The Relationship of Intelligence Beliefs, Self-Regulation, and Metacognition with School Refusal Behavior in Secondary High School Girl Students

Sociological Studies of Youth

مقاله 6، دوره 10، شماره 34، مهر 2019، صفحه 95-108   

نوع مقاله: Original Article

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22034/ssyj.2019.668109

نویسندگان

Ali Khaneh Keshi^{* 1}؛ Rajab Ali Mohammadzadeh^{* 2}

¹Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Behbahan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Behbahn, Iran

²Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology Group, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran

چکیده

This study aimed to determine the relationship of intelligence beliefs, academic self-regulation, and metacognition with school refusal behavior in female secondary high school students in Amol. This study was a descriptive one with correlational design. The statistical population consisted of all the female secondary high school students of which 214 students were selected using multistage random cluster sampling method from second and third grade of secondary school and were asked to fill in the questionnaires of intelligence beliefs (Babaei), self-regulation (Buffard), metacognition (Trier & Rich) and school refusal behavior (Kearney). In order to analyze the collected data, Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used. The results of the study showed that there is a negative significant relationship between self-regulation, metacognition, and school refusal behavior. The findings of multiple regression analyses also showed that among the predictor variables, only self-regulation with the highest amount of Beta (0.17) was the best predictor of school refusal behavior.

کلیدواژه‌ها

Intelligence beliefs؛ Academic self-regulation؛ Metacognition؛ Refusal behavior

مراجع

Aghababaei, N., & Arji, A. (2014). Well-being and the HEXACO model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 56, 139–142.

Aluja, A., Garcıa, O., Rossier, J., &Garca, L. F. (2005).Comparison of the NEO-FFI, the NEO-         FFI-R and an alternative short version of the NEO-PI-R (NEO-60) in Swiss and Spanish            samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 591–604.

Anisi,J., Majdian, M., Joshanloo, M., & Gohari-kamel, Z. (2012). Validity and reliability of NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) on university students. Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 5(4), 351-5

Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(2), 329-358

Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2005). Honesty-Humility, the Big Five and the Five-Factor model. Journal of Personality, 73,1321–1353.

Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11,150–166.

Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2008). The prediction of Honesty-Humility-related criteria by the HEXACO and Five-Factor models of personality. Journal of Research in Personality,42,1216–1228.

Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Son, C. (2000). Honesty as the sixth factor of       personality: Correlations with Machiavellianism, primary psychopathy, and social adroitness. European Journal of Personality, 14,359–368.

Azkhosh, M., & Asgari, A. (2014). Five Factor Model in Iranian Culture: A Psychometrics Analysis of NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). The International Journal of             Indian Psychology, 4 (2), 78-101.

Bachman, L.F. (1999). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Becker, G. (2006). NEO-FFI scores in college men and women: A view from McDonald’s unified treatment of test theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 911–941.

Block, J. (2010). The five-factor framing of personality and beyond: Some rumination. Psychological Inquiry, 21(1), 2- 25.

Brown, J. D. (2005). Testing in language programs: A comprehensive guide to English language assessment. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO Personality Inventory–Revised (NEO–

PI–R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO–FFI) professional manual.Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources.

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dörnyei, Z. (2006). Individual differences in second language acquisition. AILA Review, 19, 42-68.

Egan, V., Deary, I., & Austin, E. (2000). The NEO-FFI: emerging British norms and an item-level analysis suggests N, A, and C are more reliable than O and E. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 907–920.

Fiske, D.W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different       sources. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 44, 329-344.

Friday, A.S. (2004).Criterion-related validity of big five adolescent personality traits.          Unpublished thesis.

Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. In Wheeler (Ed.). Review of Personality and social psychology, 1, 141–165.

Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48(1), 26-34.

Horwitz, E., Horwitz, M., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 26, 125-132.

Kajonius, P., & Dådermana, A. M. (2014). Exploring the Relationship between Honesty-Humility, the Big Five, and liberal values in Swedish students. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 10(1), 104-117.

Khani Pour, A. (2012). Psychometric properties of the short form of NEO-FFI. Unpublished M.A thesis.

McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across Instruments and Observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1),81-90.

McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (2004). A contemplated revision of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 36: 587-596

Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3^rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Messick, S. (1996a). Standards-based score interpretation: Establishing valid grounds for valid inferences. Proceedings of the joint conference on standard setting for large   scale assessments, Sponsored by National Assessment Governing Board and The National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Messick, S. (1996b). Validity of performance assessment. In Philips, G. (1996). Technical    Issues in large-scale performance assessment. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.

Moghaddas, L., Gol, M., & Haqshenas, S. (2013). The effect of personality traits on speaking ability across gender: A case of Iranian EFL learners. International Researcher, 2(4), 45-54.

Oxford, R.L. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: an overview. Learning Styles & Strategies.     

Panayiotou, G., Kokkinos, M. K., & Spanoudis, S. (2004).Searching for the Big Five in a  Greek context: the NEO-FFI under the microscope. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1841-1854.

Paunonen, S.V., Haddock, G., Forsterling, F., & Keinonen, M. (2003). Broad  versus narrow personality measures and the prediction of behavior across  cultures. European Journal of Personality, 17(6), 413-433.

Roshan Chesli, R., Shaeeri, M., Atrifar, M., Nikkhah, A., Ghaem Maghami, B., & Rahimirad, A. (2006). Assessing psychometric properties of Neo personality inventory five factors (NEO-FFI).  Raftar, 13(16), 27-36.

Schultz, D. P., & Schultz, S.E. (2013). Theories of personality. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Sneed, C.D., Gullone, E., & Moore, S. (2002). Reliability and factor structure of the NEO-five-        factor inventory for Australian adolescents. Behavior Change, 19, 121–126.

Yoshimura, K., Ono, Y., Nakamura, K., Nathan, J. H., & Suzuki, K. (2001).Validation of the Japanese version of the NEO-five factor inventory in a large community sample. Psychological Reports, 88, 443–449.

Zamorano, E.R., Carrillo, C.A., Silva, A.P., Sandoval, A.M., & Rebolledo Pastrana. E.M. (2014). Psychometric properties of the big five inventory in a Mexican sample. Salud Mental, 37, 491-497.