Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study explores the predictive and mediating roles of reading motivation (RM), critical reading intention (CRI), and reading self-efficacy (RSE) in reading comprehension (RC) among Iranian EFL learners, employing Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). A cross-sectional, quantitative research design was adopted, targeting 370 intermediate-level (B1 CEFR) IELTS candidates at a prominent private institute. Participants were selected to ensure homogeneity in proficiency and linguistic background (all L1 Farsi speakers) but diversity in academic disciplines. Data collection involved a comprehensive suite of validated, context-appropriate instruments: the Reading Motivation Questionnaire for EFL contexts (RMQ-EFL), the Critical Reading Intention Scale (CRIS), the Reading Self-Efficacy Scale (RSES), and a multi-section reading comprehension test modeled on the IELTS Academic module. All self-report measures demonstrated strong psychometric properties (Cronbach’s alpha ≥ .95, AVE > .50). The online administration of surveys and reading tests ensured accessibility and standardized conditions. Data analysis proceeded in several stages: first, descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations established initial relationships among constructs. Next, tolerance and variance inflation factor (VIF) statistics confirmed no multicollinearity. Finally, Partial Least Squares SEM (PLS-SEM) using SmartPLS software was used to test direct and mediated effects among variables, with bootstrapping to ensure statistical robustness. Results revealed that RM’s effect on comprehension was fully mediated by RSE and CRI; both mediators independently and significantly predicted comprehension. These findings challenge additive models of reading achievement and support multidimensional frameworks, emphasizing the necessity for EFL pedagogy to integrate motivational, self-efficacy (SE), and critical engagement components for optimal reading development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Moulavinafchi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: