Abstract
The study seeks to develop a model to measure and evaluate Students’ Engagement in Indian Management Institutes for which the India Management Students’ Engagement Scale (IMSES) was evolved from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) of the Indiana State University, USA. The study was based on the premise that a measurement scale that had its origins in a standardized model like the NSSE could help predict important educational outcomes for Indian students. The construct validity approach was adopted for the study conducted in three management institutes in Surat, located in Gujarat in India. The responses from 156 MBA students were included in the study. The results suggest that the four broad themes namely Academic Challenge, Relationships with faculties, Peer Interactions and Campus Environment do converge to explain the concept of Student Engagement in the urban Indian setting. Originally, a questionnaire with 30 items was fielded to the students. Upon exploratory analysis, ten items with issues related to low factor loadings, content validity and error variances were removed. The final IMSES emerged as a lean 14 item scale after modifications which makes it is extremely easy to administer. The CFA supported a four-dimensional model based on the NSSE Version 2.0, with all the dimensions showing high internal consistency based on Chronbach’s alpha coefficients. The model fit was adequate and acceptable based on well-documented thresholds. Although the four factors suggested by NSSE are meaningful in urban Indian educational settings, the need for a more India-centric approach to designing the survey has been discussed.
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs43545-021-00298-0/MediaObjects/43545_2021_298_Fig1_HTML.png)
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Primary data collected and the software used for the study are available with the author and will be submitted as and when required.
Code availability
Data were analyzed using SPSS AMOS version 23.
Abbreviations
- NSSE:
-
National Survey of Student Engagement Instrument
- GDP:
-
Gross Domestic Product
- IMSES :
-
Indian Management Students’ Engagement Scale
- GFI :
-
Goodness of Fit Index
- AGFI :
-
Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index
- CFI :
-
Comparative Fit Index
- SRMSR :
-
Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
- RMSEA :
-
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
- CR :
-
Composite Reliability
References
Astin A (1984) Student involvement: a development theory for higher education. J Coll Student Dev 40:518–529
Axelson RD, Flick A (2011) Defining student engagement. Change 43(1):38–43
Bottenfield, K. (2013). Examining the construct validity and reliability of student engagement among adult students. Graduate Theses and Dissertations. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/13010
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and programming. Taylor & Francis, Milton Park. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=c2HsLlDZonkC
Cochran WG (1963) Sampling techniques, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York
Conceptual Framework. (n.d.). Evidence-based improvement in higher education. https://nsse.indiana.edu//nsse/about-nsse/conceptual-framework/index.html. Accessed 17 Oct 2020
Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE (1955) Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol Bull 52(4):281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957
Engagement indicators: survey instruments: NSSE: evidence-based improvement in higher education: Indiana University. (2013). Evidence-based improvement in higher education. https://nsse.indiana.edu//nsse/survey-instruments/engagement-indicators.html. Accessed 13 Oct 2020
Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development. (2020). NEP_Final_English_0.pdf. Governemnt of India. https://www.mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/NEP_Final_English_0.pdf. Accessed 14 Oct 2020
Hair JF (ed) (2014) Multivariate data analysis (7 th edn, Pearson new internat ed). Pearson
Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL (2012a) Multivariate data analysis (Seventh). Pearson Education Inc, London
Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL (2012b) Multivariate data analysis (Seventh). Pearson Education Inc, London
Higher Education in India. Drishti IAS. https://www.drishtiias.com/to-the-points/Paper2/higher-education-in-india-1. Accessed 30 Dec 2019
Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 6(1):1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Juvonen J, Espinoza G, Knifsend C (2012) The role of peer relationships in student academic and extracurricular engagement. In: Christenson SL, Reschly AL, Wylie C (eds) Handbook of research on student engagement. Springer Science + Business Media, Boston, pp 387–401
Kuh GD (2001) Assessing what really matters to student learning inside the national survey of student engagement. Change 33(3):10–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380109601795
Kuh GD, Pace CR, Vesper N (1997) The development of process indicators to estimate student gains associated with good practices in undergraduate education. Res High Educ 38(4):435–454. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024962526492
Kuh GD, Kinzie J, Buckley JA, Bridges BK, Hayek JC (2007) Piecing together the student success puzzle: research, propositions, and recommendations. ASHE High Educ Rep 32(5):1–182. https://doi.org/10.1002/aehe.3205
Lam S, Jimerson S, Wong B, Kikas E, Shin H, Veiga F, Hatzichristou C, Polychroni F, Cefai C, Negovan V, Stanculescu E, Yang H, Liu Y, Basnett J, Duck R, Farrell P, Nelson B, Zollneritsch J (2014) Understanding and measuring student engagement in school: the results of an international study from 12 countries. Sch Psychol Q 29:213–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000057
LaNasa S, Cabrera A, Trangsrud H (2009) The construct validity of student engagement: a confirmatory factor analysis approach. Res High Educ 50:315–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-009-9123-1
Liu C, Elms P (2019) Animating student engagement: the impacts of cartoon instructional videos on learning experience. Res Learn Technol 27. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v27.2124
Marsh HW, Hau KT, Balla JR, Grayson D (1998) Is more ever too much? The number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivar Behav Res 33(2):181–220. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3302_1
NSSE 2000 Overview.pdf. (n.d.). https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/25756/NSSE%202000%20Overview.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y. Accessed 29 Sept 2021
NSSE 2005 Overview.pdf. (n.d.). https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/25756/NSSE%202005%20Overview.pdf?sequence=9&isAllowed=y. Accessed 29 Sept 2021
NSSE 2006 Overview.pdf. (n.d.). https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/25756/NSSE%202006%20Overview.pdf?sequence=10&isAllowed=y. Accessed 29 Sept 2021
NSSE 2007 Overview.pdf. (n.d.). https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/25756/NSSE%202007%20Overview.pdf?sequence=11&isAllowed=y. Accessed 29 Sept 2021
NSSE 2008 Overview.pdf. (n.d.). https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/25756/NSSE%202008%20Overview.pdf?sequence=12&isAllowed=y. Accessed 29 Sept 2021
NSSE 2009 Overview.pdf. (n.d.). https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/25756/NSSE%202009%20Overview.pdf?sequence=13&isAllowed=y. Accessed 29 Sept 2021
NSSE 2010 Overview.pdf. (n.d.). https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/25756/NSSE%202010%20Overview.pdf?sequence=14&isAllowed=y. Accessed 29 Sept 2021
NSSE 2011 Overview.pdf. (n.d.). https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/25756/NSSE%202011%20Overview.pdf?sequence=15&isAllowed=y. Accessed 29 Sept 2021
NSSE 2012 Overview.pdf. (n.d.). https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/25756/NSSE%202012%20Overview.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y. Accessed 29 Sept 2021
NSSE 2013 Overview.pdf. (n.d.). https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/25756/NSSE%202013%20Overview.pdf?sequence=17&isAllowed=y. Accessed 29 Sept 2021
NSSE Overview: Reports & Data: NSSE: Evidence-Based Improvement in Higher Education: Indiana University. (n.d.). Evidence-based improvement in higher education. https://nsse.indiana.edu//nsse/reports-data/nsse-overview.html. Accessed 13 Oct 2020
Pike GR (2006) The convergent and discriminant validity of NSSE scalelet scores. J Coll Stud Dev 47(5):550–563. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2006.0061
Pituch KA, Stevens JP (2002) Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences, 6th edn. Routledge, Oxfordshire
Precourt E, Gainor M (2019) Factors affecting classroom participation and how participation leads to a better learning. Acc Educ 28(1):100–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2018.1505530
Release of India’s R&D expenditure eco-system report. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1580049. Accessed 24 July 2019
Siddiqui N, Miah K, Ahmad A (2019) Peer to peer synchronous interaction and student engagement: a perspective of postgraduate management students in a develo** country. Am J Educ Res 7:491–498. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-7-7-9
Thurstone LL (1938) Primary mental abilities. Psychometric monographs, Chicago
Xerri MJ, Radford K, Shacklock K (2018) Student engagement in academic activities: a social support perspective. High Educ 75(4):589–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0162-9
Xu Y, Chiu C-K, Ye X (2019) Understanding the use of technology-enhanced learning spaces in Hong Kong: an exploratory study. Asia Pac J Educ 39(3):290–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2019.1598846
Zhoc K, Webster B, Li J, Chung T (2019) Higher education student engagement scale (HESES): development and psychometric evidence. Res High Educ 60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-018-9510-6
Acknowledgements
The author is thankful to Dr. Hitesh Parmar (Asst. Professor, Department of Business Management, Sardar Patel University, Vallabh Vidyanagar, India) for his insights towards data analysis for the study.
Funding
No external funding has been received for this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
JM designed the questionnaire and conducted the survey, analyzed the results, drafted the manuscript and submitted the manuscript for review. The author read and approved the final manuscript before submission.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares that she has no competing interests.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all the individual participants included in the study. Permission was taken from the authorities of the three institutes under study before fielding the questionnaire to the students. Neither the participants, nor the institutes have an objection to the data being published. The author declares that the work submitted is original and has not been published or is being considered for publication elsewhere.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mistry, J. The construct validity of student engagement in selected Indian business schools: a confirmatory factor analysis approach. SN Soc Sci 1, 292 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-021-00298-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-021-00298-0