1

Student self-assessment: why do they do it?

Z. YAN ET AL.

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

[AQ0]

Zi Yana[AQ6] Gavin T. L. Brownb John C. K. Leea X.-L. Qiua

a. Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, P. R. China;

[AQ1]
b. University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

[AQ2]
CONTACT Zi Yan zyan@[Link] Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The Education University of Hong Kong, 10 Lo Ping
Road, Tai Po New Town, Hong Kong, P. R. China[AQ3]
Received: 2019-02-26
Accepted: 2019-09-20

ABSTRACT
This study explores factors that predict students’ self-assessment intentions and practices using a framework based on the Theo-
ry of Planned Behaviour (TPB). A total of 1425 Hong Kong students (Primary 4 to Secondary 3) participated in this study. Students’
intentions and practices pertaining to self-assessment and the predictors of their intentions and practices were assessed with 11
self-report scales aligned to the TPB constructs. The psychometric properties of scales were examined with Rasch analysis and
the relations among the variables were investigated with path analysis based on Rasch-calibrated person measures. The results
showed that attitude, subjective norms, self-efficacy, and perceived controllability were statistically significant predictors on in-
tention to self-assess, while self-efficacy and intention had significant influence on self-assessment practice. Psychological safety
was also found to have relatively weak but significant impact on both self-assessment intention and practice. This study lays a
foundation for future investigations on how to promote meaningful self-assessment behaviour which is crucial for self-regulated
and life-long learning.

Keywords: Self-assessment ; predictor ; theory of planned behaviour ; Rasch measurement

FUNDING
Research Grants Council of Hong KongEDUHKThis work was supported by a General Research Fund (GRF) from the Research
Grants Council of Hong Kong [Project No.: EDUHK 18605715].

Introduction
Student self-assessment is one of the core skills of self-regulated learning and life-long learning (Panadero & Alonso-
Tapia, 2013; Yan, 2019). Self-assessing one’s own learning process and outcomes can increase metacognition, i.e.
awareness of one’s own learning or thinking process (Siegesmund, 2016). From a pedagogical perspective, effective
learning can only occur when students have a realistic sense of their own performance so that they can direct their
further learning on the critical aspects of their learning needs (Baas, Castelijns, Vermeulen, Martens, & Segers, 2015;
Boud, Lawson, & Thompson, 2013). Numerous empirical studies have demonstrated that self-assessment has positive
effects on academic performance (Brown & Harris, 2013; Ibabe & Jauregizar, 2010; Panadero, Alonso-Tapia, & An‐
tonio, 2012), learning autonomy (Andrade & Du, 2007; Cassidy, 2007), commitment and engagement with learning
(Brown & Harris, 2013), and academic self-efficacy (Kissling & O’Donnell, 2015).

© Copyrights 2019
 In practice, self-assessment is used for both formative and summative purposes (Panadero, Brown, & Strijbos,
2016). However, it appears more promising to keep self-assessment formative in enacting its merits in supporting
student learning due to the substantial concerns about the accuracy of self-assessment for summative purposes
(Brown, Andrade, & Chen, 2015; Yan & Brown, 2017). Compared with other teacher-directed formative assessment
methods that are largely hindered by big class sizes and increasing teaching workloads, self-assessment has advantag‐
es because it is less likely to be influenced by such practical and external constraints. As long as students have inten‐
tions and appropriate skills, self-assessment could be undertaken even in big classes without excessively increasing
teaching loads. This phenomenon could be described with the famous Chinese saying ‘授人以魚不如授人以漁
(Teaching how to fish is better than giving a fish)’. Giving a fish (giving feedback through teacher-directed formative
assessment) can only solve problems at hand, but teaching students how to fish (i.e. equipping them with the will and
skill of self-assessment) is potentially a powerful long-term and sustainable solution. In this sense, self-assessment
should be regarded as a learning strategy rather than as a substitute for other types of evaluative or summative assess‐
ment (Boud, 1999; Brown & Harris, 2014; Panadero & Alonso-Tapia, 2013; Yan, 2019). Therefore, self-assessment
is appealing as a lever in fulfilling an important aim of current international education reforms (i.e. the development
of self-regulated and life-long learners).
Despite the important role of self-assessment in education, there is relatively little research focusing on students’
intentions to conduct self-assessment and factors that influence students’ intentions and practices pertaining to self-
assessment. This situation may have arisen because student self-assessment is normally teacher-directed. That is,
when and how to conduct self-assessment are largely determined by teachers rather students themselves. However, if
students are expected to be agentic and autonomous, they ought to be carrying out self-assessment for their own cau‐
ses and under their own control. The lack of understanding of the potential facilitators and impediments of self-as‐
sessment might hinder the benefits of self-assessment being enacted and maximised. The present study aimed to fill
this research gap by exploring factors that predict students’ intentions and practices pertaining to self-assessment in
an extended framework of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB).

Self-assessment process and actions

Different conceptualisations of self-assessment exist in literature. Panadero et al. (2016) summarised the major ty‐
pologies of self-assessment and concluded that there was no consensus as to what is the ‘standard self-assessment’.
Yan (2016, 2018b) categorised the conceptualisations of self-assessment into three major groups: (1) self-assessment
is understood as a personal ability for evaluating one’s own knowledge, skills or performance; (2) self-assessment is
regarded as an alternative assessment serving summative purposes; and (3) self-assessment is used as a learning strat‐
egy or process aiming for promoting productive learning. From a pedagogical perspective, self-assessment should be
regarded as a process that involves identifying the characteristics of one’s own work and determining the value or
merit of that work (Brown & Harris, 2013); a process that can be seen as evaluative judgment (Tai, Ajjawi, Boud,
Dawson, & Panadero, 2018).
Some researchers have attempted to operationalise self-assessment as a process (e.g. Fastré, van der Klink, Sluijs‐
mans, & van Merriënboer, 2012; McMillan & Hearn, 2008; Sargeant et al., 2010), but insights into the ‘black box’ of
inner processes in self-assessment are still rare. A recent update in this field is the cyclical process model of self-
assessment proposed by Yan and Brown (2017). In their model, when students self-assess they first determine what
appropriate assessment criteria apply to the learning phenomenon. After that, students will seek feedback about the
quality of their performance, if they cannot readily compose a self-assessment with the knowledge and reasons that
they have to hand. The sources of feedback can be external (i.e. from past tests, text books, comments from teacher,
peers, or parents) and/or from internal resources (e.g. emotions, physical sensations, and internal states). External
feedback could be obtained by inquiry and monitoring approaches. Students can ask for (i.e. inquire) feedback direct‐
ly from relevant people (e.g. teachers, peers, parents) or interact with (i.e. monitoring) learning evidence (e.g. past
tests, reference books) for feedback sources. With the support of feedback, students then reflect on the quality of their
learning processes and products. This allows them to identify the strengths and weaknesses of their work. Pedagogi‐
cally, such self-assessment is done for the purpose of improvement, rather than as a terminal or summative evalua‐
tion. These processes lead to an initial self-assessment judgment which is then subjected to continuous calibration as
stakeholders react to the reasons given in light of the work products or processes they can observe. Yan and Brown's

© Copyrights 2018
(2017) model explicitly identified the concrete actions students commonly conduct and how they do so within self-
assessment. Therefore, this model makes it possible to investigate the inner processes of students’ self-assessment.

Predictors of self-assessment practice

Self-assessment is, by its nature, a personal endeavour which that requires volitional effort and commitment.
Therefore, it is important to identify the factors which might influence or predict self-assessment. Previous reviews
(e.g. Brown & Harris, 2013) have identified some aspects that facilitate self-assessment; for example, clear assess‐
ment criteria, training, and practice in self-assessment. However, very limited information is available about the psy‐
chological attributes (e.g. attitudinal or affective factors) and the relationships of these predictors within self-assess‐
ment.
As self-assessment is a volitional behaviour over which students have control, the Theory of Planned Behaviour
(TPB) (Ajzen, 1991) from the field of social psychology appears an appropriate theoretical framework to investigate
its predictors. TPB outlines relationships among five components including attitudes, subjective norms, perceived be‐
havioural control, intentionality, and behaviours around a phenomenon. An individual’s intention to enact a particular
behaviour is determined by three inter-correlated factors: (1) attitudes (the cognitive evaluation and overall positive
or negative evaluation toward a behaviour), (2) subjective norms (the social norms that influence an individual to‐
ward or away from a behaviour), and (3) perceived behavioural control (the extent to which the individual perceives
his/her ability to control the implementation of a behaviour). In general, those with favourable attitudes, positive sub‐
jective norms, and high levels of perceived behavioural control will be more likely to exhibit an intention to perform
that behaviour. Once an intention is formed, it, along with the degree of perceived behavioural control will directly
influence the individual’s actual behaviour.
TPB has been successfully applied to diverse behaviours in western settings (Armitage & Conner, 2001; Burrus &
Moore, 2016; Hagger, Sultan, Hardcastle, & Chatzisarantis, 2015), as well as in the Hong Kong context (Mok & Lee,
2013; Yan & Cheng, 2015; Yan & Sin, 2014, 2015). Although TPB appears to be a generally appropriate framework,
its comprehensiveness has been questioned because some researchers report that TPB provides a better explanation of
intention than behaviour (Stanec, 2009; Yan & Cheng, 2015; Yan & Sin, 2014). Sometimes there are discrepancies
between intention and actual behaviour (Fife-Schaw, Sheeran, & Norman, 2007). Ajzen (1991) admitted that the TPB
framework remains open for inclusion of additional factors that may contribute to a better explanation of particular
intentions and behaviours. For example, Yan and Cheng (2015) reported that the TPB-based model explained teach‐
ers’ formative assessment intentions well, but not their practices. The additional elements included in the TPB frame‐
work to explain behaviour under investigation has have varied in different studies, including desire (Perugini & Ba‐
gozzi, 2001) and moral norms and anticipated affect (Rivis, Sheeran, & Armitage, 2009). Usually, the additional fac‐
tors have close relationships with the target behaviour but were not part of the original TPB framework.
Empirical studies have demonstrated that psychological safety (i.e. a belief that it is safe to take the interpersonal
risk in a group of people) had a significant impact on intention and practice pertaining to learning behaviour (Ed‐
mondson, 1999; Van Gennip, Segers, & Tillema, 2009, 2010). For example, psychological safety was found to signif‐
icantly influence university students’ intentions to share knowledge in virtual communities (Zhan, Fang, Wei, &
Chen, 2010) and learning behaviours undertaken by improvement project teams in hospital intensive care units
(Tucker, Nembhard, & Edmondson, 2007). Van Gennip et al. (2010) reported that psychological safety had positive
impact on the learning effect of peer assessment since people with high psychological safety are likely to interpret
differences in viewpoints as opportunities to frame a problem rather than disagreements.
In classroom learning contexts, self-assessments are often exposed to classmates (e.g. traffic lights; Harris &
Brown, 2018) or to the teacher (Cowie, 2009). It is possible that students may provide depressed self-assessment
judgments to avoid being labelled as egotistical (Brooks, 2002) or they may give elevated self-assessments for fear of
being shamed (Harris & Brown, 2013). In such a case, psychological safety matters. Students need to feel that it is
safe in terms of interpersonal relations with peers or the teacher to indicate the truth of their own work (e.g. I don’t
understand this work) or to give weak reasons for their judgment (e.g. I worked hard) (Harris & Brown, 2013). Con‐
sequently, students’ perceptions of psychological safety might be a crucial additional factor in determining students’
self-assessment intentions and practices (Andrade & Brown, 2016). It may be that perceptions of psychological safety
together with the subjective norms (i.e. perceived social pressure to perform or not perform the target behavior) deter‐
mine how a self-assessment is formulated or expressed.

© Copyrights 2018
 Therefore, the framework of TPB was extended by adding an additional component, psychological safety, in the
present study (see Figure 1). From TPB, student attitudes toward self-assessment (i.e. affective, AAT; and instrumen‐
tal, IAT) and their sense of subjective norms (SNS) were treated as predictors of intention (INT) to self-assess. Addi‐
tionally, perceived behavioural control (i.e. controllability, CON; and self-efficacy, SEF) and psychological safety
(PSY) predicted both intention to self-assess and self-assessment practices. This means intention acted as a partially
mediated factor intervening between student attitudes and sense of norms and actual practices. Self-assessment prac‐
tices were formulated as four correlated actions covering the whole process implied by self-assessment; that is, seek‐
ing external feedback through monitoring (SEFM) and through inquiry (SEFI), from internal sources (SIF), and self-
reflection (SER). To the extent that any of these self-assessment actions require interacting with the teacher or class‐
mates, it is legitimate to expect some potential impact of psychological safety.
Figure 1. The extended model based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour.

The present study

The present study explored the predictors of students’ self-assessment intentions and practices through a self-re‐
ported survey study. Figure 1, shows the hypothesised relationships:
H1: students’ intentions to conduct self-assessment can be predicted by their attitude, subjective norms, perceived
behavioural control, and psychological safety regarding self-assessment
H2: students’ self-assessment practices can be predicted by their intentions, perceived behavioural control, and
psychological safety regarding self-assessment.

Another important issue addressed in this paper was the need to validate recently developed measurement scales
(i.e. Self-assessment Practice Scale, SaPS; Yan, 2018b) for self-assessment. The present study provides further evi‐
dence from an independent sample for the new scale.

Methods
Participants
A total of 1425 students (52% male) from 29 schools in Hong Kong were surveyed. Participants were normally
aged between 9 and 15 years and enrolled in the final 3 years of primary schooling (Primary 4 to Primary 6) and the
first 3 years of secondary schooling (Secondary 1 to Secondary 3) (Table 1). This study focused on students in the
upper primary and lower secondary levels because (1) Primary 1–3 students may have difficulty in understanding the
questionnaire items; and (2) secondary schools in Hong Kong are usually reluctant to release Secondary 4–6 students

© Copyrights 2018
for research projects as they are facing the pressure of high-stakes examinations. It is worth noting that, in Hong
Kong, self-assessment is a regular learning practice for Primary 4 to Secondary 3. For example, upon completing
each learning unit, some schools require students to fill in a self-assessment worksheet. Through the worksheet, stu‐
dents are guided to reflect their gains, areas that need further work, and the possible ways for improvement.

Table 1. Demographics of participants.

Frequency Percentage (%)

School sector
Primary 658 46.2
Secondary 767 53.8
Year level
Primary 4 191 13.4
Primary 5 239 16.8
Primary 6 228 16.0
Secondary 1 248 17.4
Secondary 2 214 15.0
Secondary 3 305 21.4
Gender
Male 737 51.7
Female 681 47.8
Missing 7 0.5
n 1425 100.0

Instruments
TPB requires all constructs under investigation (e.g. attitude, subjective norms, etc.) to be compatible with the tar‐
get behaviour (Ajzen, 2002), therefore it is a normal practice to use a specific set of scales for investigating a specific
target behaviour. The scale development procedure and item crafting followed Ajzen’s (2002) principles for TPB
scale construction. The items were mostly modified from previous TPB scales on assessment (e.g. the Conceptions
and Practices of Formative Assessment Questionnaire; Yan & Cheng, 2015) and the Conceptions of School-based
Assessment Questionnaire; Yan, 2014). The new scales were subjected to intensive review by invited experts in the
field of psychometrics and educational assessment and front-line teachers who had good understanding of students’
self-assessment. The reviewers examined the item contents, ambiguities, anomalies, and possible bias in item word‐
ing. All items were administered in traditional Chinese script and students rated each item on a 6-point scale balanced
ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree).
Self-assessment practices
The behaviour component was assessed with the SaPS (Yan, 2018b) which contains 20 items grouped into four
subscales assessing four self-assessment actions including seeking external feedback through monitoring (SEFM) (5
items), seeking external feedback through inquiry (SEFI) (4 items), seeking internal feedback (SIF) (4 items) and
self-reflection (SER) (7 items). These four actions correspond to two out of three components in Yan and Brown's
(2017) self-assessment model including self-directed feedback seeking (SEFM, SEFI and SIF) and self-reflection
(SER). The validation study found that the SaPS was a measure with satisfactory psychometric properties, having
sufficiently robust internal estimates of reliability (i.e. Cronbach’s α for the four subscales were 0.85, 0.84, 0.79, and
0.90, respectively). The EAP/PV reliabilities, obtained by dividing the variance of the individual expected a posteri‐
ori ability estimates by the estimated total variance of the latent ability (Wu, Adams, Wilson, & Haldane, 2007) were
0.88, 0.88, 0.80, and 0.90 respectively, indicating strong scale characteristics (Yan, 2018b).
Self-assessment TPB factors

© Copyrights 2018
 For assessing the four traditional TPB components, six scales were developed. The AAT scale (7 items) gauged
students’ feelings or emotions aroused by self-assessment (e.g. Self-assessment is interesting). The IAT scale (12
items) examined students’ appraisals of the consequences or purpose of self-assessment (e.g. Self-assessment helps
me to understand my strengths and weaknesses). The SNS scale (7 items) tapped into the social norms by assessing
students’ perceptions of how important others’ regarded self-assessment (e.g. I believe my teachers want me to do
self-assessment). The CON scale (5 items) checked students’ beliefs about their control when conducting self-assess‐
ment (e.g. I decide which method of self-assessment to use). The SEF scale (5 items) examined students’ beliefs
about their self-efficacy in conducting self-assessment (e.g. I have enough knowledge to implement self-assessment).
The INT scale (6 items) investigates students’ intention or willingness to conduct self-assessment (e.g. I willingly
assess myself).
Psychological safety in self-assessment
The psychological safety scale (PSY) (8 items) was developed to assess whether students feel safe in both inter‐
personal (e.g. I feel uncomfortable if others know my self-assessment results) and personal aspects (e.g. It is a prob‐
lem to accept my self-assessment results if they are below my expectations.) of self-assessment.

Data analysis
To establish the validity of the designed scales, each scale was analysed using Rasch analysis (Rasch, 1960).
Rasch analysis converts the agreement ordinal rating scale onto a continuous interval scale which permits subsequent
parametric analysis (e.g. t-test, ANOVA or regression analysis). Rasch analysis examines scale quality by checking
the degree to which items in a scale reflect an underlying unidimensional latent construct; items with mean square
(MNSQ) fit statistics falling in the range between 0.6 and 1.4 were retained (Smith, 2004). To construct the unidi‐
mensionality metrics, the Rasch model adopts a ‘data fit the model’ approach that requires the empirical data to satis‐
fy a priori requirements essential for the purpose of fundamental measurement (Bond and Fox 2015). [AQ4]Rather
than relying on a point estimate of student location, Rasch modelling generates a range of plausible values to repre‐
sent the reasonable range of student endorsement of latent abilities.
Since all constructs under investigation were theoretically related, a multidimensional Rasch model, instead of the
conventional unidimensional Rasch model, was employed with these data. In a multidimensional Rasch model, each
subscale measures a unidimensional latent construct and all subscales are calibrated simultaneously with their corre‐
lations taken into account. The Rasch rating scale model (RSM) (Andrich, 1978) was applied and the computer pro‐
gram ConQuest (Wu et al., 2007) was used for the analyses. When the psychometric properties of the scales were
satisfactory, five sets of plausible values of the Rasch-calibrated person measures were obtained from ConQuest. This
produced a manifest scale score for each person for each scale. This treatment permits path analysis using Mplus
(Muthén & Muthén, 2017). While path analysis is normally associated with small sample studies, it is a legitimate
way to approach manifest score values derived from Rasch modeling as opposed to using full latent trait modeling
within structural equation modeling. Paths were created according to Figure 1 hypotheses.
As suggested (Fan & Sivo, 2007; Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008; Hu & Bentler, 1998), the model-data fit was
examined using the ratio of the χ2 statistic to degrees of freedom, the comparative fit index (CFI), the gamma hat
index, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardised root mean square residual
(SRMR). Generally, models need not be rejected if the χ2/df has p > .05, the CFI and gamma hat are >.90, and
RMSEA and SRMR are <.08. Considering that gender and school level were reported having significant influence on
students’ self-assessment in previous studies (e.g. Panadero, Jonsson, & Botella, 2017; Yan, 2018a), path analyses
with gender and school sector as the moderators on the relationships between intentions and the predictors were con‐
ducted in order to investigate whether the effect of attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control and psy‐
chological safety on students’ self-assessment practices via their intentions differ across gender and school sector
(primary vs. secondary).

Results
Psychometric properties of the scales

© Copyrights 2018
 Although the main purpose of this study is to explore factors that predict students’ self-assessment intentions and
practices, it is necessary to examine the scale quality at first as some of them were specifically developed for this
study. Before analysis, all negatively-worded items were reverse coded so that a higher score stands for a higher level
of latent traits (e.g. a more positive attitude, a higher level of self-efficacy, etc.). The results of Rasch analysis showed
that a total of 9 items (3 items from AAT and SNS, 1 item each from IAT, CON and PSY) had statistically significant
misfit. Not surprisingly, seven of the misfitting items were negatively-worded, which echoed previous findings that
negatively-worded items cause problems (e.g. Brown, 2004; Dodeen, 2015; Molina, Rodrigo, Losilla, & Vives,
2014). Given that the scales still had sufficient items with adequate coverage of contents for subsequent analysis, all
misfitting items were removed. Rasch analysis was re-conducted and the psychometric properties of the scales were
satisfactory for use with the sample in the present study. Specifically, as shown in Table 2, the person separation relia‐
bilities of the scales ranged between 0.76 and 0.93, indicating the items in each scale measured the target constructs
well.

Table 2. Number of items and reliabilities of the scales.

Scale Number of items Reliability

Original scale Final scale
Affective attitude (AAT) 7 4 0.88
Instrumental attitude (IAT) 12 11 0.93
Subjective norms (SNS) 7 4 0.77
Controllability (CON) 5 4 0.82
Self-efficacy (SEF) 5 5 0.84
Psychological safety (PSY) 8 7 0.84
Intention (INT) 6 6 0.90
Seeking external feedback through monitoring (SEFM) 5 5 0.83
Seeking external feedback through inquiry (SEFI) 4 4 0.83
Seeking internal feedback (SIF) 4 4 0.76
Self-reflection (SER) 7 7 0.87

The final scales with item difficulties, outfit and infit statistics, and thresholds are reported in Table A1. The item
difficulties ranged between −0.60 and 0.44 with very small standard error (between 0.03 and 0.04). All the retained
items had satisfactory fit and well-ordered threshold values. Table A2 reports the Wright map of item and person
location relationships. There is a good correspondence between student measures and item difficulties, suggesting
that the items thresholds within each scale provides satisfactory measurement for the participating students.

Descriptive statistics
Table 3 provides the means and standard deviations of Rasch-calibrated person measures for each scale and the
inter-correlations. Mean score values ranged from close to zero to as high as 0.89. It was found for the predictors,
students had the least agreement with PSY scale (0.02) and the most agreement for IAT (0.84); while for self-assess‐
ment practices, students had least agreement for SEFI (0.12) and most agreement for SER (0.89). All the latent traits
were positively and significantly correlated.

Table 3. Mean, standard deviation, and inter-correlations of person measures among scales.

Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. AAT
2. IAT 0.61*
3. SNS 0.65* 0.63*

© Copyrights 2018
Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
4. CON 0.61* 0.59* 0.53*
5. SEF 0.48* 0.50* 0.48* 0.51*
6. PSY 0.37* 0.36* 0.30* 0.45* 0.28*
7. INT 0.16* 0.18* 0.16* 0.19* 0.18* 0.23*
8. SEFM 0.58* 0.48* 0.46* 0.49* 0.38* 0.25* 0.14*
9. SEFI 0.52* 0.41* 0.43* 0.42* 0.35* 0.22* 0.16* 0.58*
10. SIF 0.35* 0.27* 0.25* 0.30* 0.24* 0.22* 0.21* 0.32* 0.34*
11. SER 0.63* 0.50* 0.46* 0.54* 0.42* 0.31* 0.14* 0.61* 0.55* 0.40*
M 0.18 0.84 0.46 0.44 0.55 0.02 0.69 0.49 0.12 0.52 0.89
SD 2.42 2.07 1.40 1.85 1.65 1.26 2.30 1.51 1.67 1.47 1.70

Note. AAT: affective attitude scale; IAT: instrumental attitude scale; SNS: subjective norms scale; CON: controllabili‐
ty scale; SEF: self-efficacy scale; PSY: psychological safety scale; INT: intention scale; SEFM: seeking external
feedback through monitoring; SEFI: seeking external feedback through inquiry; SIF: seeking internal feedback; SER:
self-reflection. *p < .05.

Primary analysis
The path model using the Rasch-calibrated measures as manifest variables had a satisfactory fit (χ2 = 377.99;
df = 16; χ2/df = 23.62, p = .000; CFI = 0.91; gamma hat = 0.98; RMSEA = 0.082; SRMR = 0.072). The standardised
regression coefficients are shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Path analysis based on the extended Theory of Planned Behaviour. Only significant paths are included in the figure. All
predictors are correlated but not shown in this figure to avoid a messy presentation. AAT: affective attitude scale; IAT: instrumen‐
tal attitude scale; SNS: subjective norms scale; CON: controllability scale; SEF: self-efficacy scale; PSY: psychological safety
scale; INT: intention scale; SEFM: seeking external feedback through monitoring; SEFI: seeking external feedback through inqui‐
ry; SIF: seeking internal feedback; SER: self-reflection. *p < .05; **p < .01.

It was found that all predictors included in the model demonstrated significant impacts on the formation of inten‐
tion. A further testing of the magnitude of the differences between the standardised parameter estimates of all predic‐
tors showed that the predicting power of instrumental attitude, affective attitudes, self-efficacy, and social norms on
intention were significantly stronger than that of psychological safety and controllability. Together these predictors
produced about 49% variance explained in the intention factor. The four self-assessment actions were strongly predic‐
ted by self-efficacy (mean regression weight = 0.36) and more moderately by intention (mean regression weight =

© Copyrights 2018
0.26). As indicated by the testing of the magnitude of the differences between the parameter estimates, the predicting
power of self-efficacy was significantly stronger than that of intention for seeking external feedback through monitor‐
ing and self-reflection, but not for seeking external feedback through inquiry and seeking internal feedback. In con‐
trast, controllability had no direct effect on self-assessment practices. The inter-correlations among the four self-as‐
sessment actions were weak to moderate (r = 0.26 to 0.56). The proportion of variance explained for the four self-
assessment actions ranged from 29 to 46%.
The possible moderating role of gender and school sector was examined by path analyses with gender and school
sector as the moderators on the relationships between intentions and the predictors. It was found that gender did not
have significant moderating effect on the relationships between students’ intentions and the predictors. In other
words, the effects of attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control and psychological safety on students’
self-assessment practices via their intentions did not vary across gender. School sector was found to have a significant
moderating effect on the path from subjective norms (−0.080, p < .01), self-efficacy (0.076, p < .05), and psychologi‐
cal safety (−0.043, p < .05) to students’ intentions. Since the analyses set the parameter estimates for primary students
as the baseline, these results mean that subjective norms and psychological safety had a stronger impact on intention
for primary students, while self-efficacy had a stronger impact on intention for secondary students.

Discussion
The present study investigated the predictors of students’ self-assessment intentions and practices under the frame‐
work of an extended theory of planned behaviour. The results generally supported the two proposed hypotheses; that
is, students’ intentions to conduct self-assessment can be predicted by their attitude, their subjective norms, their per‐
ceived behavioural control, and their sense of psychological safety regarding self-assessment (H1); and students’ self-
assessment practices can be predicted by their intentions, their perceived behavioural control, and their sense of psy‐
chological safety (H2).

Predictors of self-assessment intention

Among all the predictors of intention, instrumental attitude (IAT), affective attitude (AAT), self-efficacy (SEF),
and subjective norms (SNS) were relatively strong predictors; while psychological safety (PSY) and controllability
(CON) were relatively weak, but still significant, predictors. The crucial role of attitude in predicting behavioural in‐
tention echoes previous studies (Armitage & Conner, 2001; Cooke, Dahdah, Norman, & French, 2016). Instrumental
attitude was found most powerful in predicting intention to conduct self-assessment although the differences were
small. This replicates previous findings concerning the positive association of instrumental attitude with teacher in‐
tentions to administer formative assessment (Yan & Cheng, 2015) and school-based assessment (Yan, 2014). It ap‐
pears that, for both students and teachers, the formation of the assessment behavioural intentions is largely influenced
by the possible consequences associated with assessment practices. Nevertheless, the magnitudes of the prediction of
all factors were relatively small (all regression coefficients were less than 0.2). This was in line with the results in
Table 3 where all correlations with intention were small. It implies that the formation of self-assessment relies on the
synergy of a variety of factors, rather than one or two determinant predictors.
It was found that gender had no significant moderating effect on the model’s parameters. However, school sector
was a moderator with significant influence on the predicting power of some variables. Subjective norms and psycho‐
logical safety demonstrated a stronger impact in predicting intention to self-assess for primary students than for sec‐
ondary students. In contrast, self-efficacy had a stronger impact on intention to self-assess for secondary students than
for primary students. This finding has implications for instruction. Interventions attempting to promote student self-
assessment could be developed from two different perspectives. One targets external factors, such as developing a
supportive and safe learning environment that positively alters students’ perceived norms and psychological safety
within self-assessment. The other focuses on capacity building, such as enhancing students’ self-efficacy for self-as‐
sessment. Although both perspectives may be essentially effective, the impact is likely to vary across different popu‐
lations. The former might be more useful in primary classrooms while the latter may be more effective for secondary
students.

Predictors of self-assessment practice

© Copyrights 2018
 A unique feature of the present study is that it divided self-assessment practices into four actions (i.e. seeking ex‐
ternal feedback through monitoring, seeking external feedback through inquiry, seeking internal feedback, and self-
reflection), according to Yan and Brown's (2017) process model. Breaking down the self-assessment process into
concrete actions and using them as the unit of analysis makes it possible to develop students’ competence on of these
actions. Each step in the self-assessment process may have its own impact on the final self-assessment judgment and
students may prioritise different aspects of the process (Yan, 2016). Therefore, it is meaningful to identify predictors
of each self-assessment action and investigate whether there is differentiated predictive power of each predictor to
different self-assessment action. Contrary to expectations, each one of these self-assessment actions was predicted
more or less in the same way by self-efficacy, intentions, and psychological safety.
The greater influence of self-efficacy on self-assessment actions than intention does not correspond exactly to the
TPB that assumes that intention has a stronger influence on the behaviour than perceptions of control (Ajzen, 1991).
The direct measure of perceived behavioural control (i.e. controllability; CON) had a small, but statistically signifi‐
cant, impact on intention (INT) and had no significant impact on any of the self-assessment actions. This result corro‐
borated the claim made in review studies (e.g. Cooke et al., 2016; Trafimow, Sheeran, Conner, & Finlay, 2002) and
recent empirical studies (e.g. Brechan, 2016; Collins, Witkiewitz, & Larimer, 2011; Yan & Cheng, 2015) that con‐
trollability and self-efficacy were distinguishable constructs under the perceived behaviour control component of the
TPB, and that self-efficacy had greater predictive power than controllability in predicting both intention and actual
behaviour. Collins et al. (2011) have further argued that controllability might be less useful in predicting volitional
behaviours (e.g. self-assessment) when internal determinants (e.g. confidence to implement self-assessment) influ‐
ence a behaviour more than external factors (e.g. guidance to implement self-assessment). In this adapted model, self-
efficacy was presumed to be legitimately an expression of perceived control, because self-efficacy has to do with con‐
fidence to perform a specific behaviour. The current results, however, show that confidence to perform self-assess‐
ment may be quite a different construct than perceptions of control. All students may have a sense of control, but
having confidence in ability to perform the task may reflect a quite different psychological competence.
An important question thus arises with regard to in which way students’ self-efficacy for self-assessment can be
developed. Considerations on this issue may be necessary for instructional programmes that integrate self-assessment
as an important curricular element. Previous studies demonstrated that self-efficacy can be developed and enhanced
(Bandura, 1997; Jackson, 2002; van Dinther, Dochy, & Segers, 2011). For example, Bandura (1997) argued that self-
efficacy arises from active mastery, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological/affective states. Ac‐
cordingly, it is possible to enhance students’ capacity and self-efficacy in making realistic self-assessments from dif‐
ferent ways. For instance, teacher feedback on the validity of student self-assessments could be a verbal persuasion
that is likely to enhance students’ self-efficacy (Brown & Harris, 2014). With appropriate guidelines, having students
predict their performance (e.g. as an act of judgment of learning; Baars, Vink, Van Gog, de Bruin, & Paas, 2014) on a
concrete task may also teach students through active mastery that their self-assessments are realistic. Teacher demon‐
strations of self-assessment actions on concrete and easy to follow tasks could provide vicarious experiences for
building the capacity and confidence to realistically self-assess. The level of difficulty of tasks may need to be con‐
sidered as students may gain confidence in resolving tasks of appropriate level of academic and emotional challenge.
Demonstrations by somewhat more experienced peers may also be effective (Bandura, 1997). Empirical studies
(Troop, Wallar, & Aspenlieder, 2015; Van Rooij, Jansen, & Van de Grift, 2017) have indicated that practice leads to
increased self-efficacy because it increases familiarity with a particular behaviour. As Panadero et al. (2016) advoca‐
ted in their discussion of a ‘developmental approach to self-assessment’, students need to have multiple opportunities
to develop the skill of realistically evaluating their own work so that they can gain confidence in their capacity.
Therefore, self-assessment activity should be regarded as routine in learning and instruction so that students have op‐
portunity to engage in veridical or realistic self-assessment.
Another innovation of the present study is that it applied an extension of the TPB by adding psychological safety
as a predictor of intention and behaviour regarding self-assessment. The results showed that psychological safety
(PSY) had small but significant impact on all self-assessment actions. On one hand, psychological safety’s impact on
seeking external feedback means that it is an important interpersonal variable, as specified in peer assessment litera‐
ture (e.g. Cheng & Tsai, 2012; Rotsaert, Panadero, Estrada, & Schellens, 2017). On the other hand, its impact on
internal feedback seeking indicates that psychological safety is also an intra-personal variable. This is not surprising
consider given that internally generated feedback is closely related to affective [AQ7]reactions (Butler & Winne,

© Copyrights 2018
1995). A safe and supportive learning environment may be necessary for self-assessment because such an environ‐
ment encourages students to be honest about their own deficiencies or to take interpersonal risks, such as seeking
feedback from other people (Brown & Harris, 2013). More importantly, a sense of internal psychological safety is
crucial to protect students’ self-esteem so that students can interpret unsatisfying self-assessment results as opportuni‐
ties to learn rather than a proof of failure. Such internal psychological safety should be built on a firm shared class‐
room belief in the formative use of self-assessment in which self-assessment is viewed as a learning strategy rather
than an assessment method (Harris & Brown, 2018). This belief will also encourage students to pursue realistic and
verdict self-assessment so as to learn as much as possible.
In Hong Kong, however, the powerful role formal summative evaluations play suggests that an improvement-ori‐
ented approach to self-assessment may be subverted by the dominant view of assessment as a summative evaluation
(Kennedy, Chan, & Fok, 2011). Such an approach might threaten the validity and integrity of self-assessment practi‐
ces. Therefore, consideration of psychological safety is especially important in the context of Hong Kong. The inclu‐
sion of psychological safety within the TPB framework shows that Hong Kong school students are like students in
other K-12 studies who were inclined to dissemble in self-assessments if they did not perceive psychological safety
(Cowie, 2009; Harris & Brown, 2013; Raider-Roth, 2005; Ross, Rolheiser, & Hogaboam-Gray, 2002).

Implications for future research

While this study has provided original insights into the factors influencing students’ self-assessment intentions and
practices, further development in this line of research is necessary. The study relied on self-report data and, therefore,
the results might be vulnerable to the mono-method bias and response bias (e.g. inaccurate memory and social desira‐
bility). For self-assessment practices, future studies could consider using direct measures (e.g. observations) to re‐
place or substantiate self-reports. Although it is challenging to design objective or direct measures for attitude, inten‐
tion, and inner processes regarding self-assessment, future research should employ innovative methods (e.g. digital
traces, eye-tracking, etc.) to minimise the limitations associated with self-report data.
Given the important role self-efficacy plays in this model and the interaction of self-efficacy with actual demon‐
strated competence, it was unfortunate that a verifiable measure of actual competence was not available. Future stud‐
ies would do well to obtain a reliable academic proficiency score as a control variable; it might be that the relations
seen here will be different according to achievement. Furthermore, attention should be paid to the specificity of self-
efficacy—it matters in which domain (e.g. mathematics vs. reading) one assesses one’s ability. Hence, the academic
proficiency measure and the domain in which the self-assessment occurs have to be aligned.
The Yan and Brown’s model used in this study was developed in education but with teacher education students.
This study seems to suggest that the statistical properties of that model hold with students in primary and secondary
school. Nonetheless, it would be good to carry out exploratory studies with younger students to see how they formu‐
late a self-assessment. It is likely they could follow a similar model because of the constraints of an outcome-based
curriculum. It could be interesting to examine preschool students to ascertain how they formulate opinions about the
quality of their learning or performances.
Differentiation of self-assessment practice into four actions brings in-depth insights into the self-assessment proc‐
ess, but its side effect is, to some extent, a violation of the requirement of specificity in the TPB (i.e. all components
under investigation should refer to the same target behaviour; Ajzen, 2002). The self-assessment behaviour compo‐
nent was broken into four actions, but the other components referred to a general self-assessment practice. Based on
the general picture provided by the present study, future research may narrow the scope and investigate each of the
self-assessment actions individually within a TPB framework.
Another meaningful direction is to look for strategies to enhance the factors, identified in the present study, that
promote self-assessment actions. Experimental studies with well-designed interventions will be particularly meaning‐
ful to find out whether and to what extent the particular self-assessment actions can be promoted. Furthermore, cul‐
tural factors should never be neglected in understanding self-assessment behaviour which is a human and internal
psychological process. Cultural variations have been shown to have impact on factors relevant to self-assessment
such as source of self-efficacy belief (Hendricks, 2016) and psychological safety in assessment (Brown & Harris,
2013). The model and hypotheses could be further tested in different cultural contexts.

© Copyrights 2018
 Finally, the present study adopted a two-step analytical method which combined the Rasch model (with ConQuest)
and path analysis (with Mplus). Although both Rasch analysis and structural equation modelling have been widely
used in educational research, only a few studies have combined these methods in a meaningful context (e.g. Mok,
Kennedy, & Zhu, 2013; Su & Wang, 2010; Yan & Cheng, 2015). In present study, the multidimensional Rasch analy‐
sis was applied instead of confirmatory factor analysis in conventional structural equation modelling due to the op‐
portunities Rasch analysis provides in dealing with non-interval categorical raw scores and multiple subtests. In addi‐
tion, utilising a set of plausible values instead of a single estimate of ability takes the measurement error of the ability
estimate into account, leading to more accurate standard error of the coefficients in path analysis. Thus, taking ad‐
vantage of both the Rasch model and path analysis or structural equation modeling warrants more discussion and ap‐
plication in the future.

Conclusions
In summary, the findings of the present study provide important insights for learning and instruction with regard to
the factors that influence student self-assessment intentionality and behaviour. The extended TPB appears a useful
framework for understanding self-assessment behaviour and self-efficacy plays the most important role in this frame‐
work. The present study lays a foundation for future investigations on how to promote meaningful self-assessment
behaviour.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2),
179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Ajzen, I. (2002). Constructing a TpB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Retrieved from
[Link]
Andrade, H., & Du, Y. (2007). Student responses to criteria-referenced self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 32(2), 159–181. doi:10.1080/02602930600801928
Andrade, H. L., & Brown, G. T. L. (2016). Student self-assessment in the classroom. In G. T. L. Brown and L. R.
Harris (Eds.), Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 319–334). New York, NY: Routledge.
Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43(4), 561–573.
doi:10.1007/BF02293814
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta‐analytic review. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471–499. doi:10.1348/014466601164939
Baars, M., Vink, S., Van Gog, T., de Bruin, A., & Paas, F. (2014). Effects of training self-assessment and using as‐
sessment standards on retrospective and prospective monitoring of problem solving. Learning and Instruction, 33,
92–107. doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.04.004
Baas, D., Castelijns, J., Vermeulen, M., Martens, R., & Segers, M. (2015). The relation between Assessment for
Learning and elementary students’ cognitive and metacognitive strategy use. British Journal of Educational Psychol‐
ogy, 85(1), 33–46. doi:10.1111/bjep.12058
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Boud, [AQ5]D. (1995). Enhancing learning through self-assessment. London, UK: Kogan Page.
Boud, D. (1999). Avoiding the traps: Seeking good practice in the use of self-assessment and reflection in professio‐
nal courses. Social Work Education, 18(2), 121–132. doi:10.1080/02615479911220131
Boud, D., Lawson, R., & Thompson, D. G. (2013). Does student engagement in self-assessment calibrate their judge‐
ment over time? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(8), 941–956. doi:10.1080/02602938.2013.769198

© Copyrights 2018
Brechan, I. (2016). Travel intention: Relative value of transport alternatives. Human Affairs, 26(4), 390–399.
doi:10.1515/humaff-2016-0033
Brooks, V. (2002). Assessment in secondary schools: The new teacher’s guide to monitoring, assessment, recording,
reporting and accountability. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Brown, G. T. L. (2004). Measuring attitude with positively packed self-report ratings: Comparison of agreement and
frequency scales. Psychological Reports, 94(3), 1015–1024. doi:10.2466/pr0.94.3.1015-1024
Brown, G. T. L., Andrade, H., & Chen, F. (2015). Accuracy in student self-assessment: Directions and cautions for
research. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(4), 444–457.
doi:10.1080/0969594X.2014.996523
Brown, G. T. L., & Harris, L. R. (2013). Student self-assessment. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of
research on classroom assessment (pp. 367–393). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brown, G. T. L., & Harris, L. R. (2014). The future of self-assessment in classroom practice: Reframing self-assess‐
ment as a core competency. Frontline Learning Research, 3(1), 22–30. doi:10.14786/flr.v2i1.24
Burrus, J., & Moore, R. (2016). The incremental validity of beliefs and attitudes for predicting mathematics achieve‐
ment. Learning and Individual Differences, 50, 246–251. doi:10.1016/[Link].2016.08.019
Cassidy, S. (2007). Assessing ‘inexperienced’ students’ ability to self-assess: Exploring links with learning style and
academic personal control. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(3), 313–330.
doi:10.1080/02602930600896704
Cheng, K.-H., & Tsai, C.-C. (2012). Students’ interpersonal perspectives on, conceptions of and approaches to learn‐
ing in online peer assessment. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(4), 599–618. doi:10.14742/
ajet.830
Collins, S. E., Witkiewitz, K., & Larimer, M. E. (2011). The theory of planned behavior as a predictor of growth in
risky college drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 72(2), 322–332. doi:10.15288/jsad.2011.72.322
Cooke, R., Dahdah, M., Norman, P., & French, D. P. (2016). How well does the theory of planned behaviour predict
alcohol consumption? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review, 10(2), 148–167.
doi:10.1080/17437199.2014.947547
Cowie, B. (2009). My teacher and my friends helped me learn: Student perceptions and experiences of classroom
assessment. In D. M. McInerney, G. T. L. Brown, & G. A. D. Liem (Eds.), Student perspectives on assessment: What
students can tell us about assessment for learning (pp. 85–105). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Dodeen, H. (2015). The effects of positively and negatively worded items on the factor structure of the UCLA Lone‐
liness Scale. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(3), 259–267. doi:10.1177/0734282914548325
Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quar‐
terly, 44(2), 350–383. doi:10.2307/2666999
Fan, X., & Sivo, S. A. (2007). Sensitivity of fit indices to model misspecification and model types. Multivariate Be‐
havioral Research, 42(3), 509–529. doi:10.1080/00273170701382864
Fastré, G. M. J., van der Klink, M. R., Sluijsmans, D., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2012). Drawing students’ atten‐
tion to relevant assessment criteria: Effects on self-assessment skills and performance. Journal of Vocational Educa‐
tion & Training, 64(2), 185–198. doi:10.1080/13636820.2011.630537
Fife-Schaw, C., Sheeran, P., & Norman, P. (2007). Simulating behaviour change interventions based on the theory of
planned behaviour: Impacts on intention and action. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46(1), 43–68.
Hagger, M. S., Sultan, S., Hardcastle, S. J., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2015). Perceived autonomy support and au‐
tonomous motivation toward mathematics activities in educational and out-of-school contexts is related to mathemat‐
ics homework behavior and attainment. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 111–123. doi:10.1016/
[Link].2014.12.002

© Copyrights 2018
Harris, L. R., & Brown, G. T. L. (2013). Opportunities and obstacles to consider when using peer- and self-assess‐
ment to improve student learning: Case studies into teachers’ implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36,
101–111. doi:10.1016/[Link].2013.07.008
Harris, L. R., & Brown, G. T. L. (2018). Using self-assessment to improve student learning. New York, NY: Rout‐
ledge.
Hendricks, K. S. (2016). The sources of self-efficacy: Educational research and implications for music. Update: Ap‐
plications of Research in Music Education, 35(1), 32–38. doi:10.1177/8755123315576535
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit.
Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized
model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. doi:10.1037//1082-989X.3.4.424
Ibabe, I., & Jauregizar, J. (2010). Online self-assessment with feedback and metacognitive knowledge. Higher Edu‐
cation, 59(2), 243–258. doi:10.1007/s10734-009-9245-6
Jackson, J. W. (2002). Enhancing self-efficacy and learning performance. The Journal of Experimental Education,
70(3), 243–254. doi:10.1080/00220970209599508
Kennedy, K. J., Chan, J. K. S., & Fok, P. K. (2011). Holding policy-makers to account: Exploring ‘soft’ and ‘hard’
policy and the implications for curriculum reform. London Review of Education, 9(1), 41–54.
doi:10.1080/14748460.2011.550433
Kissling, E. M., & O’Donnell, M. E. (2015). Increasing language awareness and self-efficacy of FL students using
self-assessment and the ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Language Awareness, 24(4), 283–302.
doi:10.1080/09658416.2015.1099659
Linacre, [AQ8]J. M. (2002). Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3(1),
85–106.
McMillan, J. H., & Hearn, J. (2008). Student self-assessment: The key to stronger student motivation and higher ach‐
ievement. Educational Horizons, 87(1), 40–49.
Mislevy, R. J., [AQ9]Beaton, A. E., Kaplan, B., & Sheehan, K. M. (1992). Estimating population characteristics from
sparse matrix samples of item responses. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29(2), 133–161. doi:10.1111/
j.1745-3984.1992.tb00371.x
Mok, M. M. C., Kennedy, K. J., & Zhu, J. (2013). Adolescents’ civic engagement: A study of five Asian societies. In
G. A. D. Liem, & A. Bernardo (Eds.), Advancing cross-cultural perspectives on educational psychology: A Fes‐
tschrift for Dennis McInerney (pp. 168–192). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Mok, V., & Lee, A. Y. K. (2013). A case study on application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: Predicting physi‐
cal activity of adolescents in Hong Kong. Journal of Community Medicine & Health Education, 3(5), 231–236.
doi:10.4172/2161-0711.1000231
Molina, J. G., Rodrigo, M. F., Losilla, J.-M., & Vives, J. (2014). Wording effects and the factor structure of the 12-
item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). Psychological Assessment, 26(3), 1031–1037. doi:10.1037/a0036472
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus user’s guide (Version 8.0) [Computer software and manual]. Los An‐
geles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Organisation for [AQ10]Economic Co-operation and Development & Programme for International Student Assess‐
ment. (2017). PISA 2015 technical report. Paris, France: OECD.
Panadero, E., & Alonso-Tapia, J. (2013). Self-assessment: Theoretical and practical connotations. When it happens,
how is it acquired and what to do to develop it in our students. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psy‐
chology, 11(2), 551–576.

© Copyrights 2018
Panadero, E., Alonso-Tapia, J., & Antonio, H. J. (2012). Rubrics and self-assessment scripts effects on self-regula‐
tion, learning and self-efficacy in secondary education. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(6), 806–813.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2012.04.007
Panadero, E., Brown, G. T., & Strijbos, J. W. (2016). The future of student self-assessment: A review of known un‐
knowns and potential directions. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 803–830. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9350-2
Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Botella, J. (2017). Effects of self-assessment on self-regulated learning and self-effica‐
cy: Four meta-analyses. Educational Research Review, 22, 74–98.
Perugini, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2001). The role of desires and anticipated emotions in goal-directed behaviors:
Broadening and deepening the theory of planned behavior. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(1), 79–98.
doi:10.1348/014466601164704
Raider-Roth, M. B. (2005). Trusting what you know: Negotiating the relational context of classroom life. Teachers
College Record, 107(4), 587–628.
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and achievement test. Copenhagan, Denmark: Danish
Institute for Educational Research.
Rivis, A., Sheeran, P., & Armitage, C. J. (2009). Expanding the affective and normative components of the theory of
planned behavior: A meta-analysis of anticipated affect and moral norms. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
39(12), 2985–3019. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00558.x
Ross, J. A., Rolheiser, C., & Hogaboam-Gray, A. (2002). Influences on student cognitions about evaluation. Assess‐
ment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 9(1), 81–95. doi:10.1080/09695940220119201
Rotsaert, T., Panadero, E., Estrada, E., & Schellens, T. (2017). How do students perceive the educational value of
peer assessment in relation to its social nature? A survey study in Flanders. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53,
29–40. doi:10.1016/[Link].2017.02.003
Sargeant, J., Armson, H., Chesluk, B., Dornan, T., Eva, K., Holmboe, E., … van der Vleuten, C. (2010). The process‐
es and dimensions of informed self-assessment: A conceptual model. Academic Medicine, 85(7), 1212–1220.
doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d85a4e
Siegesmund, A. (2016). Increasing student metacognition and learning through classroom-based learning communi‐
ties and self-assessment. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 17, 204–214. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v17i2.954
Smith, R. M. (2004). Fit analysis in latent trait measurement models. In E. V. Smith & R. M. Smith (Eds.), Introduc‐
tion to Rasch measurement: Theory, models and applications (pp. 73–92). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.
Stanec, A. D. S. (2009). The Theory of Planned Behavior: Predicting teachers’ intentions and behavior during fitness
testing. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 28(3), 255–271. doi:10.1123/jtpe.28.3.255
Su, C.-M., & Wang, W.-C. (2010). Nonlinear structural equation models: An item response modeling approach to
categorical response variables. Journal of Educational Research and Development, 6, 1–45.
Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Panadero, E. (2018). Developing evaluative judgement: Enabling stu‐
dents to make decisions about the quality of work. Higher Education, 76(3), 467–481. doi:10.1007/
s10734-017-0220-3
Trafimow, D., Sheeran, P., Conner, M., & Finlay, K. A. (2002). Evidence that perceived behavioral control is a multi‐
dimensional construct: Perceived control and perceived difficulty. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41(1), 101–
121. doi:10.1348/014466602165081
Troop, M., Wallar, L., & Aspenlieder, E. (2015). Developing graduate students’ self-efficacy with learner-centred lec‐
turing. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 45(3), 15–33.
Tucker, A. L., Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. (2007). Implementing new practices: An empirical study of organ‐
izational learning in hospital intensive care units. Management Science, 53(6), 894–907. doi:10.1287/
mnsc.1060.0692
van Dinther, M., Dochy, F., & Segers, M. (2011). Factors affecting students’ self-efficacy in higher education. Educa‐
tional Research Review, 6(2), 95–108. doi:10.1016/[Link].2010.10.003

© Copyrights 2018
Van Gennip, N. A. E., Segers, M. S. R., & Tillema, H. H. (2009). Peer assessment for learning from a social perspec‐
tive: The influence of interpersonal variables and structural features. Educational Research Review, 4(1), 41–54.
Van Gennip, N. A. E., Segers, M. S. R., & Tillema, H. H. (2010). Peer assessment as a collaborative learning activity:
The role of interpersonal factors and conceptions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 280–290. doi:10.1016/[Link]‐
struc.2009.08.010
Van Rooij, E. C. M., Jansen, E. P. W. A., & Van de Grift, W. J. C. M. (2017). Factors that contribute to secondary
school students’ self-efficacy in being a successful university student. Research in Post-Compulsory Education,
22(4), 535–555. doi:10.1080/13596748.2017.1381301
Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J., Wilson, M. R., & Haldane, A. A. (2007). ACER ConQuest [Computer program and man‐
ual]. Victoria, Australia: ACER Press.
Yan, Z. (2014). Predicting teachers’ intentions to implement school-based assessment using the Theory of Planned
Behaviour. Educational Research and Evaluation, 20(2), 83–97. doi:10.1080/13803611.2013.877394
Yan, Z. (2016). The self-assessment practices of Hong Kong secondary students: Findings with a new instrument.
Journal of Applied Measurement, 17(3), 335–353.
Yan, Z. (2018a). Student self-assessment practices: The role of gender, year level, and goal orientation. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 25(2), 183–199. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2016.1218324
Yan, Z. (2018b). The Self-assessment Practice Scale (SaPS) for students: Development and psychometric studies. The
Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 27(2), 123–135. doi:10.1007/s40299-018-0371-8
Yan, Z. (2019). Self-assessment in the process of self-regulated learning and its relationship with academic achieve‐
ment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1080/02602938.2019.1629390
Yan, Z., & Brown, G. T. L. (2017). A cyclical self-assessment process: Towards a model of how students engage in
self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(8), 1247–1262.
doi:10.1080/02602938.2016.1260091
Yan, Z., & Cheng, E. C. K. (2015). Primary teachers’ attitudes, intentions and practices regarding formative assess‐
ment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 128–136.
Yan, Z., & Sin, K. F. (2014). Inclusive education: Teachers’ intentions and behaviour analyzed from the viewpoint of
the Theory of Planned Behaviour. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(1), 72–85.
doi:10.1080/13603116.2012.757811
Yan, Z., & Sin, K. F. (2015). Exploring the intentions and practices of principals regarding inclusive education: An
application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Cambridge Journal of Education, 45(2), 205–221.
doi:10.1080/0305764X.2014.934203
Zhan, Y., Fang, Y., Wei, K.-K., & Chen, H. (2010). Exploring the role of psychological safety in promoting the inten‐
tion to continue sharing knowledge in virtual communities. International Journal of Information Management, 30(5),
425–436. doi:10.1016/[Link].2010.02.003
Appendix

Table A1. Difficulties, outfit and infit statistics, and thresholds of the items in the final scales.

Scale Item Difficul‐ S.E. Outfit Infit τ1 τ2 τ3 τ4 τ5

ty MNSQ MNSQ
AAT 1. I like self-assessment. 0.07 0.04 1.00 0.99 –2.60 –1.95 –0.46 1.67 3.34
2. Self-assessment is an engaging experience –0.26 0.04 0.91 0.90
for me.

© Copyrights 2018
Scale Item Difficul‐ S.E. Outfit Infit τ1 τ2 τ3 τ4 τ5
ty MNSQ MNSQ
3. Self-assessment is interesting. –0.02 0.04 0.96 0.92
4. I enjoy the process of self-assessment. 0.21 0.04 1.08 1.09
IAT 1. Self-assessment gives an accurate appraisal –0.12 0.04 1.13 1.10 –2.27 –1.88 –0.64 1.31 3.48
of my performance.
2. Self-assessment helps me to understand my –0.52 0.04 1.27 1.26
strengths and weaknesses.
3. Self-assessment raises my interest in learn‐ 0.29 0.04 0.96 0.94
ing.
4. Self-assessment encourages me to work 0.16 0.04 0.81 0.82
harder.
5. Self-assessment encourages me to be inde‐ 0.17 0.04 0.93 0.91
pendent in my learning.
6. Self-assessment improves my confidence in 0.13 0.04 0.93 0.93
learning.
7. Self-assessment helps me learn more effi‐ 0.16 0.04 0.82 0.81
ciently.
8. Self-assessment raises my scores and 0.25 0.04 0.95 0.93
grades.
9. Self-assessment helps me track my progress. –0.06 0.04 1.00 1.01
10. Self-assessment is a way to determine how –0.24 0.04 1.02 1.04
much I have learned from teaching.
11. Self-assessment helps me check my pro‐ –0.22 0.04 1.10 1.11
gress against achievement objectives.
SNS 1. I believe the principal of my school wants –0.25 0.03 1.06 1.08 –1.27 –1.39 –0.47 1.11 2.03
all students to self-assess.
2. I believe my teachers want me to do self-as‐ –0.24 0.03 0.81 0.82
sessment.
3. Among my friends we know self-assessment 0.44 0.03 0.90 0.89
will help us learn.
4. I believe my classmates take self-assessment 0.05 0.03 1.16 1.18
seriously.
CON 1. I have the freedom whether or not to imple‐ –0.20 0.03 1.07 1.08 –1.65 –1.52 –0.74 1.20 2.71
ment self-assessment.
2. The frequency of self-assessment is up to 0.11 0.03 0.82 0.80
me.
3. I decide which method of self-assessment to –0.07 0.03 0.78 0.77
use.
4. I am in charge of deciding when I should do 0.16 0.03 1.29 1.28
self-assessment.
SEF 1. I know how to implement self-assessment. 0.12 0.03 0.98 0.97 –1.72 –1.62 –0.61 1.22 2.74
2. I can find materials (e.g. reference books, 0.22 0.03 1.07 1.05
exam papers) against which to assess myself.
3. I have enough knowledge to implement self- –0.01 0.03 0.82 0.81
assessment.
4. I can design appropriate tasks to assess my‐ 0.21 0.03 0.82 0.81
self.

© Copyrights 2018
Scale Item Difficul‐ S.E. Outfit Infit τ1 τ2 τ3 τ4 τ5
ty MNSQ MNSQ
5. I can tell when my work is actually good or –0.53 0.03 1.26 1.30
bad.
PSY 1. I feel uncomfortable if others know my self- 0.37 0.03 1.32 1.34 –1.49 –0.91 0.27 0.99 1.14
assessment results.
2. It is difficult to accept my self-assessment 0.09 0.03 0.92 0.90
results if they are below my expectations.
3. I blame myself if my self-assessment is not 0.05 0.03 1.00 1.00
positive.
4. I am too embarrassed to ask others for feed‐ 0.00 0.03 0.83 0.83
back in the process of self-assessment.
5. Honest self-assessment brings me negative –0.37 0.03 1.05 1.04
consequences.
6. Others will think that I overvalue myself if I 0.06 0.03 1.04 1.01
give myself high marks in my self-assessment.
7. Others will think badly of me if my self-as‐ –0.19 0.03 0.93 0.92
sessment results are poor.
INT 1. I willingly assess myself. –0.21 0.04 1.33 1.38 –2.32 –1.78 –0.78 1.55 3.32
2. Of my own accord, self-assessment is inte‐ –0.01 0.04 0.83 0.83
grated into my learning.
3. I am enthusiastic about making sure self-as‐ 0.09 0.04 0.87 0.87
sessment is part of my studying.
4. I am willing to design appropriate assess‐ 0.11 0.04 0.90 0.90
ment tasks for self-assessment.
5. I readily make an effort to assess myself. –0.13 0.04 0.92 0.94
6. I plan to implement self-assessment in all 0.16 0.04 1.03 1.02
my studies.
SEFM 1. I check whether I have mastered the course –0.17 0.03 0.86 0.88 –1.73 –1.22 –0.62 0.90 2.66
content by doing extra exercises.
2. I check whether I have fully understood the –0.27 0.03 0.81 0.82
course content by doing past exam papers.
3. I keep track of my progress by recording my 0.29 0.03 1.03 1.01
performance.
4. I ask myself questions in my head to check –0.08 0.03 0.88 0.90
whether I have understood the course content.
5. I check my performance against the answers 0.23 0.03 1.34 1.33
in text books or on websites.
SEFI 1. I ask my teachers to give me feedback about 0.35 0.03 0.93 0.92 –1.97 –1.17 –0.33 0.91 2.56
my performance.
2. I ask my family members to give me advice –0.02 0.03 1.10 1.15
on my work.
3. I ask my friends to tell me how to improve –0.16 0.03 0.95 0.97
my learning.
4. I ask my fellow group members to evaluate –0.16 0.03 0.92 0.94
my contributions to group work tasks.

© Copyrights 2018
Scale Item Difficul‐ S.E. Outfit Infit τ1 τ2 τ3 τ4 τ5
ty MNSQ MNSQ
SIF 1. My gut feelings tell me whether my work is –0.10 0.03 1.03 1.05 –1.10 –1.19 –0.70 0.79 2.20
good or bad.
2. My emotions influence my evaluation on –0.20 0.03 1.31 1.36
my learning performance.
3. How my body feels tells me how well I am 0.25 0.03 0.75 0.75
doing.
4. My intuition tells me if I am doing a good 0.05 0.03 0.83 0.84
job or not.
SER 1. I seek out the reasons for mistakes I made 0.03 0.03 1.01 1.00 –1.77 –1.39 –0.72 1.08 2.80
after getting back marked work.
2. I think about how much sense the comments 0.26 0.03 1.25 1.23
of other people (e.g. teachers, family members,
and friends) regarding my work make to me.
3. Any areas I am unsure of after finishing my 0.03 0.03 0.97 0.99
work, I go over again.
4. As I study, I think about whether the way I 0.12 0.03 0.92 0.89
am studying is really helping me learn.
5. When I do exercise, I look at what I got 0.09 0.03 0.82 0.80
wrong or did poorly on to guide me as to what
I should learn next.
6. I pay attention to my assessment results in –0.60 0.04 1.00 1.04
order to identify what I can do better next
time.
7. I reflect on my weaknesses when I discuss 0.07 0.03 1.00 1.00
study-related issues with my classmates.

Note. AAT: affective attitude scale; IAT: instrumental attitude scale; SNS: subjective norms scale; CON: controllabili‐
ty scale; SEF: self-efficacy scale; PSY: psychological safety scale; INT: intention scale; SFM: feedback through mon‐
itoring; SFI: feedback through inquiry; SIF: internal feedback; SER: self-reflection; S.E.: standard error; τ: threshold
parameters.

Table A2. Wright-map of the scales.

Note. AAT: affective attitude scale; IAT: instrumental attitude scale; SNS: subjective norms scale; CON: controllabili‐
ty scale; SEF: self-efficacy scale; PSY: psychological safety scale; INT: intention scale; SFM: feedback through mon‐
itoring; SFI: feedback through inquiry; SIF: internal feedback; SER: self-reflection.

Author Queries
Query: AQ0: Please review the table of contributors below and confirm that the first and last names are structured
correctly and that the authors are listed in the correct order of contribution. This check is to ensure that your names
will appear correctly online and when the article is indexed.

© Copyrights 2018
Sequence Prefix Given name(s) Surname Suffix
1 Zi Yan
2 Gavin T. L. Brown
3 John C. K. Lee
4 X.-L. Qiu

Response: Please revise the spelling of the 3rd author's name to:John Chi-Kin Lee Please revise the spelling of the
4th author's name to:Xue-Lan QiuPlease revise the affiliation of the 4th author to:Faculty of Education, The Universi-
ty of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, P. R. China
Query: AQ1: Please check whether the author affiliation "a" has been typeset accurately. Please correct if it is incor-
rect.
Response: Please revise the affiliation of the 2nd author to:Faculty of Education and Social Work, The University of
Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
Query: AQ2: Please provide a division or department for author affiliation “b”.
Response: Faculty of Education and Social Work
Query: AQ3: Please check whether the inserted corresponding address details are accurate. Please correct if there
are any discrepancies.
Response: CONTACT Zi Yan zyan@[Link] Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The Education University of
Hong Kong, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong, P. R. China
Query: AQ4: Please provide complete details for “Bond and Fox 2015” in the reference list or delete the citations
from the text.
Response: Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2015). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human
sciences (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Query: AQ5: There is no mention of “Boud 1995” in the text. Please insert a citation in the text or delete the refer-
ences from the references list as appropriate.
Response: Answered within text
Query: AQ6: The ORCID details of the authors have been validated against ORCID registry. please check the ORCID ID
details of the authors.
Response: Ok
Response: Ok
Query: AQ7: Please provide complete details for “Butler & Winne, 1995” in the reference list or delete the citations
from the text.
Response: Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review
of Educational Research, 65, 245-281.
Query: AQ8: There is no mention of “Linacre 2002” in the text. Please insert a citation in the text or delete the refer-
ences from the references list as appropriate.
Response: Answered within text
Query: AQ9: There is no mention of “Mislevy et al. 1992” in the text. Please insert a citation in the text or delete the
references from the references list as appropriate.
Response: Answered within text
Query: AQ10: There is no mention of “Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development & Programme for
International Student Assessment 2017” in the text. Please insert a citation in the text or delete the references from
the references list as appropriate.
Response: Answered within text

© Copyrights 2018