Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 1 – uploaded by Ali H Al-Hoorie

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Figure 1. Scree plot of Group 6 (Ideal L2 Self, Linguistic Self-Confidence, Imagery Capacity, and Positive Changes of the Future L2 Self-Image). The results suggest that all these scales represent only one latent variable. these scales are not central to the L2MSS. Table 5 presents the EFA results. The scree plot and parallel analysis always agreed, showing that—with the exception of Group 5—the results for all groups indicated only one meaningful underlying variable. For Group 5, there were two factors, which is less than the three expected factors. As expected, the eigenvalue-over-1 rule was frequently prone to overdimensionalization (van der Eijk & Rose, 2015). One surprising aspect in these results is that the Ideal L2 Self and Linguistic Self-Confidence (Group 6) did not turn out to be distinct factors. Additional examination using scree plot as well as parallel analysis simulations similarly supported one factor only (see Figure 1; scree plots for other groups are available in the online supplementary materials). As shown in Table 4, the observed correlation between the Ideal L2 Self and the Linguistic Self-Confidence scales was .80, whereas the latent correlation reached .90. These are problematically high magnitudes. This suggests that response to the Ideal L2 Self might be driven by belief in ability rather than an actual—ideal discrepancy. As for Group 5 (Ought-to L2 Self, Instrumentality—Promotion, and Instrumentality—Prevention), the results sug- gested two factors only. Table 6 presents the factor loadings for these two factors. The factor loading pattern suggests that the Ought-to L2 Self is not distinct from the

Figure 1 Scree plot of Group 6 (Ideal L2 Self, Linguistic Self-Confidence, Imagery Capacity, and Positive Changes of the Future L2 Self-Image). The results suggest that all these scales represent only one latent variable. these scales are not central to the L2MSS. Table 5 presents the EFA results. The scree plot and parallel analysis always agreed, showing that—with the exception of Group 5—the results for all groups indicated only one meaningful underlying variable. For Group 5, there were two factors, which is less than the three expected factors. As expected, the eigenvalue-over-1 rule was frequently prone to overdimensionalization (van der Eijk & Rose, 2015). One surprising aspect in these results is that the Ideal L2 Self and Linguistic Self-Confidence (Group 6) did not turn out to be distinct factors. Additional examination using scree plot as well as parallel analysis simulations similarly supported one factor only (see Figure 1; scree plots for other groups are available in the online supplementary materials). As shown in Table 4, the observed correlation between the Ideal L2 Self and the Linguistic Self-Confidence scales was .80, whereas the latent correlation reached .90. These are problematically high magnitudes. This suggests that response to the Ideal L2 Self might be driven by belief in ability rather than an actual—ideal discrepancy. As for Group 5 (Ought-to L2 Self, Instrumentality—Promotion, and Instrumentality—Prevention), the results sug- gested two factors only. Table 6 presents the factor loadings for these two factors. The factor loading pattern suggests that the Ought-to L2 Self is not distinct from the

Related Figures (7)

Table 1. Examples of high correlations between observed variables involving items with apparent overlap
Table 1. Examples of high correlations between observed variables involving items with apparent overlap
Table 2. Items presumed to belong to different scales but appear to have significant wording overlap
Table 2. Items presumed to belong to different scales but appear to have significant wording overlap
Table 3. Scales used in the present study
Table 3. Scales used in the present study
Note. Triangles represent correlations within each group. G® = Group; S° = Scale. (1) Intended Effort; (2) Attitudes to Learning English; (3) Attitudes to L2 Community; (4) Cultural Interest; (5) Auditory Style; (6) Visual Style; (7) Feared L2 Self; (8) Negative Changes of the Future L2 Self-image; (9) Ought-to L2 Self; (10) Instrumentality-Promotion; (11) Instrumentality—-Prevention; (12) Family Influence; (13) Ideal L2 Self; (14) Linguistic Self-Confidence; (15) Vividness of Imagery; (16) Ease of Using Imagery; (17) Imagery Capacity; (18) Positive Changes of the Future L2 Self-image. Means and standard deviations have been rounded to the nearest integer to save space. For instance, the mean value of (1) Intended Effort was 42.21, but was rounded to 42. Results prior to rounding can be found in the online supplementary material. Correlations of .70 and stronger are in bold.
Note. Triangles represent correlations within each group. G® = Group; S° = Scale. (1) Intended Effort; (2) Attitudes to Learning English; (3) Attitudes to L2 Community; (4) Cultural Interest; (5) Auditory Style; (6) Visual Style; (7) Feared L2 Self; (8) Negative Changes of the Future L2 Self-image; (9) Ought-to L2 Self; (10) Instrumentality-Promotion; (11) Instrumentality—-Prevention; (12) Family Influence; (13) Ideal L2 Self; (14) Linguistic Self-Confidence; (15) Vividness of Imagery; (16) Ease of Using Imagery; (17) Imagery Capacity; (18) Positive Changes of the Future L2 Self-image. Means and standard deviations have been rounded to the nearest integer to save space. For instance, the mean value of (1) Intended Effort was 42.21, but was rounded to 42. Results prior to rounding can be found in the online supplementary material. Correlations of .70 and stronger are in bold.
Table 5. Exploratory factor analysis results Note. Group 1: Intended Effort and Attitudes to Learning English. Group 2: Attitudes to L2 Community and Cultural Interest. Group 3: Auditory Style and Visual Style. Group 4: Feared L2 Self and Negative Changes of the Future L2 Self-image. Group 5: Ought-to L2 Self, Instrumentality-Promotion, and Instrumentality-Prevention. Group 6: Ideal L2 Self, Linguistic Self- Confidence, Imagery Capacity, and Positive Changes of the Future L2 Self-image.
Table 5. Exploratory factor analysis results Note. Group 1: Intended Effort and Attitudes to Learning English. Group 2: Attitudes to L2 Community and Cultural Interest. Group 3: Auditory Style and Visual Style. Group 4: Feared L2 Self and Negative Changes of the Future L2 Self-image. Group 5: Ought-to L2 Self, Instrumentality-Promotion, and Instrumentality-Prevention. Group 6: Ideal L2 Self, Linguistic Self- Confidence, Imagery Capacity, and Positive Changes of the Future L2 Self-image.
Table 6. Exploratory factor analysis for Group 5 (Ought-to L2 Self, Instrumentality-Promotion, and Instrumentality—Prevention) Note. Geomin rotated loadings. Loadings over .30 in bold. Instrumentality—Prevention, but it tends to be distinct from the Instrumentality— Promotion scale.
Table 6. Exploratory factor analysis for Group 5 (Ought-to L2 Self, Instrumentality-Promotion, and Instrumentality—Prevention) Note. Geomin rotated loadings. Loadings over .30 in bold. Instrumentality—Prevention, but it tends to be distinct from the Instrumentality— Promotion scale.
Table 7. Model fit and chi-square different test results using confirmatory factor analysis results
Table 7. Model fit and chi-square different test results using confirmatory factor analysis results
Related topics:
Teaching English as a Second LanguageSecond Language AcquisitionLanguages and Linguistics
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved