Development reveals a reliable method for measuring emotions in first-year engineering students, suggesting improved support interventions.
Despite growing awareness of the emotional challenges faced by engineering students and their impact on academic performance and retention, the field lacks validated tools to systematically assess affective states in theoretically grounded ways. First-year students are particularly vulnerable during the transition to university-level engineering education, experiencing stress, anxiety, and disengagement that contribute to attrition. This study aimed to develop and validate a psychometrically sound scale based on Russell’s Circumplex Model of Affect to assess first-year engineering students’ emotional experiences and provide educators with a theoretically grounded assessment instrument. A 12-item circumplex-based affective-state scale was administered to 176 first-year engineering students. Validation combined exploratory factor analysis on raw and ipsatized data, Procrustes alignment to check how closely the items formed a circle, and structural summary modeling to test circumplex geometry. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω. Exploratory factor analysis confirmed a robust two-dimensional Valence × Arousal structure explaining 51% of total variance. Procrustes rotation yielded excellent item-level congruence coefficients (0.929–1.000), while Structural Summary Modeling revealed strong sinusoidal patterns (R2 = 0.94), indicating a near-circular configuration consistent with circumplex theory. Internal consistency was high across both dimensions (Cronbach’s α ≥ 0.76; McDonald’s ω ≥ 0.84). The validated scale provides a reliable, theoretically coherent instrument for assessing engineering student emotions along pleasant–unpleasant and activation–deactivation dimensions, enabling systematic emotional assessment and targeted interventions while addressing critical gaps in affective assessment tools.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2025 study studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: