ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Understanding motivational and demotivational patterns in higher education: psychometric evidence from a Chilean university sample.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Academic motivation plays an important role in students' engagement, academic achievement, and persistence in higher education; however, the psychometric structure of motivational measures may vary across educational and cultural contexts. This study evaluated the psychometric performance of the Motivational and Demotivational Patterns in Academic Settings (MDPAS) scale among Chilean university students. Using a quantitative, non-experimental, cross-sectional design, data were collected from 356 undergraduate students enrolled at a public university in northern Chile. Exploratory analyses indicated a complex multidimensional structure. Parallel analysis suggested up to six potentially retainable factors, although support for the sixth factor was marginal. A theoretically informed five-factor exploratory solution accounted for 36.77% of the extracted variance but showed uneven factor definition and only partial correspondence with the original five-dimensional structure. Three factors were sufficiently defined to support subsequent model-based evaluation. A preliminary confirmatory factor analysis, estimated with WLSMV for ordinal indicators, yielded a refined 18-item, three-factor candidate configuration with substantially improved fit, χ
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.