See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6872089

Preliminary validation of a Spanish version of the Sport Motivation Scale

Article  in  Perceptual and Motor Skills · July 2006

DOI: 10.2466/pms.102.3.919-930 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS

132READS

693

4 authors, including:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Linked works View project

Body Image and Exercise in Adolescence: A Longitudinal Study View project

Juan L Núñez

Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria

66 PUBLICATIONS   1,075 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Jose Martin-Albo

University of Zaragoza

58 PUBLICATIONS   984 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Víctor González-Ruiz

Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria

12 PUBLICATIONS   180 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Juan L Núñez on 17 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 2006,102,919-930. O Perceptual and Motor Skills 2006

PRELIMINARY VALIDATION O F A SPANISH VERSION O F THE SPORT MOTIVATION SCALE '

JUAN L. NUNEZ, JOSE MARTIN-ALBO, JOSE G. NAVARRO,

VICTOR M. GONZALEZ

University of Lus Palmas de Gran Canaria

Summary.-The Sport Motivation Scale was developed in French and later trans- lated into English and validated by Pelletier, et al. in 1995. It is based on the princi- ples of self-determination theory. In this study the scale was translated into Spanish to assess and validate it for a sample of 275 athletes (78 women and 197 men) whose mean age was 21.3 yr. (SD=3.8) and who represented eight sports (track and field, tennis, swimming, waterpolo, soccer, basketball, handball, and volleyball). The Span- ish version showed satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach a of .70 to 3 0 ) and temporal stability (test-retest r = .69 to .74) over a 4-wk. period. A confirmatory factor analysis partially supported the seven-factor structure. Correlations among the sub- scales indicated a simplex pattern supporting the construct validity of the scale. Sex differences were found. Taken together, these findings support use of the Spanish ver- sion for assessment of motivation in sport.

For the last three decades, researchers in sports psychology have ex- pressed interest for two forms of motivation: intrinsic motivation, which re- lates to behavior carried out for personal pleasure and fun, and extrinsic mo- tivation, which refers to activities linked to contingencies (Deci, 1971; Deci & Ryan, 1999; Vallerand & Ratelle, 2002). One perspective for study of these concepts is self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), which sug- gests that motivation is explained from a multidimensional point of view and argues that behavior can be intrinsically motivated, extrinsically motivated, or amotivated. These different types of motivation are assumed to be located - - on a continuum from self-determination to lack of control (Deci & Ryan, 1985; 1991; Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Intrinsic Motivation implies engagement in an activity for the pleasure and satisfaction inherent in the activity and should be understood as a sign of competence and self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000). It has been considered a global construct from which three types may be distinguished: Intrinsic Motivation to Know, to Accomplish, and to Expe- rience Stimulation (Vallerand, Pelletier , Blais, BriPre, Senkcal, & ValliGres, 1992; Vallerand & Ratelle, 2002; Hein, Muur, & Koka, 2004). Intrinsic Mo- tivation to Know implies engaging in activities for the pleasure and satisfac-

'Address correspondence to Dr. Juan L. Nfiiiez, Department of Psychology and Sociology, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, C/Santa Juana de Arco 1, 35004 Las Palmas, Spain or e-mail (jnunez@dps.ulpgc.es).

920 J. L. NUNEZ, ET AL.

tion derived from learning, exploring, and understanding new things. Intrin- sic Motivation to Accomplish refers to engaging in activities for the pleasure and satisfaction derived from trying to excel or to reach new personal objec- tives. Finally, Intrinsic Motivation to Experience Stimulation operates when one is engaged in an activity for the fun or the experience of stimulating sen- sations derived from one's engagement in the activity.

In contrast to Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation refers to the involvement in an activity to receive rewards. Behavior has meaning because it is goal-oriented and not carried out for its own sake (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Vallerand, et al., 1992). Extrinsic Motivation is defined as a multidimension- al construct, for which four types, ordered from the lowest to the highest amount of self-determination, are distinguished: External Regulation, Intro- jected Regulation, Identified Regulation, and Integrated Regulation (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1999; Ryan & Deci, 2000). External Regulation is the most rep- resentative type of Extrinsic Motivation and refers to the involvement in an activity to gain rewards or to avoid punishment. Moreover, behavior is the result of experiencing external or internal pressures. Introjected Regulation is the first stage of the internalization process and, even though behavior is regulated by requirements and demands, individuals start to internalize the reasons for their actions. However, motivation is still not self-determined be- cause this type of regulation may imply coercion or pressure to do some- thing, which prevents an individual from making decisions about his own be- havior. Identified Regulation is a more autonomous form of extrinsic motiva- tion, since the individual appreciates the behavior and finds it important. Consequently, the engagement in an activity is perceived as chosen by the individual himself, although it is still categorized as Extrinsic Motivation be- cause the behavior is a means to obtain something. Finally, Integrated Regu- lation is the most self-determined form of Extrinsic Motivation and occurs when identified regulations are fully assimilated to the self. This occurs through self-examination and bringing new regulations into congruence with other values and needs.

The third dimension postulated by the self-determination theory is Amo- tivation, which occurs when no contingencies are perceived between the be- haviors and their outcomes. The individual is not intrinsically nor extrinsical- ly motivated but only feels incompetence and loss of control (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Vallerand & Ratelle, 2002).

Numerous studies have provided empirical support for the existence of these three kinds of motivation (Vallerand, 1997). The different motivational orientations represent different amounts of self-determination, which can be ordered along a self-determination continuum. On this continuum, Intrinsic Motivation is the most self-determined motivational type, followed by Inte- grated Regulation, Identified Regulation, Introjected Regulation, External

SPORT MOTIVATION SCALE IN SPANISH 92 1

Regulation, and Amotivation, which involves the least amount of self-deter- mination (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1991; Ryan & Deci, 2000).

With the aim of assessing the different types of motivation located along the self-determination continuum, BriGre, Vallerand, Blais, and Pelletier (1995) developed in French and validated the ~che l l e de Motivation dans les Sports (EMS). This 28-item scale is structured in seven subscales of four items each, which evaluate the three forms of Intrinsic Motivation, three types of Extrinsic Motivation, and Amotivation. Results of that study indi- cated the scale had satisfactory internal consistency as alpha values ranged from .71 to .92, and moderate temporal stability over a 1-mo. period with test-retest correlations ranging from .54 to 32 . The results from a confirma- tory factor analysis supported the seven-factor structure of the scale and the construct validity was supported by correlations among the seven subscales. Finally, analysis of variance indicated that women scored lower than men on the External Regulation subscale but higher on the Intrinsic Motivation to Know subscale.

Later, the scale was translated into English and administered to a sam- ple of Canadian university athletes by Pelletier , Tuson, Fortier, Vallerand, BriPre, and Blais (1995). Their findings indicated that the English version, entitled the Sport Motivation Scale, had psychometric characteristics similar to the original French version (BriPre, et al., 1995). Specifically, with regard to internal consistency, alpha ranged from .63 to .8O and temporal stability over a 5-wk. period had test-retest correlations of .58 to .84. Those authors concluded that the confirmatory factor analysis showed an acceptable fit for the hypothesized model and supported a self-determination continuum. Fi- nally, the simple main effect analysis indicated that female athletes scored higher than male athletes on the Intrinsic Motivation to Know and the In- trinsic Motivation to Accomplish subscales but lower on the External Regu- lation subscale.

Li and Harmer (1996) also assessed the psychometric properties of the Sport Motivation Scale with a sample of 857 college students. They con- ducted an initial confirmatory factor analysis of the seven-factor scale and re- ported adequate psychometric properties (TLI = .90; CFI = .91; RMSEA = .O8). Later, they combined the three intrinsic subscales into one subscale and tested the simplex pattern using structural equation modeling. Their re- sults showed a well-fit model for both men and women (TLI= .%-.%; CFI = .98-.99; RMSEA= .08) and supported the hypothesized self-determination continuum (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Recently, Martens and Webber (2002) provided partial support for the reliability and validity of the Sport Motivation Scale with a sample of 270 U.S. college athletes. Importantly, the confirmatory factor analysis did not provide clear evidence for a good fit with the hypothesized model (NFI=

922 J. L. NUNEZ, ET AL.

.76; CFI = 34 ; TLI = 32 ; RMSEA = .07). In fact, their results indicated a poor fit for the overall model and a stronger fit only when they tested the con- struct validity of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation types of the Sport Moti- vation Scale separately.

Since the initial validation in French and subsequently in English the ~che l l e de Motivation dans les Sports has been a generally appropriate scale for assessing motivation in a sport setting. However, no version for Spanish- speaking athletes is available, so the aim of the present study was to trans- late it into Spanish and evaluate its psychometric properties. Thus, this study had five purposes: to translate the Sport Motivation Scale into Spanish, to examine the factor structure, to assess the construct validity of the scale, to assess the internal consistency and the temporal stability of the scale, and to examine the effect of sex on the seven subscale scores.

Translation of the Sport Motivation Scale to Spanish

The translation of the Sport Motivation Scale into Spanish was carried out following the procedures of transcultural translation of scales used in previous studies (Vallerand, et al., 1992; Pelletier, et al., 1995; Nfifiez, Mar- tin-Albo, & Navarro, 2005). First, the scale was translated from English into Spanish following the parallel back-translation procedure (Brislin , 1986)) where the process began with a bilingual speaker's translation of the scale from the original language into the second language. This text is then trans- lated back into the original one by another bilingual individual with no knowledge of the original scale. To make sure that a correct translation was produced, the sequence of events described above was repeated so that, eventually, four bilingual individuals were involved in the parallel back-trans- lation procedure and two pilot versions of the Sport Motivation Scale were obtained in Spanish. Secondly, the items obtained in the translation proce- dure were assessed by a committee composed of the bilinguals involved in the translation process and two researchers who were experts in the field of motivational psychology; the committee selected the items for which the or- iginal meaning had been preserved and prepared the scale's format and in- structions so that these would be identical to the original version. As a re- sult, the Spanish version had 28 items which referred to reasons athletes take part in sport; these reasons were rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale with anchors of 1: does not correspond at all and 7: corresponds exactly, with the midpoint 4: corresponds moderately. Finally, to evaluate how clear- ly the items were written, the Spanish version of the scale was administered to 10 university students, who asked questions about the instructions and the way the items were written; their doubts and remarks led to a few minor

SPORT MOTIVATION SCALE IN SPANISH 923

changes. This work was done, given receipt of written permission from L. G. Pelletier (cf. Pelletier, et al., 1995).

Pa rticipan ts A total of 275 athletes from the island of Gran Canaria, Spain (78 wom-

en and 197 men) took part in the study from eight different sports, track and field, tennis, swimming, waterpolo, soccer, basketball, handball, and volleyball. The mean age of the participants was 21.3 yr. (SD = 3.8), and all athletes had at least 2 years of competitive experience at the provincial level. To assess the temporal stability, a new sample of 54 athletes (22 women and 32 men) taking part in provincial-level competitions in the sports mentioned above from Gran Canaria, Spain was tested. Their mean age was 22.8 yr. (SD=2.2). All participants were members of sports clubs, not of school or university teams.

Instrumentation

The Spanish version of the Sport Motivation Scale (Pelletier, et al., 1995) assesses participant's motivation toward a sport. This scale has 28 items which assess the constructs of Amotivation (e.g., "I don't know any- more; I have the impression that I am incapable of succeeding in this sport7'), External Regulation (e.g., "because it allows me to be well regarded by people whom I know"), Introjected Regulation (e.g., "because it is abso- lutely necessary to do sports if one wants to be in shape"), Identified Regu- lation (e.g., "because, in my opinion, it is one of the best ways to meet people"), Intrinsic Motivation to Know (e.g., "for the pleasure it gives me to know more about the sport that I practice"), Intrinsic Motivation to Accom- plishment (e.g., "for the pleasure I feel while improving some of my weak points"), and Intrinsic Motivation to Experience Stimulation (e.g., "for the pleasure I feel in living exciting experiences"). Demographic information from the participants such as sex, age, type of sport practiced, and level of competition was also collected.

Procedure Three researchers administered the questionnaire according to standard-

ized instructions. The researchers contacted the head coaches to inform them of the purpose of the study and to request permission to test the ath- letes. Participants were told that participation was voluntary, that all individ- ual responses would be kept confidential, and there were no correct or in- correct answers. They were asked to answer as honestly as possible.

Confirmato y Factor Analysis For the factor structure of the Sport Motivation Scale, the AMOS 5.0

program was used and confirmatory factor analysis with maximum likeli-

924 J. L. NUNEZ, ET AL.

hood procedures and a covariance matrix as data input was applied. Seven factors were postulated in correspondence to the seven subscale, with each factor consisting of each subscale's four corresponding items. The fit for the model was evaluated with a combination of absolute and relative fit indices including the p value associated with the chi-square statistic. The chi-square statistic is an absolute model fit test and, as it is sensitive to sample size, the ratio of chi-square to degrees of freedom (x2/df) was used to judge the fit of the model (Joreskog, 1969). In a "perfect" model, this ratio is 1.0, and ra- tios less than 2.0 are typically considered acceptable (Carmines & McIver, 1981). However, since these absolute fit indices are affected by the sample size because they are based on simple variations on chi-square, a combina- tion of relative fit indices and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) was used to minimize this problem. SRMR is an absolute fit index for which a value of .06 or less indicates an excellent fit and a value of .08 or less indicates a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). As recommended by Hoyle (1995)) the incremental fit index (IFI) and the comparative fit index (CFI) also were selected to assess model fit. IF1 was chosen because it tends to be consistent and not to vary in small samples. Further, it indicates model fit improvements per degree of freedom in comparison to a baseline, indepen- dence model. CFI was chosen because its range is bounded between O and 1; it is easier to interpret than other fit indices (Hoyle, 1995); and it indicates reductions in poor fit. IF1 and CFI values above .90 are considered indica- tive of minimally acceptable model fit (Bentler, 1995). Browne and Cudeck (1993) recommended using the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) as an index of closeness of fit. A RMSEA of .05 or less indicates that the model based on the sample data represents a "close population fit," whereas a value less than .08 indicates a "reasonable fit" (Joreskog & Sor- bom, 1993).

Initially, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted for which no cross loadings were postulated, and all factors were allowed to correlate freely. Re- sults generally indicated a poor fit for the model, x2=725.95, df=329, p < .001, x2/df = 2.2 1, IF1 = .87, CFI = .86, RMSEA = .07, and SRMR = .07. As in the original version, correlations between pairs of measured-variable residu- als were added to the model on the basis of inspection of the modification indices. This resulted in five correlated residuals being added to the model. With these additions, the fit indices suggested that the model showed a bet- ter fit to the data. In this analysis, the chi-square statistic was significant (x2 = 606.80, df= 324, p < .OOl), and the fit indices were the following: x2/df= 1.87, IF1 = .91, CFI = .90, RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .06. All items had loadings over .70.

Correlations among subsca1es.-Pearson correlations were computed among the seven subscales to estimate whether the self-determination con-

SPORT MOTIVATION SCALE IN SPANISH 925

cept postulated by Deci and Ryan (1985) from Amotivation to Intrinsic Motivation emerged for this sample of athletes. Support for this continuum would be obtained through the display of a simplex pattern where adjacent subscales, e.g., Introjected and Identified, should have high and positive cor- relations, and the subscales at the opposite ends of the continuum, e.g., Intrinsic Motivation and Amotivation, should have high and negative corre- lations. Moreover, the correlations among the three types of Intrinsic Mo- tivation should be high and positive. In other words, if they all assess a re- lated construct (Intrinsic Motivation), they should display high correlations. As can be seen in Table 1, the correlations among the three types of intrin- sic motivation were the highest and positive (.61, .62, .67, p < .01). Correla- tions among the seven subscales generally displayed a simplex pattern. On the one hand, correlations among adjacent subscales were higher, e.g., In- trinsic Motivation to Know and Identified Regulation (r = 33 , p < .01), than among subscales which are farther apart, e.g., Intrinsic Motivation to Know and Introjected Regulation (r = .46, p < .01). On the other hand, subscales at the opposite ends of the continuum, e.g., Amotivation and Intrinsic Motiva- tion to Experience Stimulation (r = -.2 1, p < .01), had stronger negative corre- lations than intermediate subscales, e.g., Amotivation and Introjected Regu- lation (r = -.03).

TABLE 1 INTERNAL CONSISTENCY VALUES: CRONBACH ALPHA (ON DIAGONAL) AND PEARSON CORRELATIONS

(ABOVE DIAGONAL) FOR SPORT MOTIVATION SCALE SUBSCALES (N = 275)

Subscale Subscale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Amotivation .74 3 1 -.03 .08 .01 -.13" -.21t 2. External Regulation .79 .25t .49t .27t .18t .08 3. Introjected Regulation .72 .50t .46t .48t .51t 4. Identified Regulation .70 .53t .43t .44t 5. IM-To Know .80 .6 l t .62t 6. IM-To Accomplish .79 .67? 7. IM-Stimulation .75

"p < .05. t p < .01, 95% CI.

Some deviations with respect to the proposed model should be noted. These refer to the Introjected Regulation subscale, which shows a stronger correlation with a subscale farther away in the assumed continuum, Intrinsic Motivation to Experience Stimulation (r = .>I) than with Identified Regula- tion (r = .50). Additionally, the Introjected Regulation subscale had a more negative correlation, although not significant, with the Arnotivation subscale (r = -.03) than with the Intrinsic Motivation to Know subscale (r = .01).

Reliability The internal consistency of the scores on the seven factors was assessed

926 J. L. NUNEZ, ET AL.

using Cronbach coefficient alpha. As can be seen in Table 1, scores ranged from .70 (Identified Regulation) to .80 (Intrinsic Motivation to Know), with a mean score of .75. The temporal stability was assessed using a sample com- posed of 54 athletes who answered the questionnaire twice over a 1-mo. pe- riod. As can be seen in Table 2, the results from the internal consistency for the pretest and the posttest ranged from .71 to .8O at the pretest, and from .70 to .79 at the posttest. Furthermore, the test-retest correlations ranged from .68 to .74.

TABLE 2 VALUES OF CRONBACH ALPHA AND TEST-RETEST CORRELATIONS OF

THE SPORT MOTIVATION SCALE SUBSCALES (N = 54)

Subscale Alpha Ytt

Pretest Posttest

Amotivation .76 .7 1 .69 External Regulation .78 .79 .72 Introjected Regulation .75 .70 .68 Identified Regulation .71 .72 .70 IM-To Know .80 .73 .7 1 IM-To Accomplish .79 .73 .74 IM-Stimulation .78 .73 .74

Sex Dgfeerences Between Su bscales

Sex differences by subscale means were assessed by using a test for in- dependent samples with a Levene's test for equality of variance ( p < -01). The findings showed that male athletes scored higher than females on the Amotivation and the External Regulation subscales (Table 3).

TABLE 3 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF SPORT MOTIVATION SCALE SUBSCALES FOR WOMEN AND MEN

Subscale Women Men M SD M SD

Amotivation" 1.87 1.06 2.36 1.25 External Regulationq 2.45 1.13 3.38 1.38 Introjected Regulation 5.14 1.24 5.22 1.05 Identified Regulation 4.01 1.25 4.24 1.14 IM-To Know 4.42 1.36 4.58 1.18 IM-To Accomplish 4.91 1.19 5.08 1.13 IM-Stimulation 5.18 1.16 5.21 1.02

" p < .05, 95% CI.

DISCUSSION The purpose of the present study was to adapt the Sport Motivation

Scale for the Spanish language and analyze its psychometric properties. The

SPORT MOTIVATION SCALE IN SPANISH 927

results indicated that the Spanish version showed adequate reliability and va- lidity for this sample. With respect to the reliability of the scale, internal consistency for all the subscales was acceptable with values similar to those reported in the original study (Brii.re, et al., 1995) and the English version (Pelletier, et al., 1995), as well as in a validation study carried out with a sample of U.S. college athletes (Martens & Webber, 2002). In all three stud- ies, the Identified Regulation subscale had the lowest alpha value, which could be explained for its being the most self-determined form of Extrinsic Motivation and, as a consequence, likely overlapping and generating ambi- guity with respect to the subscales corresponding to Intrinsic Motivation. Moreover, the values of the test-retest correlation indicated a temporal stabil- ity for all the subscales, some subscales, higher than those obtained in previ- ous versions.

Regarding the validity of the scale, results from the confirmatory factor analysis partially supported the seven-factor structure of the Spanish version and thus provided some support for the factorial validity of the scale. The fit indices obtained are consistent with those obtained with the Canadian samples (BriGre, et al., 1995; Pelletier, et al., 1995), which suggests that the seven-factor correlated structure constitutes an oblique model. Additionally, all factor loadings were statistically significant, greater than .70 in standard- ized values and, therefore, contributed significantly to the assessment of the construct.

Likewise, correlations among the Sport Motivation Scale subscales indi- cated the importance of taking different types of motivation into considera- tion and generally supported the existence of a simplex pattern with sub- scales theoretically closer to each other on the self-determination concept having higher correlations than those theoretically distant (Deci & Ryan, 1985). The exception of the Introjected Regulation subscale showing a high- er correlation with the Intrinsic Motivation to Experience Stimulation sub- scale than with the other two Extrinsic Motivation subscales is similar to the results obtained for the original scale (BriGre, et al., 1995) and for the Greek version (Doganis, 2000). This deviation from theory may represent overlap between the intrinsic and extrinsic subscales, and this is why the differences between the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation might not be as definitive as the self-determination theory attests (CoMey, 2000). The suggestion that the more self-determined subscales are those that are related more strongly pro- vides preliminary support for the construct validity of the sale.

Finally, sex differences showed male athletes had higher scores than fe- male athletes on Amotivation and External Regulation subscales so, as a con- sequence, female athletes displayed a more self-determined motivational pro- file than male athletes. These results are similar to those reported previously by BriGre, et al. (1995) and Pelletier, et al. (1995) regarding Extrinsic Moti-

928 J. L. NUNEZ, ET AL.

vation. However, no statistically significant sex differences on Intrinsic Moti- vation were found, contrary to data for the French-Canadian and English versions, which reported differences on Intrinsic Motivation to Know and Accomplish, respectively. These differences between the results from previ- ous versions and those from this study could reflect several factors that may have affected motivation, e.g., cultural differences, socioeconomic status, age.

The present study has some limitations. Firstly, it did not control social desirability in the subjects' responses; secondly, appointments with the ath- letes were held at different training times. Some were tested before starting to train, some during, and others afterwards, a fact which may have influ- enced the answers obtained on the scale; and the coach's behavior was not considered as a predicting variable of intrinsic motivation (Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005; Koka & Hein, 2005).

Considering research, we recognize, in the first place, the need to inves- tigate other samples to compare the Sport Motivation Scale factor fit depend- ing on other variables, such as level of competition or practice time, as well as studying crosscultural samples. In the second place, verification is plan- ned of the relationship between the Sport Motivation Scale and other mea- suring instruments in sport motivation. In the third place, the construct va- lidity needs further examination given the overlap between intrinsic and ex- trinsic subscales. Finally, different factor models should be tested and predic- tive validity with regard to its effectiveness at predicting the behavior of sport withdrawal assessed (Sarrazin, Vallerand, Guillet, Pelletier, & Cury, 2002) by means of the detection of individuals located within the high-risk area of the lowest self-determination values in the continuum proposed by the the- ory of Deci and Ryan (1985, 1991).

In conclusion, the present results provided preliminary support for the seven-factor structure proposed by Brii.re, et al. (1995). Furthermore, the in- ternal consistency and test-retest coefficients were acceptable for all the sub- scales, supporting the reliability of the Spanish version. Finally, there is pre- liminary evidence to support the construct validity of the scale. Therefore, the Spanish version of the Sport Motivation Scale can be considered an ad- aptation of the scale's English version, and the results justify use in a sport setting to evaluate different types of motivation.

REFERENCES

BENTLER, l? M. (1995) EQS: structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.

BRI~RE, N. M., VALLERAND, R. J., BLAIS, M. R., & PELLETIER, L. G. (1995) Devtloppement et validation d'une mesure de motivation intrinskque, e?trins?que et d'amotivation en con- texte sportif: l'echelle de motivation dans les sports (EMS). International lournal of Sport Psycho~ogy, 26, 465-489.

BRISLIN, R. W. (1986) The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. Lonner & J.

SPORT MOTIVATION SCALE IN SPANISH 929

Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Pp. 137- 164.

BROWNE, M. W., &CUDECK, R. (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Longs (Eds.), Testing structural equattbn models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Pp. 136-162.

CARMINES, E., & MCIVER, J. ( 1981) Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of co- variance structures. In G. Bohrnstedt & E. Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement: current issues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Pp. 65-115.

COKLEY, K. 0. (2000) Examining the validity of the Academic Motivation Scale by comparing scale construction to self-determination theory. Psychological Reports, 86, 560-564.

DECI, E. L. (1971) Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105-1 15.

DECI, E. L., &RYAN, R. M. (1985) Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behav- ior. New York: Plenum.

DECI, E. L., &RYAN, R. M. (1991) A motivational approach to self: integration in personality. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 38. Perspectives on moti- vation. Lincoln, NE: Univer. of Nebraska. Pp. 237-288.

DECI, E. L., &RYAN, R. M. (1999) The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.

DOGANIS, G. (2000) Development of a Greek version of the Sport Motivation Scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 90, 505-512,

HEIN, V., MUUR, M., & KOKA, A. (2004) Intention to be physically active after school gradua- tion and its relationship to three types of intrinsic motivation. European Physical Educa- tion Review, 10, 5-19.

HOLLEMBEAK, J., & AMOROSE, A. J. (2005) Perceived coaching behaviors and college athletes' intrinsic motivation: a test of self-determination theory. Journal of Applied Sport Psycholo- gy, 17, 20-36.

H o n ~ , R. H. (1995) Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hu, L., &BENTLER, l? M. (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

JORESKOG, K. G. (1969) A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analy- sis. Psychometrika, 34, 183-202.

JORESKOG, K. G., & SORBOM, D. (1993) Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS com- mand language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software Inc.

KOKA, A., &HEIN, V. (2005) The effect of perceived teacher feedback on intrinsic motivation in physical education. InternationalJournal of Sport Psychology, 36, 91-106.

LI, F., &HARMER, l? H. (1996) Testing the simplex assumption underlying the Sport Motiva- tion Scale: a structural equation modeling analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67, 396-405.

MARTENS, M. I?, & WEBBER, S. N. (2002) Psychometric properties of the S ort Motivation Scale: an evaluation with college varsity athletes from the U.S. Journal o h p o r t and Exer- cise Psychology, 24, 254-270.

NGSTEZ, J. L., M A R T ~ N - ~ B O , J., &NAVARRO, J. G. (2005) Validaci6n de la versibn espafiola de la Zchelle de motivation en ?ducation. Psicothema, 17, 344-349.

PELLETIER, L. G., TUSON, D. M., FORTIER, M. S., VALLERAND, R. J., BRI~RE, N. M., &BLAIS, M. R. (1995) Toward a new measure of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotiva- tion in sports: the Sport Motivation Scale. lournal of Sport and Exercise P~~chology, 17, 35 -53.

RYAN, R. M., & DECI, E. L. (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

SARRAZIN, l?, VALLERAND, R., GUILLET, E., PELLETIER, L., & CURY, F. (2002) Motivation and dropout in female handballers: a 21-month prospective study. European ]ournal of Social Psychology, 32, 395-418.

VALLERAND, R. J. (1997) Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experzhzental social psychology. Vol. 29. Toronto: Academic Press. Pp. 271-360.

93 0 J. L. NUNEZ, ET AL.

VALLERAND, R. J., PELLETIER, L. G., BLAIS, M. R., BRI~RE, N. M., SEN~CAL, C., &VALLI~RES, E. F. (1992) The Academic Motivation Scale: a measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotiva- tion in education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 1003-1017.

VALLERAND, R. J., & RATELLE, C. F. (2002) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: a hierarchical model. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), The motivation and self-determination of be- havior: theoretical and applied issues. Rochester, NY: Univer. of Rochester. Pp. 37-63.

Accepted June 9, 2006.

View publication statsView publication stats