavior and Personality,
46(3), 517-528. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.7054
Liebana-Presa, C., Fernández-Martínez, M. E., Vázquez-
Casares, A. M., López-Alonso, A. I. & Rodríguez-
Borrego, M. A. (2018). Burnout and engagement
among university nursing students. Enfermería Glo‐
bal, 17(2), 131-152. https://doi.org/10.6018/
eglobal.17.2.268831
Maluenda-Albornoz, J., Contreras, M., Mujica, A. & Ber‐
nardo, A. (2020). Propiedades psicométricas del
University Student Engagement Inventory en estu‐
diantes de Ingeniería chilenos. Revista Iberoameri‐
cana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación - e Avaliação
Psicológica, 57(4), 77-90. https://www.doi.org/
10.21865/RIDEP57.4.06
Maluenda-Albornoz, J., Gutiérrez, A. B., Galve-González,
C., Flores-Oyarzo, G., Infante-Villagrán, V. & Díaz-
Mujica, A. (2021). Variables predictoras de la ex‐
pectativa de desempeño y la intención de aban‐
dono en contexto de educación virtual de emergen‐
cia en estudiantes universitarios chilenos. Revista
Caribeña De Investigación Educativa, 5(2), 81-91.
https://doi.org/10.32541/recie.2021.v5i2.pp81-91
Maluenda-Albornoz, J., Flores-Oyarzo, G., Bernardo, A.,
& Díaz-Mujica, A. (2021a). Correlatos conductuales
del Compromiso Académico en estudiantes de In‐
geniería chilenos. Trilogía Ciencia Tecnología So‐
ciedad, 13(24), 98-122. https://doi.org/
10.22430/21457778.1754
Maluenda-Albornoz, J., Infante Villagrán, V., Chacano
Osses, D., Gaete Cser, D. & Galve González, C.
(2022). Integración social en la universidad durante
la pandemia: predictores de la intención de aban‐
dono en estudiantes de primer año. Revista De La
Educación Superior, 51(204), 101-116. https://
doi.org/10.36857/resu.2022.204.2282
Maluenda-Albornoz, J., Infante-Villagrán, V., Galve-Gon‐
zález, C., Flores-Oyarzo, G. & Berríos-Riquelme, J.
(2022a). Early and Dynamic Socio-Academic Varia‐
bles Related to Dropout Intention: A Predictive Mo‐
del Made during the Pandemic. Sustainability,
14(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020831
Maluenda-Albornoz, J., Bazignan C. & Rojas, X. (2022b).
Belonging to Engineering During the First Year in
Online Education. En 41st International Conference
of the Chilean Computer Science Society (SCCC).
IEEE (pp. 1-6) https://www.doi.org/10.1109/SCC‐
C57464.2022.10000341
Maluenda-Albornoz, J., Berríos-Riquelme, J., Infante-Vi‐
llagrán, V. & Lobos-Peña, K. (2023). Perceived So‐
cial Support and Engagement in First-Year Stu‐
dents: The Mediating Role of Belonging during CO‐
VID-19. Sustainability, 15(1) https://doi.org/
10.3390/su15010597
Marôco, J., Assunção, H., Harju-luukkainen, H., Lin, S.,
Sit, P., Cheung, K., Maloa, B., Ilic, I. S., Smith, T. J.
& Campos, J.A.D.B. (2020). Predictors of academic
efficacy and dropout intent ion in university
students: Can engagement suppress burnout?
PLoS ONE, 15(10). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.‐
pone.0239816
Marôco, J., Marôco, A. L., Campos, J. A. D. B. & Fre‐
dricks, J. A. (2016). University student’s engage‐
ment: Development of the university student enga‐
gement inventory (USEI). Psicologia: Reflexão e.
Crítica, 29(21), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s41155-016-0042-8
Medrano, L. A., Moretti, L. & Ortiz, A. (2015). Medición
del Engagement Académico en Estudiantes Uni‐
versitarios. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico
y Evaluación - e Avaliação Psicológica, 2(40),
114-124.
Morales-Rodríguez F. M., Pérez-Mármol J. M. & Brown T.
(2019). Education Burnout and Engagement in Oc‐
cupational Therapy Undergraduate Students and
Its Associated Factors. Frontiers in Psychology, 10.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02889
Nickerson, L. A. & Shea, K. M. (2020). First-Semester or‐
ganic chemistry during COVID-19: prioritizing group
work, flexibility, and student engagement. Journal
of Chemical Education, 97(9), 3201-3205. https://
doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00674
Paloș, R., Maricuţoiu, L. P. & Costea, I. (2019). Relations
between academic performance, student engage‐
ment and student burn-out: A cross-lagged analysis
of a two-wave study. Studies in Educational Eva‐
luation, 60, 199-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stue‐
duc.2019.01.005
Putnick, D. L. & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement in‐
variance conventions and reporting: The state of
the art and future directions for psychological re‐
search. Developmental Review, 41, 71-90. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004
Rahmatpour, P., Chehrzad, M., Ghanbari, A. & Sadat-
Ebrahimi, S-R. (2019). Academic burnout as an
educational complication and promotion barrier
among undergraduate students: A cross-sectional
study. Journal of Education and Health Promotion,
8(1), 201-201 https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jeh‐
p_165_19
Sharif Nia, H., Azad Moghddam, H., Marôco, J., Rahmat‐
pour, P., Allen, K-A., Kaur, H., Kaveh, O., Gorgulu,
O. & Pahlevan Sharif, S. (2022). A Psychometric
Lens for E-Learning: Examining the Validity and
Reliability of the Persian Version of University Stu‐
Límite | Revista Interdisciplinaria de Filosofía y Psicología 92024 | 19: 24 | DOI: 10.4067/s0718-50652024000100224
Measuring invariance of the university student engagement inventoryMaluenda-Albornoz et al.
dents’ Engagement Inventory (P-USEI). The Asia-
Pacific Education Researcher, 1-10. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s40299-022-00677-y
Sharif-Nia, H., Marôco, J., Rahmatpour, P., Ghahrani, N.,
Muhammad Ibrahim, F., Mohammad Ibrahim, M. &
Kaveh, O. (2023). Psychometrics evaluation of the
university student engagement inventory in online
learning among Arab students. BMC Nursing, 22.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-023-01318-5
She, L., Khoshnavay Fomani, F., Marôco, J., Allen, K-A.,
Sharif Nia, H. & Rahmatpour, P. (2023). Psycho‐
metric properties of the university student engage‐
ment inventory among Chinese students. Asian As‐
sociation of Open Universities Journal, 18(1),
46-60. https://doi.org/10.1108/
AAOUJ-08-2022-0111
Sinval, J., Casanova, J. R., Marôco, J. & Almeida, L. S.
(2021). University student engagement inventory
(USEI): Psychometric properties. Current Psycho‐
logy 40(4), 1608-1620. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12144-018-0082-6
Spontón, C., Castellano, E., Salanova, M., Llorens, S.,
Maffei, L. & Medrano, L. A. (2018). Evaluación de
un modelo sociocognitivo de autoeficacia, burnout
y engagement en el trabajo: análisis de invarianza
entre Argentina y España. Psychologia, 12(1),
89-101. https://www.doi.org/
10.21500/19002386.3226
Wang, M-T., Fredricks, J., Ye, F., Hofkens, Y. & Schall
Linn. J. (2017). Conceptualization and Assessment
of Adolescents’ Engagement and Disengagement
in School: A Multidimensional School Engagement
Scale. European Journal of Psychological Assess‐
ment, 35(4), 1-15. https://doi.org/
10.1027/1015-5759/a000431
Wong, T. Y., Parent, A-M. & Konishi, C. (2019). Feeling
connected: the roles of student-teacher relations‐
hips and sense of school belonging on future orien‐
tation. International Journal of Educational Re‐
search, 94, 150-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijer.2019.01.008
Zhang, D., Bobis, J., Wu, X. & Cui, Y. (2020b). effects of
an autonomy-supportive teaching intervention on
Chinese physics students and their teacher. Re‐
search in science education, 50(2), 645-671.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9706-y
Zhang, K., Wu, S., Xu, Y., Cao, W., Goetz, T. & Parks-
Stamm, E. J. (2020a). Adaptability promotes stu‐
dent engagement under COVID-19: the multiple
mediating effects of academic emotion. Frontiers in
Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2020.633265
