TPC-Journal-V5-Issue4

The Professional Counselor /Volume 5, Issue 4 521 Methodologists (e.g., Costello & Osborne, 2005; Fabrigar et al., 1999) have indicated that when the number of factors to retain is unclear, conducting a series of analyses is appropriate. Therefore, two-, three-, and four-factor models were evaluated and compared to determine which model might best explain the data in the most parsimonious and interpretable fashion. In this case, the two-factor model was eliminated because it did not lend itself to meaningful interpretability. The four-factor model was excluded because one of the factors was related to only one item, which is not recommended (Fabrigar et al., 1999). Researchers evaluated models based on model fit indices, item loadings above 0.40 (Kahn, 2006), and interpretability (Fabrigar et al., 1999). The three-factor measurement model fit the data well (RMSEA = 0.052, SRMR = 0.036, CFA = 0.994, TLI = 0.988, χ 2 = 173.802, df = 42, p < 0.001). As shown in Table 2, the standardized factor loadings were large, ranging from 0.58 to 0.97. The first factor included six items. Items reflected students’ abilities at emotional self-control and students’ abilities to maintain good social relationships in school (e.g., demonstrates resilience after setbacks and works collaboratively in groups of various sizes). This first factor was named “academic temperament.” The second factor included three items. All of the items reflected the understanding that students have about their own abilities, values, preferences and skills (e.g., identifies academic strengths and abilities and identifies things the student is interested in learning). This second factor was named “self- knowledge.” The third factor included four items. All of the items reflected personal characteristics that Table 1 Summary of Item Descriptive Statistics for EFA Item Struggling n (%) On Target n (%) Missing n (%) 1 176 (14.8%) 982 (82.5%) 32 (2.7%) 2 294 (24.7%) 864 (72.6%) 32 (2.7%) 3 214 (18.0%) 943 (79.2%) 33 (2.8%) 4 362 (30.4%) 795 (66.8%) 33 (2.8%) 5 202 (17.0%) 955 (80.3%) 33 (2.8%) 6 177 (14.9%) 981 (82.4%) 32 (2.7%) 7 138 (11.6%) 1017 (85.5%) 35 (2.9%) 8 225 (18.9%) 932 (78.3%) 33 (2.8%) 9 159 (13.4%) 999 (83.9%) 32 (2.7%) 10 387 (32.5%) 769 (64.6%) 34 (2.9%) 11 125 (10.5%) 1032 (86.7%) 33 (2.8%) 12 194 (16.3%) 962 (80.8%) 34 (2.9%) 13 260 (21.8%) 896 (75.3%) 34 (2.9%)