Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
ORCID
0009-0006-0079-5538
Date of Graduation
5-14-2026
Semester of Graduation
Spring
Degree Name
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
Department
Department of Graduate Psychology
First Advisor
Sara Finney
Abstract
Institutions of higher education are increasingly expected to demonstrate the value they add to student learning through valid, evidence-based assessment. Longitudinal value-added models, which measure change in students’ knowledge or skills over time, offer stronger evidence of institutional impact than cross-sectional approaches. However, the validity of these models can be compromised when student motivation fluctuates across testing occasions, particularly in low-stakes assessment contexts. In this study, I examined how changes in test-taking effort influenced the validity of value-added estimates of student learning of information literacy. Using three waves of data (month prior to beginning college, mid-career, and senior year) collected from the same cohort of undergraduate students at a mid-sized public university, simultaneous growth modeling was used to estimate relations between change in test-taking effort and change in performance across two time points relevant to higher education professionals: general education time interval and full-college time intervals. More specifically, I assessed (a) whether a self-report measure of expended effort exhibited longitudinal measurement invariance for both time intervals, (b) how average and individual effort levels changed for both time intervals, and (c) how change in effort related to change in achievement on an information literacy test for both time intervals. Results indicated that students’ reported test-taking effort declined over time across both the general education and full-college intervals. Changes in effort were significantly associated with changes in information literacy performance, indicating that fluctuations in motivation influenced value-added estimates of learning. However, substantial unexplained variability in learning gains remained even after accounting for effort, suggesting that motivational differences alone do not fully explain the modest average value-added estimates. Findings informed practical suggestions to assessment practitioners regarding the interpretation of longitudinal learning gains (e.g., the importance of investigating sources of unexplained variability when modest value-added estimates are observed), the inclusion of effort measures in institutional assessment processes, and the design of valid value-added reporting systems.
