Psychometric evaluation of the Student Authorship Questionnaire: a confirmatory factor analysis approach

References

• Abasi, A.R., N. Akbari, and B. Graves. 2006. Discourse appropriation, construction of identities, and the complex issue of plagiarism: ESL students writing in graduate school. Journal of Second Language Writing 15, no. 2: 102–17. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2006.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arbuckle, J.L. 2006. Amos 7.0 User‘s Guide. Chicago: SPSS.
   Google Scholar
• Ashworth, P., P. Bannister, and P. Thorne. 1997. Guilty in whose eyes? University students’ perceptions of cheating and plagiarism in academic work and assessment. Studies in Higher Education 22, no. 2: 187–203. doi: 10.1080/03075079712331381034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakhtin, M.M. 1986. Speech genres and other late essays. Trans. V.W. McGee. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
   Google Scholar
• Biglan, A. 1973a. The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology 57, no. 3: 195–203. doi: 10.1037/h0034701
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biglan, A. 1973b. Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology 57, no. 3: 204–13. doi: 10.1037/h0034699
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cattell, R.B. 1978. The scientific use of factor analysis in the behavioural and life sciences. New York: Plenum Press.
   Google Scholar
• Elander, J., G. Pittam, J. Lusher, P. Fox, and N. Payne. 2010. Evaluation of an intervention to help students avoid unintentional plagiarism by improving their authorial identity. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 35, no. 2: 157–71. doi: 10.1080/02602930802687745
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia, L. 2010. Accounting students’ expectations and transition experiences of supervised work experience. Accounting Education 19, no. 1–2: 51–64. doi: 10.1080/09639280902886033
   Google Scholar
• Geertz, C. 1988. Words and lives: The anthropologist as author. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hair, J.F., B. Babin, A.H. Money, and P. Samuel. 2003. Essentials of business research method. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Hair, J.F., W.C., Black, B.J. Babin, and R.E. Anderson. 2010. Multivariate data analysis. New York: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Harwood, N. 2005a. ‘We do not seem to have a theory … The theory I present here attempts to fill this gap’: inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing. Applied Linguistics 26, no. 3: 243–375. doi: 10.1093/applin/ami012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harwood, N. 2005b. ‘Nowhere has anyone attempted … In this article I aim to do just that’ A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and We in academic writing across four disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1207–31. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hinkin, T.R. 1995. A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management 21, no. 5: 967–88. doi: 10.1177/014920639502100509
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howard, R.M. 1995. Plagiarisms, authorships and the academic death penalty. College English 57, no. 7: 788–806. doi: 10.2307/378403
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, L., and P.M. Bentler. 1999. Cut-off criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling 6, no. 1: 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. 2001. Humble servants of the discipline? Self mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes 20, no. 3: 207–26. doi: 10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00012-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. 2002. Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1091–12. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ivanič, R. 1997. Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Kinder, J. and J. Elander. 2012. Dyslexia, authorial identity, and approaches to learning and writing: A mixed methods study. British Journal of Educational Psychology 82, no. 2: 289–307. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02026.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills: CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Lavelle, E. 1993. Development and validation of an inventory to assess processes in college composition. British Journal of Educational Psychology 63: 489–99. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1993.tb01073.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavelle, E., and A.J. Guarino. 2003. A multidimensional approach to understanding college writing processes. Educational Psychology 23, no. 3: 295–305. doi: 10.1080/0144341032000060138
   Google Scholar
• Lavelle, E. and N. Zuercher. 2001. The writing approaches of university students. Higher Education 42, no. 3: 373–91. doi: 10.1023/A:1017967314724
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindblom-Ylänne, S., K. Trigwell, A. Nevgi, and P. Ashwin. 2006. How approaches to teaching are affected by discipline and teaching context. Studies in Higher Education 31, no. 3: 285–98. doi: 10.1080/03075070600680539
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matsuda, P.K. 2001. Voice in Japanese written discourse: Implications for second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 10: 35–53. doi: 10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00036-9
   Google Scholar
• MacCallum, R.C., and J.T. Austin. 2000. Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology 51: 201–26. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.201
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nunnally, J.C. 1978. Psychometric theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Oxford Dictionary of English. 2010. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Park, C. 2003. In other (people's) words: Plagiarism by university students – literature and lessons. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 28, no. 5: 471–88. doi: 10.1080/02602930301677
   Google Scholar
• Pittam, G., J. Elander, J. Lusher, P. Fox, and N. Payne. 2009. Student beliefs and attitudes about authorial identity in academic writing. Studies in Higher Education 34, no. 2: 153–70. doi: 10.1080/03075070802528270
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swales, J.M. 1990. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tait, H., N.J. Entwistle, and V. McCune. 1998. ASSIST: A reconceptualisation of the approaches to studying inventory. In Improving students as learners, ed. C. Rust, 262–71. Oxford: Oxford Brookes University, Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, B., and L.G. Daniel. 1996. Factor analytic evidence for the construct validity of scores: A historical overview and some guidelines. Educational and Psychological Measurement 56, no. 2: 197–208. doi: 10.1177/0013164496056002001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells, D. 1993. An account of the complex causes of unintentional plagiarism in college writing. WPA: Writing Program Administration 16, no. 3: 59–67.
   Google Scholar
• Zwick, W.R., and W.F. Velicer. 1982. Factors influencing four rules for determining the number of components to retain. Multivariate Behavioral Research 17: 253–269. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr1702_5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar