Sport motivation scale-6 (SMS-6): A revised six-factor sport motivation scale

Abstract

Background and Purpose: The sport motivation scale (SMS; [Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., Tuson, K. M., Brière, N. M., & Blais, M. R. (1995). Toward a new measure of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation in sports: The sport motivation scale (SMS). Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, 35–53]) was developed to measure an athlete's motivation toward sport participation. However, the SMS does not measure the most autonomous form of extrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, which is inconsistent with self-determination theory (SDT; [Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour. New York: Plenum Press]) upon which the instrument is based. Moreover, several studies (e.g., [Martens, M. P., & Webber, S. N. (2002). Psychometric properties of the sport motivation scale: An evaluation with college varsity athletes from the U.S. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24, 254–270]) have questioned the factorial validity of the SMS. Hence, the purpose of this study was to develop a revised version of the SMS, including integrated regulation. Method: In Stage 1, the factorial validity of the SMS was examined using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on data collected from 614 Australians (elite athletes and university students). In Stage 2, the scale was revised by including integrated regulation items and replacing problematic items through an iterative process using CFA for data collected from 557 Australian university students. Concurrent validity of the revised scale was examined by evaluating correlations with the dispositional flow scale-2 (DFS-2) [Jackson, S. A., & Eklund, R. C. (2004). The flow scales manual. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology]. Results: The revision led to development of a six-factor 24-item scale (SMS-6) that indicated a more parsimonious and improved fitting model consistent with SDT. Correlations between the SMS-6 and DFS-2 factors support the concurrent validity of the revised scale. Conclusion: From statistical and theoretical viewpoints, the revised SMS-6 was preferable to the original SMS, except for the discriminant validity issue of identification regulation. Further examination of the instrument is necessary by cross-validating the findings from this study.