{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.038115038115038115, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007623007623007623, 'mean_word_length': 4.991701244813278, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Validity of a Short Form of the Achievement-Motive Grid (AMG-S): Evidence for the Three-Factor Structure Emphasizing Active and Passive Forms of Fear of Failure

My primary objective in this research was to examine diverse validity aspects of a short form of the Achievement-Motive Grid (AMG-S; Schmalt, 1999). The AMG is a picture-based measure that combines features of the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT; Murray, 1943) with features of self-report questionnaires. Similar to the TAT, the motive gets aroused by presenting a set of pictured achievement situations. Similar to a questionnaire, the motive is measured with a set of statements representing characteristic components of the achievement motive. Quite in line with the original version, factor analyses of the AMG-S all recommend the adoption of a 3-factor solution in which 1 hope-of-success (HS) and 2 fear-of-failure (FF) concepts are differentiated. The HS and passive FF factor (FFp) are based on positive and negative efficacy evaluations, respectively. The active FF factor (FFa) describes anticipations of impending failure. FFp is clearly a "withdrawal" factor, whereas FFa is clearly an "invigoration" factor. In the construct validity section of this research, I focus on classical and recent elaborations of approach and avoidance motivation in which I show that HS, FFp, and FFa play a substantial role in a motive-goals-outcomes framework of achievement motivation.