About the Measure

Domains Motivation, goal orientation and perseverance, Social and Emotional Competence
Key stages Key Stage 3
Subscales Agentic (+A; appearing dominant, independent); Agentic-Communal (+A+C; expressing oneself openly, being respected); Communal(+C; valuing solidarity with peers and belongingness); Submissive-Communal (−A+C; putting others’ needs first, valuing approval from others); Submissive (−A; going along with peers to avoid arguments or upsetting others); Submissive-Separate(−A−C; appearing distant and concealing positive feelings to avoid being rejected by others), Agentic-Separate(+A−C; appearing to have the upper hand and getting even); Separate (−C; appearing detached andnot disclosing thoughts or feelings to others)
Description The Interpersonal Goals Inventory for Children is a measure of children's social goals.
Example When with your peers, in general how important is it to you that... Your peers respect and admire you?
Link https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Elisa_Trucco/publication/51517067_A_Revised_Interpersonal_Circumplex_Inventory_of_Children's_Social_Goals/links/0fcfd513bca99643fc000000.pdf
Psychometry
Implementation

Implementation details

No. of items 32
Format Likert
Respondent Self
Scoring Standardised
Time 0
Age 11-13
Cost single purchase Free - Available
Cost per child Free - Available

Psychometric details

UK norms No
Cronbach's α .68-.80
Test retest Not reported
Inter-rater reliability Not reported
EFA 8-factor solutio
CFA CIRCUM (constrained SEM-CFA)
Chi-square(17)= 64.1
RMSEA= 0.09
Criterion validity Not reported
Construct validity Communal dimensional scores positively correlated with peer group identification/affiliation. Perceived peer group identification negatively correlated to agentic dimensional scores.
Concurrent validity Not reported
Predictive validity Not reported
Responsiveness Not reported
Floor/Ceiling Not reported
References Trucco, E.M., Wright, A.G.C. & Colder, C.R. (2013). A revised interpersonal circumplex inventory of children's social goals. Assessment, 20(1), 98-113. doi:10.1177/1073191111411672