Toward a multidimensional conceptualization of motivation to transfer training: Validation of the transfer motivation questionnaire from a self-determination theory perspective using bifactor-ESEM

• Published in: Studies in educational evaluation Vol. 73; p. 101116
• Main Authors: Gegenfurtner, Andreas, Quesada-Pallarès, Carla
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier Ltd 01.06.2022
• Subjects: Bifactor-ESEM; Continuum; Motivation to transfer; Self-determination theory; Training evaluation; Transfer of training; Self-determination theory; Continuum; Bifactor-ESEM; Training evaluation; Motivation to transfer; Transfer of training
• ISSN: 0191-491X; 1879-2529
• DOI: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101116

•The Transfer Motivation Questionnaire TMQ is an instrument for training evaluation.•The TMQ measures four dimensions of motivation to transfer.•These dimensions are external, introjected, identified, and integrated regulation.•A four-factor CFA model proved to be the most optimal solution.•Relations with self-efficacy, interest, utility value, and intentions were tested. Motivation to transfer is often examined in training evaluation studies and reflects the trainee’s willingness to apply new knowledge and skills acquired from training to the job. Based on organismic integration theory within the framework of self-determination theory, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) were used to test one-factor, two-factor, four-factor, second-order factor, bifactor-CFA, and bifactor-ESEM representations of the Transfer Motivation Questionnaire (TMQ) survey data obtained from 241 trainees. The bifactor-ESEM solution proved to have the best model fit, but factor loadings on the general factor were weak. A four-factor CFA model was the most optimal solution, with factors representing external, introjected, identified, and integrated regulation. To test external validity of the TMQ scales, associations with transfer self-efficacy, interest in transfer, utility values, and transfer intentions were examined, as well as effects of the participants’ age, gender, work experience, education level, and voluntary participation status.