Student Engagement in Schools Questionnaire (SESQ) and Teacher Engagement Report Form-new (TERF-N) - examining the Preliminary evidence

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by OmBimo

Student engagement in school is examined through the psychometrics of the Student Engagement in Schools Questionnaire (SESQ) and the Teacher Engagement Report Form (TERF-N). Findings show strong internal consistency for both instruments. Exploratory factor analysis indicates that the SESQ aligns with a theoretically driven five-factor structure, while the TERF-N results are more complex and load primarily on a single General Engagement factor. Correlations suggest convergent value across sources. Implications for school psychologists are discussed.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages13

Reading Time33 min

AccessFree to download

Student engagement and study purpose

Psychometrics of SESQ and TERF-N

Factor structure findings

Implications and next steps

67 the student engagement in schools Questionnaire (sesQ) and the teacher engagement report Form-new (terF-n): examining the Preliminary evidence Shelley R. Hart, Kaitlyn Stewart & Shane R. Jimerson, University of California Santa Barbara Student engagement in school is an important construct that has been associated with student success. For the current study, researchers examined the psychometrics of the Student Engagement in Schools Questionnaire (SESQ) and the Teacher Engagement Report Form (TERF-N) of student engagement. The results revealed that both the SESQ and the TERF-N have good internal consistency. The exploratory factor analysis results for the SESQ demonstrated alignment with the theoretically driven development (five factors: Affective Engagement-Liking for Learning, Affective Engagement-Liking for School, Behavioral Engagement-Effort & Persistence, Behavioral Engagement-Extracurricular, and Cognitive Engagement) whereas the results for the TERF-N were more complicated. The items did not load as conceptualized in a 3-factor model, but instead loaded on one, General Engagement factor. Finally, while it may be that teachers viewed a student’s level of engagement as a global construct, the correlations between the measures indicated that they might be used to provide helpful, convergent information obtained from a variety of sources regarding a student’s levels of engagement. Future directionsand implications for school psychologists are discussed. Engagement is a growth-producing activity through which an individual allocates attention in active response to the environment (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) . Engagement related to school activity (or student engagement) has become an important concept related to multiple educational outcomes (e.g., achievement, attendance, behavior, dropout/completion; e.g., Finn, 1989; Jimerson, Campos, & Greif, 2003; Jimerson, Renshaw, Stewart, Hart, & O’Malley, 2009) . Student engagement has been identified as a primary variable in understanding dropout, particularly as a gradual process operating in a student’s life and influencing that final decision to withdraw (Jimerson et al., 2009) . Numerous studies have linked student engagement with improved academic performance and it has repeatedly demonstrated to be a robust predictor of achievement and behavior in the schools (Appleton, Christenson, & Furlong, 2008; Shernoff & Schmidt, 2008) . It has also been correlated with both health compromising (e.g., substance abuse, depression, suicidality, aggression, early sexual activity) and health promoting (e.g., exercise, nutrition, safe sex activities) behaviors (Carter, McGee, Taylor, & Williams, 2007) . As a result of its demonstrated relationships with a variety of outcomes, it is postulated that an understanding of student engagement might help educators prevent deleterious outcomes and promote positive ones for at-risk students. Student engagement is a construct that resonates with most consumers of education, including students and parents (Appleton, Christenson, & Furlong, 2008) and presents an attractive focus for researchers and educators, in that compared to other predictors of academic success that are static (e.g., socioeconomic status [SES], ethnicity), it is believed to be a malleable characteristic and therefore a more appropriate focus for interventions (e.g., Christenson, Sinclair, Lehr, & Godber, 2001) . In addition, both the individual and the environment shape a student’s level of engagement, thus, there are many factors in the school environment (e.g. interpersonal relationships, recognition) that may enhance it (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004) . Indeed, researchers have shown that effective interventions to promote student engagement and motivation also enhance the probability of high school completion (Reschly, Appleton, & Christenson, 2007) . For these reasons it can be viewed as an asset associated with positive student outcomes (Furlong et al., 2003)

FAQs

What is the main focus of the study described in the text?

The study examines the psychometric properties of the Student Engagement in Schools Questionnaire (SESQ) and the Teacher Engagement Report Form (TERF-N) related to student engagement.

How do the results describe the reliability of SESQ and TERF-N?

Both the SESQ and the TERF-N demonstrate good internal consistency.

What factor-structure pattern is reported for SESQ and TERF-N?

The SESQ aligns with a five-factor model, while the TERF-N does not fit a conceptual three-factor model and instead loads on a single General Engagement factor.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by OmBimo