Skip to main content Skip to section menu

GOEM Abstracts

Markland, D. & Tobin, V. (2004). A modification of the Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire to include an assessment of amotivation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 26, 191-196.

Drawing on self-determination theory, Mullan, Markland and Ingledew (1997) developed the Behavioural Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire (BREQ) to measure the continuum of behavioral regulation in exercise contexts. The BREQ assesses external, identified, introjected, and intrinsic regulations. Mullan et al. initially included a set of amotivation items but dropped these due to high levels of skewness and a restricted response range in their development sample. It would clearly be useful to assess amotivation for exercise. This study aimed to test the factorial validity of a modified BREQ with amotivation items reinstated in a sample likely to exhibit a wider range of amotivation responses. 194 former exercise referral scheme participants completed the revised instrument (BREQ-2). Although the amotivation items were still skewed, confirmatory factor analysis using the Satorra-Bentler (1994) scaling correction to chi sq. indicated an excellent model fit. The BREQ-2 could prove useful to researchers wishing to assess amotivation in order to develop a fuller understanding of motivation for exercise.

Harwood, C., Wilson, K., & Hardy, L. (2002). Achievement goals in sport: Working towards an alternative model. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, 349-350.

Progress in our understanding of achievement behaviour in sport has been substantial over the past 15 years. Our advancements in knowledge are largely due to the seminal work conducted on achievement goal theory in educational settings (Nicholls, 1989: The Competitive Ethos and Democratic Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). The translation of this theory to sport has culminated in a plethora of studies into the determinants and consequences of task and ego goal orientations. However, recent publications (e.g. Harwood et al., 2000: Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 22, 235-255) have questioned some of the conceptual premises of achievement goal theory as it applies to sport in an attempt to 'advance our understanding of achievement goals and individual performers within the competitive sport domain' (Harwood et al., 2000, p. 235). Where conceptual issues arise, measurement issues naturally follow to a point where alternative assessment methods become important to explore. One of the major conceptual points made by Harwood et al. (2000) reflected the need to measure self-referenced and norm-referenced conceptions of achievement, and to do so with items that were valid and meaningful to a particular context (e.g. competition). A further conceptual issue among achievement goal theorists relates to the role of social achievement goals that have been somewhat neglected in traditional research. In an attempt to bridge this gap in the literature, Harwood and Swain (in press: The Sport Psychologist) have developed a Profile of Goal Involvement Questionnaire (PGIQ) that demonstrates how performers may pursue task and ego goals, not only for self-directed or internalized reasons, but also to achieve more externally regulated social approval. The aim of this study was to further operationalize these conceptual points and work towards the development of an alternative competitive sport-oriented measure of achievement goal orientations. Seven hundred and twenty athletes participated in the study (308 males, 412 females); they were aged 17-45 years (17.6+3.5; mean+s). Participants took part in a variety of competitive sports (e.g. athletics, badminton, basketball, football, hockey, lacrosse, netball, rugby, swimming and volleyball). A pool of 18 items, to add to the existing 12 items of the PGIQ, were devised by the first author and vetted by three experts within achievement goal research. The 30-item pool represented four latent goal orientation factors: selfdirected task orientation (e.g. to perform to a standard that reflects personal progress); social approval task orientation (e.g. to show other people how well I can execute my skills); self-directed ego orientation (e.g. to prove to myself that I am better than the opposition); and social approval ego orientation (e.g. to prove to others that I am superior to the opposition). For each item, participants responded to the stem, 'For sport in general, to feel successful and satisfied, it is important for me to . . .'. Response options ranged on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (not at all important) to 7 (extremely important). To investigate concurrent validity, the participants also completed the Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire (TEOSQ) and the Perceptions of Success Questionnaire (POSQ) as traditional measures of achievement goal orientations. Using confirmatory factor analysis as a model generating tool, single-factor, two-factor and four factor models were examined. Goodness-of-fit statistics confirmed a four-factor model (w2/d.f. = 2.99; RMSEA = 0 .05; GFI = 0.95; SRMR = 0. 0 3; CFI = 0.97) incorporating 16 items (four items per factor). While the ch sq to degrees of freedom ratio (2.99) was somewhat high, the fit statistics were generally excellent. Interestingly, Pearson's correlations revealed that only the self-directed task orientation factor displayed a low but significant correlation with both the task and ego subscales of the TEOSQ and POSQ. These results are discussed with particular reference to future psychometric work and to the benefits of embracing such a model when investigating the nature of task and ego goals adopted by performers within the realm of competitive sport.

Site footer