Content uploaded by Kathrin Kohake
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kathrin Kohake on May 14, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Current Issues in Sport Science
Need support, need satisfaction and types of motivation in physical education
for children aged 8 to 13. Development and preliminary validation of the
German SMoPE-instrument
Kathrin Kohake1 & Tim Heemsoth1, 2
Affiliations:
1 Institute of Human Movement Science, University of Hamburg, Germany
2 Department of Languages and the Aesthetic Disciplines Education, University of Hamburg,
Germany
Corresponding author:
Kathrin Kohake
University of Hamburg
Faculty of Psychology and Human Movement
Institute of Human Movement Science
Sports Pedagogy
Turmweg 2
20148 Hamburg
Germany
E-mail: kathrin.kohake@uni-hamburg.de
Tel. +49 40 42838 9151
ORCiD: 0000-0001-7445-920X
Need support, need satisfaction and types of motivation in Physical Education
for children aged 8 to 13. Development and preliminary validation of the
German SMoPE-instrument
Abstract
More self-determined motivation of young children in physical education (PE) has been shown to improve
physical activity through the lifespan. According to Self-Determination Theory, an educational
environment that supports the three basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness
is expected to facilitate need satisfaction and, therefore, more self-determined types of motivation.
However, thus far there are no appropriate instruments to investigate the psychological need support, need
satisfaction, and motivation for younger students simultaneously. The present study aims to develop and
preliminarily validate the German SMoPE-instrument (Students’ motivation in Physical Education) for the
constructs need support, need satisfaction, and types of motivation for 8-13-year-old children in PE.
Therefore, after a cognitive lab study, N = 1,011 students from grade 3 to 6 answered a questionnaire with
items that based on research in the field of extracurricular sports with regard to the three constructs. The
result is a questionnaire of 33 items including three need-support-subscales, three need-satisfaction-
subscales and five subscales regarding the types of motivation. Confirmatory factor analyses with
acceptable to excellent fit indices for all scales as well as a satisfactory simplex structure concerning the
types of motivation support the suitability of the constructs. In addition, multiple regression analyses show
positive relationships between the support of competence and both intrinsic and identified motivation.
Consistent with theoretical considerations, both relationships were partially mediated by the satisfaction of
competence.
Keywords
self-determination theory, basic-needs-theory, cognitive evaluation theory, motivation,
confirmatory factor analysis
Introduction
The preventive role of physical activity for the health and well-being of children and youth is
largely unquestioned (Janssen & LeBlanc, 2010). The World Health Organization (WHO)
recommends 60 minutes of moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity per day for children
and youth from the age of 5-17 (WHO, 2010). A recent study shows that in Germany as well as
globally, the majority (more than 80%) of children and youth aged 11-17 years do not meet these
physical activity guidelines (Guthold, Stevens, Riley & Bull, 2020). Usually, German children
participate once or twice a week for 45-90 minutes in physical education (PE) classes in school.
Thus, PE classes alone cannot sufficiently meet the WHO requirements. However, it is well
known that students’ motivational experiences in PE can positively affect intentions for leisure-
time physical activity (e.g. Hagger et al., 2003) and, thus, could positively influence their sports-
related behaviour outside of school. Also against the background of empirical findings showing
that the degree of physical activity in the pre-school age already positively affects the physical
activity level as an adult (Telama et al., 2014), a core curricular objective of PE is to promote
students’ lifelong physical activity. Thus, motivational processes in PE play an important role in
supporting future engagement in physical activity.
Most research regarding the support of physical activity levels via motivation concentrates on the
age of adolescents whereas less attention has been paid to the effects of PE with regard to
younger children. Yet, early joyful learning experiences in the exercise domain at the age of 7-11
years already have a great impact on future sports participation (Kirk, 2005). For an education
that encourages lifelong physical activity it is therefore important to understand the processes
underlying younger children’s motivation in PE, too. Against this background, the Self-
Determination Theory (SDT) with its six mini-theories (Ryan & Deci, 2017) can be called as one
of the most prominent motivational meta-theories in educational research. Essential components
of this theory include different types of motivation (Organismic Integration Theory) as well as
explanations on how to support these regulations by the satisfaction of basic psychological needs
(Basic Psychological Needs Theory; Standage & Ryan, 2020). More precisely, a need supporting
environment created by the teacher is expected to facilitate students’ need satisfaction and
therefore more self-determined types of students’ motivation (Cognitive Evaluation Theory),
which in turn lead to positive outcomes, e.g. effort, persistence and positive affect (e.g. Standage
et al., 2005). In summary, the relationships assumed in SDT (see Figure 1) have been largely
supported by empirical findings in diverse areas including the context of physical activity
(Teixeira, Carraça, Markland, Silva & Ryan, 2012). SDT can therefore function as a useful
theoretical framework to understand the individuals’ motivational processes in PE.
One way to investigate the fundamental assumption of SDT, which says that a need supportive
environment in PE classes leads to more self-determined forms of motivation, is to analyse
students’ self-reported perceptions assessed by questionnaires. Ideally, these questionnaires
differentiate students’ types of motivation as well as their perceived support and their perceived
satisfaction of the basic psychological needs. While perceived support asks the extent to which
students take notice of teacher-initiated supports, perceived satisfaction asks the extent to which
the students perceive the need to be adequately met. However, in a review only 11 out of 70
studies in the context of SDT in PE included students younger than 12 years (Van den Berghe et
al., 2014), and, thus, it can be noted that there is a lack of research and questionnaires with regard
to children at the age of 8-13 years. Therefore, following the SDT the purpose of this study is to
develop and to preliminarily validate a German questionnaire for children in this age range that
allows measuring the students’ types of motivation and both their perceived support and their
perceived satisfaction of the basic psychological needs in PE.
Figure 1. Hypothesized relations based on SDT (see also Kohake & Lehnert, 2018).
Theoretical background
Self-Determination Theory
According to SDT, the reasons for engaging in physical activity can be classified along a self-
determined continuum (Ryan & Deci, 2017) between intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation
and amotivation. Intrinsic motivation implies engaging in an activity out of pleasure with a strong
sense of volition. On the opposite end of the continuum, amotivation represents a lack of
intention and therefore the absence of motivation. In between these two ends, extrinsic
motivation refers to engaging in behaviours for external or instrumental outcomes rather than the
participation itself. Further, with regard to extrinsic motivation SDT proposes four different types
distinguishing the extent of self-determination (Ryan & Deci, 2002). The least self-determined
type of extrinsic motivation is defined as externally regulated, which implies engaging in an
activity for external means. In contrast, an introjected regulation refers to behaviours being
relevant for self-esteem and driven by an inner demand; however, the reasons for engaging in the
activity are only partially internalised. Identified regulated behaviours are more self-determined
and judged as personally important and therefore relevant. The most self-determined extrinsic
motivation involves an integrated regulation, which implies that reasons for engaging in an
activity are considered part of the individual’s sense of self and are concordant with the
individual’s value system (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Ryan and Deci (2002) assume that activities that satisfy the three basic psychological needs for
autonomy, competence and relatedness foster self-determined motivation. These basic
psychological needs are defined as basic innate requirements regardless of an individual’s culture
or age. Whereas the needs may vary in their expressions in different contexts, the core character
remains unchanged. Accordingly, an educational environment created by the PE teacher that
supports the needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness increases students’ need satisfaction
(e.g. Ntoumanis & Standage, 2009). That is why SDT distinguishes between need support and
need satisfaction. While need support refers to the social context, the conditions and the teacher’s
strategies to support the basic psychological needs, need satisfaction refers to the individual’s
feelings of being satisfied. An autonomy supportive teaching environment is characterized by
providing choices for students, involving them in decisions in a meaningful way and responding
to their lives and interests. Students’ competence can be supported by the teacher e.g. by
providing positive feedback as well as challenging activities and directions to perform behaviours
Need Support
a. Support of Autonomy
b. Support of Competence
c. Support of Relatedness
Need Satisfaction
a. Satisfaction of Autonomy
b. Satisfaction of Competence
c. Satisfaction of Relatedness
Types of Motivation
a. intrinsisc
b. integrated
c. identified
d. introjected
e. external
that fit the developmental level of the children. The teacher supports students’ feelings of
relatedness by creating a context characterized by warmth, a sense of security and connection to
others (Deci & Ryan, 2000). With regard to need satisfaction, the need of autonomy is satisfied if
individuals perceive themselves as the origin of one’s own behaviour, i.e. performing according
to one’s interests and innate values as a true expression of self. The need of competence is
satisfied if individuals experience their own abilities and feel effective in interactions within the
social environment. The need of relatedness is satisfied if individuals feel connected to others and
have a secure sense of belongingness with them. Altogether, need support is expected to show
positive relationships to self-determined types of motivation (intrinsic, integrated and identified)
mediated by need satisfaction, and negative relationships to less self-determined motivations
(introjected, external and amotivation; Deci & Ryan, 2000). The types of self-determined
motivation will eventually lead to various positive cognitive, affective and behavioural outcomes
(e.g. Ntoumanis & Standage, 2009).
Empirical state of research
While most findings with regard to the relationships between need support and types of
motivation, mediated by the need satisfaction, refer to adolescents, only a few refer to younger
children (for an overview see e.g. Van den Berghe et al., 2014): A study amongst English 11-14-
year-old students showed that the perceived PE teachers’ support for the students’ basic
psychological needs (measured as one overall factor) predicted the students overall need
satisfaction (Standage et al., 2005). The latter predicted positively intrinsic motivation and
negatively external motivation and amotivation. In this study, the authors only examined
relationships between the overall second-order factors need support and need satisfaction. They
did not examine separate effects with regard to the three basic psychological needs. The
relationship between an overall need support factor and students’ self-determined types of
motivation was also confirmed with Estonian 12-16-year olds (Koka, 2013). The author further
investigated the specific mediation effect of each of the three basic psychological needs. He
found that only the satisfaction of competence (neither relatedness nor autonomy) was positively
related to self-determined motivation. On the contrary, another study confirmed positive
relationships between the satisfaction of all three basic psychological needs (three factors) and
self-determined motivation reported by American upper-elementary students (8-11 years; Chen &
Hypnar, 2015). The measurement of perceived need support was beyond the scope of this latter
study. Contrarily, the importance of perceived need support was emphasized by a cross-cultural
study which supported the positive relationship between perceived autonomy support and self-
determined motivation for British, Greek and Singaporean samples (the only exception was a
Polish sample; Hagger et al., 2005). Both Hagger et al. (2003) as well as Hagger et al. (2005),
however, only concentrated on the support of autonomy and neither measured the support of
competence nor relatedness.
Based on these empirical evidences it can be assumed that there is a positive relationship between
the support of autonomy, competence and relatedness and self-determined types of motivation
(intrinsic, identified) and a negative relationship between the three need support dimensions and
more controlled types of motivation (introjected, external, amotivation). These relationships can
be assumed to be mediated by the satisfaction of autonomy, competence and relatedness.
However, as the prior studies were conducted primarily with older individuals, it is questionable
if these relationships also apply for young children. Koka (2010) for example showed that for
younger students (7th grade) only the satisfaction of competence was significantly related to self-
determined motivation, whereas for older students (12th grade) competence, autonomy and
relatedness were significantly related. Therefore, it is unsure if all theoretical relationships can be
supported with a sample of young children. Beyond, the majority of the revised studies
concentrate on single aspects in the assumed chain of constructs (e.g. support of autonomy),
whereas only few studies examined all theoretical constructs addressed within SDT (three need
support dimensions, three need satisfaction dimensions, types of motivation; e.g. Standage et al.,
2005). In this regard, Van den Berghe et al. (2014) provide a critical review of key findings on
SDT in PE. Accordingly, educational research requires further investigations that distinguish
between all of the three need support dimensions. Overall, it can therefore be stated that as a
starting point suitable instruments that differentiate all aspects of SDT for younger students are
necessary. To be able to do this, an instrument for younger students is needed that is able to
differentiate all aspects of SDT – such an instrument, however, is not yet available, as will be
shown in the following.
Existing questionnaires
In the following, an overview of questionnaires (see Table 1) and their limitations with regard to
the present research is presented. We first reflect on measures concentrating on need support,
second on measures that concentrate on need satisfaction and we finish with measures
concentrating on the types of motivation. We included German and English language instruments
in the overview.
Need support
We found only a few instruments for children that cover at least one of the need support
constructs. The English Sport Climate Questionnaire (SCQ) measures the support of autonomy
(and nothing else) in sports training and has been used with children from the age of 13; it
showed satisfactory reliabilities (α = .86; Amorose & Anderson-Butcher, 2007; Lim & Wang,
2009). However, it seems inadequate to use this scale as a measure of support of autonomy in
addition to (other) scales measuring the support of competence and the support of relatedness,
since the SCQ mixes aspects of other need supportive behaviours with the scale to measure
support of autonomy. For example, the item “My coach conveys confidence in my ability to do
well at athletics” also comprises aspects of the support of competence, as it refers to the students’
abilities. Moreover, the wording of the items might not be appropriate for 8-13 due to their
language abilities, e.g. they might misunderstand words like “encourage” or “suggest”.
To measure the perceived support of competence and relatedness in PE, Standage et al. (2005)
provided English scales for the use with children from the age of 11, which also showed good
internal consistencies (both α > .80). It can also be questioned if the wording of these scales is
adequate for younger children. More English scales including the support of autonomy,
competence and relatedness are available for secondary school children (Sánchez-Oliva,
Kinnafick, Smith & Stenling, 2018). However, statistical analyses showed high factor
correlations and therefore insufficient differentiation of the three constructs. Another German
questionnaire for children at the age of 9-12 measures two need support dimensions (support of
autonomy, α = .63; support of competence and relatedness, α = .73) in the context of sports
training (Kohake & Lehnert, 2018). It is also a weakness of this questionnaire that via exploratory
factor analysis it was not possible to differentiate between a support of competence and a support
of relatedness. Moreover, this questionnaire was developed for use in an extracurricular sport
setting which implies the necessity of modifications and re-evaluation for the use in a PE context.
Need satisfaction
With regard to need satisfaction, some more scales are available. The Greek Basic Psychological
Needs in Physical Education Scale (BPN-PE; Vlachopoulos, Katartzi & Kontou, 2011) covers all
three subscales: the satisfaction of autonomy, competence and relatedness. Sánchez-Oliva et al.
(2018) report acceptable reliabilities for the English translation in their study with secondary
school children. However, the questionnaire has only successfully been used with children and
youth not younger than 11 years (all subscales with α > .80; Vlachopoulos, Katartzi & Kontou,
2011). Moreover, scales previously used by Ntoumanis (2001) and Standage et al. (2005) with
adolescents have been modified by Chen and Hypnar (2015) to suit the understanding of 8-11
year olds. They report reliabilities between .62 and .71. Additional scales exist in the context of
sports training, e.g. German-language scales for children’s satisfaction of autonomy, competence
and relatedness (Kohake & Lehnert, 2018) and English-language scales for youths’ and younger
adults’ satisfaction of autonomy (Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005), satisfaction of competence
(Amorose, 2003) and satisfaction of relatedness (Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005; all subscales
with α > .70).
Motivation
Finally, there are several English studies with regard to the motivational constructs. Most
instruments comprise four to six subscales along the motivational continuum. An intrinsic,
identified, introjected and external motivation as well as amotivation can be assessed with the
Exercise Self-Regulation Questionnaire for grade 3-6 students (.62 < α < .82; Ryan & Connell,
1989) as well as the Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire (BREQ; Mullan et al.,
1997) or BREQ 2 (Hein & Hagger, 2007). The scales showed good internal consistencies for the
use with adults (.78 < α < .90; Mullan et al., 1997) and also for a modified version suiting the PE
context and 11-15-year-old children (.75 < α < .84; Hein & Hagger, 2007). The Situational
Motivation Scale developed by Guay et al. (2000) was also used with children from the age of 12
and contains all six subscales (Standage, Treasure et al., 2003; .83 < α < .90). All the previously
mentioned questionnaires refer to the sports training. Also developed for sports training, a
German questionnaire exists for the types of motivation for a similar age group (9-13 years)
containing four subscales (intrinsic, identified, introjected and external; .66 < α < .83; Kohake &
Lehnert, 2018). The only identified instrument measuring types of motivation in the PE context
and a similar age group as targeted in this study is the English Children’s Perceived Locus of
Causality Scale (Pannekoek et al., 2014; α > .60). Accordingly, it is possible to differentiate five
motivational constructs for children at the age of 9-12 (intrinsic, identified, introjected, external
and amotivation). However, the authors report strong correlations between the intrinsic and
identified regulation scales also resulting in a lack of confident discriminant validity. These
weaknesses did not occur when using a revised form of the PLOC with 10-11-year-olds (Symeon
P. Vlachopoulos, Katartzi, Kontou, Moustaka & Goudas, 2011).
All in all, there are many questionnaires to be used in adolescence or adulthood, but few were
developed for younger students. In addition, it can be noted that most questionnaires were
developed for sports training, but not PE. Finally, most questionnaires only cover certain parts of
the SDT. However, in order to examine more differentiated relationships between the individual
constructs, more differentiated instruments are also required.
Table 1
Overview of existing questionnaires for children in the context of SDT
Questionnaire
Included scales
Number
of items
per scale
Sport Climate
Questionnaire (SCQ)1
Support of autonomy
15 items
Standage et al. (2005)
Support of competence
Support of relatedness
4 items
5 items
Sanchez-Oliva et al. (2018)
Support of autonomy
Support of competence
Support of relatedness
Satisfaction of autonomy
Satisfaction of competence
Satisfaction of relatedness
4 items
4 items
4 items
4 items
4 items
4 items
Kohake & Lehnert (2018)
Support of autonomy
Support of competence and relatedness
Satisfaction of autonomy
Satisfaction of competence
Satisfaction of relatedness
Intrinsic motivation
Identified motivation
Introjected motivation
External motivation
5 items
5 items
3 items
3 items
3 items
3 items
3 items
3 items
3 items
Basic Psychological Needs
in Physical Education Scale
(BPN-PE), Vlachopoulos,
Katartzi & Kontou (2011)
Satisfaction of autonomy
Satisfaction of competence
Satisfaction of relatedness
4 items
4 items
4 items
Chen & Hypnar (2015)
Satisfaction of autonomy
Satisfaction of competence
Satisfaction of relatedness
3 items
3 items
3 items
Sense of Autonomy and
sense of Relatedness Scales,
Hollembeak & Amorose
(2005)
Satisfaction of autonomy
Satisfaction of relatedness
6 items
10 items
Self-Perceptions of
Competence Scale, Amorose
(2003)
Satisfaction of competence
3 items
The Exercise Self-
Regulation Questionnaire
(SRQ-E), Ryan & Connell
(1989)
Intrinsic motivation
Identified motivation
Introjected motivation
External motivation
4 items
4 items
4 items
4 items
1
The questionnaire is available on the website www.self-determination-theory.org of the
University of Rochester. No responsible authors are named.
Behavioral Regulation in
Exercise Questionnaire
(BREQ), Mullan et al.
(1997)
Intrinsic motivation
Identified motivation
Introjected motivation
External motivation
4 items
4 items
3 items
4 items
Situational Motivation
Scale (SIMS), Guay et al.
(2000)
Intrinsic motivation
Identified motivation
External motivation
Amotivation
4 items
4 items
4 items
4 items
Children’s Perceived Locus
of Causality Scale (C-
PLOC), Pannekoek et al.
(2014)
Intrinsic motivation
Identified motivation
Introjected motivation
External motivation
Amotivation
3 items
3 items
3 items
3 items
3 items
The present study
Adhering to SDT, the present study aims to develop and to preliminary validate German
measurements to investigate the perceived need support, need satisfaction and types of
motivation of children aged 8 to 13 in PE. The SDT differentiates three basic psychological needs
(Ryan & Deci, 2002). Therefore, we hypothesise a 3-factor structure with regard to the perceived
need support (support of autonomy, support of competence and support of relatedness;
Hypothesis 1). Comparably, we assume a 3-factor structure with regard to the need satisfaction
(satisfaction of autonomy, satisfaction of competence and satisfaction of relatedness; Hypothesis
2). With regard to motivation, previous research indicates that young children are already capable
of differentiating five types of motivation (e.g. Pannekoek et al., 2014). For this reason, we
assume a 5-factor structure (intrinsic, identified, introjected, external and amotivation;
Hypothesis 3). According to SDT, the types of motivation lie on a self-determined continuum
(Ryan & Deci, 2002). Consequently, to test the construct validity of the types of regulations
scale, we expect a simplex structure (Guay et al., 2000): i. e., we assume adjacent subscales
(motivation types more proximally situated on the continuum of self-determination) to share
more similarities and, consequently, these subscales should show higher correlations than
subscales further apart (motivation types more distally located on the continuum; Hypothesis 4).
Finally, to further test the predictive validity of the developed scales, we test whether the support
of autonomy, competence and relatedness positively predict self-determined types of motivation
(intrinsic and identified) and negatively predict more controlled types of motivation (introjected,
extrinsic and amotivation; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Hypothesis 5.1). Also, with regard to previous
research with older children and youth (e.g. Standage et al., 2005) we assume that the effect of a
need support scale on the types of motivation is mediated by the corresponding need satisfaction
scale (Hypothesis 5.2).
Methods
Development of the first item pool
With regard to all scales for the development of the Students Motivation in Physical Education
(SMoPE) instrument, we used 82 items in the preliminary analysis. The items were both derived
from existing questionnaires (with a back-and-forth translation procedure) and newly developed.
We used 30 items (10 items for need support, 9 items for need satisfaction, and 11 items for types
of motivation) that were originally used in sports training (Kohake & Lehnert, 2018) and we
modified them to suit the PE context. As some original items had limitations (e.g. a lack of
differentiation between the three need support scales), we developed 47 additional items (20
items for need support, 13 items for need satisfaction, and 14 items for types of motivation) based
on other already existing questionnaires (Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005; Standage et al., 2005;
University of Rochester, 2017; Vlachopoulos, Katartzi, & Kontou, 2011) or following the work
of Mageau and Vallerand (2003). Additionally, as sports training outside school is usually
voluntary and, thus, amotivation does not play an important role in sports training, Kohake and
Lehnert (2018) did not integrate amotivation in their study. However, amotivation might play an
important role in PE classes. Therefore, we added five items of amotivation to the item pool
(Pannekoek et al., 2014).
Preliminary analysis
Five boys and three girls aged 8-11 (M = 9.6, SD = 1.3) who attended grades 3 to 6 in and around
Hamburg, Germany, participated in a preliminary analysis. We performed cognitive pretesting
procedure and conducted qualitative interviews with the students to test the first pool of items
with regard to understanding and clarity (Bowen, Bowen & Wooley, 2004; Pannekoek et al.,
2014). We explained the purpose of the study and both children and their parents agreed to
audiotape the interviews. We ensured the students that the interviews would be kept in
confidence and would not be available to their parents or teachers. The cognitive pretesting
procedure contained 4 steps: At the beginning the child was asked to read the item aloud in order
to identify possible reading difficulties with the particular wording. Secondly, the child chose the
answer that best reflected his or her personal experience in PE. Afterwards, the child was invited
to explain in his or her own words what the question means to him or her and why he or she
chose the specific answer. Furthermore, children were encouraged to ask questions, articulate
difficulties and express their thoughts throughout the whole interview (“think-aloud-method”).
The interviews lasted between 30 and 60 minutes. Short breaks were taken regularly so that it
could be ensured that the participants were sufficiently concentrated. After each interview, the
item pool was reviewed and iteratively modified if applicable.
The cognitive pretesting showed that the students understood the majority of the items the way
intended by the researchers. However, due to reading difficulties and misinterpretations, some
items were deleted. In the context of extracurricular sports, items with negative phrasing were
also shown to be especially problematic for children (Kohake & Lehnert, 2018) and were
therefore excluded from further steps. We further reduced the item quantity to an age appropriate
number to help elementary students stay focused while completing the questionnaire
independently (Chen & Hypnar, 2015). Since the items of existing scales have already been
validated, we excluded the newly formulated items where necessary.
Final measures
The result of the preliminary study was a 33-item questionnaire, which was deemed to be
understandable and clear for 8-13-year-old PE-students. The questionnaire contained 9 items
measuring the perceived need support, 9 items measuring the perceived need satisfaction and 15
items measuring the types of motivation. Since four response options have been shown to be
optimal for children (Borgers, Hox & Sikkel, 2004) and therefore avoid tendencies to choose the
middle answer, response options ranged on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4
(strongly agree). In addition to the wording and in order to facilitate the scaling for the children,
answers were visualized by happy and sad smileys. Table 2 shows example items for all
subscales.
Table 2
Sample items for the subscales of the main study
Scale
Example item
Number
of items
Need support
Support of autonomy
My PE teacher often provides me with
choices and options
3
Support of competence
My PE teacher makes me feel like I am
good at PE
3
Support of relatedness
For my PE teacher it is very important that
everyone gets along well
3
Need satisfaction
Satisfaction of autonomy
I have a say in what I do when participating
in PE
3
Satisfaction of competence
In PE I am able to succeed in all of the tasks
provided
3
Satisfaction of relatedness
In PE, I feel like my classmates like me
3
Types of
motivation
I participate in PE…
Intrinsic
because I find it interesting
3
Identified
because I want to exercise regularly to improve
3
Introjected
because I would feel bad if I did not
3
External
because I think my parents want me to
3
Amotivation
but there is no point in doing it
3
Main study participants and procedure
Five elementary schools and four secondary schools located in the North of Germany agreed to
participate in the main study. In total, N = 1,011 3rd to 6th grade students from 66 classes
completed the questionnaire (M = 15.3 students per class). They were between 8 to 13 years old
(M = 10.54; SD = 1.14), 47.1% of the students were girls. Students were informed that
participation was voluntary, that there were neither right nor wrong answers and that their
answers would remain confidential. The faculty’s ethics committee and the education authorities
of Hamburg and Lower Saxony granted permission to conduct this study.
Data analysis
We conducted Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) with MPlus (Muthén & Muthén, 1997-2017)
to assess the construct validity of the need support, need satisfaction and motivation types
constructs (Hypotheses 1, 2 and 3). We took the multilevel-structure of the data into account by
using the complex-option and including learning group as the cluster variable. We used
Maximum Likelihood with Robust Standard Errors Estimation, which is relatively robust for
violations of normal distribution and data independence (Muthén & Muthén, 1997-2017). By
considering the Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) estimation procedure, the small
amount of missing values (< 0,01% per item) could be estimated based on the model. According
to recommendations by Hu and Bentler (1999) we evaluated the overall model fit by means of
multiple goodness-of-fit indices, including the χ2 test. The p-value associated with the χ2 test is
supposed to be nonsignificant. However, as the χ2 test is highly oversensitive to sample size
(Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger & Müller, 2003), we present alternative fit indices, including
the Comparative-Fit-Index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis-Index (TLI), the Standardized-Root-Mean-
Square-Residual (SRMR), and the Root-Mean-Square-Error-of-Approximation (RMSEA). A
model that fits the data well is indicated when values for the CFI as well as the TLI are greater
than .95 (good fit) or .97 (excellent fit) and for the RMSEA as well as the SRMR are less than .10
(good fit) or .05 (excellent fit; Marsh, 2007; Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003).
For the need support construct we compared a G-factor (single-factor) model (Model 1) with a 3-
factor model (Model 2) in order to examine if children are already capable of differentiating the
three basic needs or rather perceive an overall need support. Comparably, with regard to need
satisfaction we also compared a G-factor (single-factor) model (Model 3) to a 3-factor model
(Model 4). Regarding the types of motivation scale, we compared the 3-factor model (Model 5)
to a 5-factor model (Model 6). Thereby we tested whether it was better only to distinguish
between rather self-determined motivation (intrinsic and identified), non-self-determined
motivation (introjected and external) and amotivation or whether the more differentiated 5-factor
model was appropriate. A 3-factor model might be appropriate as a self-determined vs. a
controlled motivation mark the endpoints of the motivational continuum, while amotivation, on
the contrary, marks the absence of motivation. Other studies have also shown the necessity of a
reduction to three factors (e.g. Standage, Duda, et al., 2003).
For hypothesis 4, we analysed correlations between the motivational subscales. According to the
continuum assumption, we assumed correlations between adjacent subscales (e.g. intrinsic and
identified regulations) to show higher correlations than subscales further apart (e.g. intrinsic and
extrinsic regulations).
To test if the perceived support of autonomy, competence and relatedness predict types of
motivation, we conducted multiple multivariate regression analysis (Hypothesis 5.1). We entered
the predictors (support for autonomy, support for competence and support for relatedness)
simultaneously (single step) since no variable is given greater priority than another (Model 7). If
the assumed regressions were shown to be significant, we conducted further latent path analyses:
For significant regressions we tested in separate models for each need if the relationship between
the support of the need and the specific type of motivation was mediated by the satisfaction of
this same need (Hypothesis 5.2; Model 8 and 9).
Results
Hypothesis 1: Need support – factorial validity
With regard to the factor structure of need support, the G-factor model (Model 1) showed a poor
model fit whereas the 3-factor-model showed a good model fit (see Model 2 in Table 3). All
standardized item-factor loadings were significant (p < .01) and above .50. The final Model 2
contained three items on each of the three factors support for autonomy, support for competence
and support for relatedness. Cronbachs’s Alpha for all subscales is provided in Table 5. Moderate
latent correlations between the three subscales indicate that the constructs can be sufficiently
distinguished (rAutonomy,Competence = .69; rAutonomy,Relatedness = .57; rCompetence,Relatedness = .80).
Hypothesis 2: Need satisfaction – factorial validity
For the need satisfaction scale, the fit of the G-factor was not acceptable (see Model 3 in Table
3). The model fit remarkedly improved when three factors were specified and showed good fit to
the data (Model 4). All standardized factor loadings were significant (p < .01) and at least
moderate in size with one exception (.29), ranging from .46 to .81. Sufficient differentiation of
the three constructs is supported by moderate latent correlations between the subscales
(rAutonomy,Competence = .28; rAutonomy,Relatedness = .46; rCompetence,Relatedness = .47).
Table 3
Model fit indices of the proposed models
Model
χ2
df
p
RMSEA
CFI
TLI
SRMR
Model 1
Need support (G-factor; 9 items)
275.14
27
<.01
.10
.89
.85
.06
Model 2
Need support (3-factor; 9 items)
67.05
24
<.01
.04
.98
.97
.03
Model 3
Need satisfaction (G-factor; 9
items)
411.59
27
<.01
.12
.74
.66
.09
Model 4
Need satisfaction (3-factor; 9 items)
66.15
24
<.01
.04
.97
.96
.03
Model 5
Type of motivation (3-factor; 15
items)
400.13
87
<.01
.06
.92
.90
.05
Model 6
Type of motivation (5-factor; 15
items)
198.13
80
<.01
.04
.97
.96
.04
Model 7
Need support, need satisfaction and
types of motivation (11-factor, 33
items)
956.00
440
<.01
.03
.94
.93
.04
Model 8
Regression of need support on
motivation
444.61
224
<.01
.03
.97
.96
.04
Model 9
Competence satisfaction mediating
the effect of competence support on
intrinsic motivation
156.61
24
<.01
.07
.95
.93
.06
Model 10
Competence satisfaction mediating
the effect of competence support on
identified motivation
158.04
24
<.01
.07
.94
.91
.05
Hypothesis 3: Types of motivation – factorial validity
For the analysis of the types of motivation, a CFA of the 3-factor model showed an unsatisfactory
model fit (see Model 5 in Table 3). Yet, the 5-factor model showed a better fit to the data (see
Model 6). In this model, all items loaded significantly (p < .01). With one exception (.38)
standardized factor loadings were greater than .50, ranging from .55 to .88.
Complementing the analyses to test hypotheses 1 to 3, we conducted a CFA in which all 11
subscales were modelled simultaneously. The model fit is satisfactory (see Model 7 in Table 3),
indicating that the hypothesized constructs are adequately represented side by side.
Hypothesis 4: Types of motivation – simplex-structure
The bivariate correlation matrix with regard to the types of motivation constructs supported a
simplex-pattern (see Table 4): Types of regulations that are theoretically closer (e.g. intrinsic and
identified regulation) showed higher positive manifest correlations (r = .66**) than more distal
regulations (e.g. intrinsic and introjected: r = .05; intrinsic and external: r < .001; intrinsic and
amotivation: r = -.37**). Likewise, the manifest correlation between the introjected and external
regulations were higher (r = .60**) than those between the external and intrinsic (r < .001), the
external and identified (r = .03) and the external and amotivation (r = .24**). This picture is also
evident with regard to the latent correlations, which are naturally somewhat higher. Overall, a
simplex pattern was largely supported by the data.
Table 4
Manifest (above the main diagonal) and latent (below the main diagonal) correlations between
types of motivation
Intrinsic
motivation
Identified
motivation
Introjected
motivation
External
motivation
Amotivation
Intrinsic motivation
-
.66*
.05
.00
-.37*
Identified motivation
.86*
-
.07*
.03
-.43*
Introjected motivation
.04
-.02
-
.60*
.20*
External motivation
-.06
-.04
.75*
-
.24*
Amotivation
-.50*
-.65*
.25*
.33*
-
Note: * correlation significant at .01 level; Pearson correlations shown above diagonal;
latent correlations shown below diagonal
Table 5
Descriptive statistics, reliabilities and factor loadings on subscale level
M
SD
α
No. of
items
Factor
loadings
Support for autonomy
2.13
0.69
.63
3
.50-.68
Support for competence
3.06
0.78
.73
3
.67-.73
Support for relatedness
3.21
0.72
.77
3
.69-.74
Satisfaction of autonomy
2.37
0.71
.48
3
.29-.81
Satisfaction of competence
2.88
0.76
.83
3
.75-.82
Satisfaction of relatedness
2.76
0.59
.56
3
.46-.63
Intrinsic motivation
2.78
0.81
.70
3
.38-.88
Identified motivation
3.23
0.76
.71
3
.55-.88
Introjected motivation
1.53
0.72
.74
3
.67-.71
External motivation
1.89
0.86
.71
3
.55-.76
Amotivation
1.22
0.50
.74
3
.60-.82
Hypothesis 5.1: Need support and types of motivation
The proposed multivariate multiple regression model fitted the data well (see Model 8 in Table
3). In line with our assumptions, the analysis showed significant positive effects of support of
competence on both intrinsic motivation (β = .57*) and identified motivation (β = .57*).
Additionally, the analysis showed a significant negative effect of support of autonomy on
amotivation (β = -.18*). In contrast to the assumptions, no further paths were significant (see
Table 6).
Table 6
Results of multivariate multiple regression analysis
Predictor
Types of motivation
intrinsic
identified
introjected
external
amotivation
β (S.E.)
β (S.E.)
β (S.E.)
β (S.E.)
β (S.E.)
Support for
autonomy
-.09 (.07)
-.13 (.06)
.04 (.07)
-.02 (.07)
-.18* (.07)
Support for
competence
.57* (.14)
.57* (.13)
-.16 (.13)
-.22 (.12)
-.18 (.14)
Support for
relatedness
.09 (.12)
.18 (.12)
.03 (.11)
.14 (.09)
-.11 (.12)
R2
.34
.41
.01
.02
.18
Note: ** correlation significant at .01 level
Hypothesis 5.2: Mediating effect of need satisfaction on the correlation between need support
and types of motivation
Since only three paths in the above-mentioned regression analysis turned out to be significant,
only these relationships were of interest for further investigation with regard to the mediating
effect of the need satisfaction subscales.
To test whether the relation between support of competence and intrinsic motivation was
mediated by the satisfaction of competence, the latter was included in the model (Model 9). The
model-fit indices were acceptable. The standardized regression coefficients shown in Figure 2
indicate significant direct latent correlations between the support of competence and the
satisfaction of competence (β = .35**) as well as the satisfaction of competence and intrinsic
motivation (β = .20**). Additionally, the mediation model still shows a significant direct effect
between the support of competence and intrinsic motivation (β = .51**). However, we also found
a significant indirect effect (β = .07**) of support of competence on intrinsic motivation through
the satisfaction of competence. Consequently, the correlation between the support of competence
and intrinsic motivation is partially mediated by the satisfaction of competence.
We found the same pattern for the relation between the support of competence and identified
motivation (see Figure 3): The Model 10 with the satisfaction of competence included shows
acceptable model fit. The standardized regression coefficients show significant direct latent
correlations between the support and satisfaction of competence (β = .36**) as well as the
satisfaction of competence and identified motivation (β = .35**). Moreover, there is a significant
direct effect between the support of competence and identified motivation (β = .53**).
Nevertheless, we found a significant indirect effect (β = .13**) of support of competence on
identified motivation through the satisfaction of competence. Comparable to the previous
analysis, we conclude that the relation between the support of competence and identified
motivation is also partially mediated by the satisfaction of competence.
Figure 2. Model of the mediating effect of satisfaction of competence on the relationship of
support of competence on intrinsic motivation. All paths are significant with p < .01.
Figure 3. Model of the mediating effect of satisfaction of competence on the relationship of
support of competence on identified motivation. All paths are significant with p < .01.
Discussion
The aim of the present study was to develop and to preliminarily validate SDT-based
measurements that can examine the perceived need support, need satisfaction and types of
motivation of German children at the age of 8-13 in PE. A core basis for the development of the
measurements was a questionnaire in the field of sports training (Kohake & Lehnert, 2018). This
questionnaire showed some weaknesses, especially in the differentiation of the constructs support
of competence and support of relatedness. Moreover, we classified items with negative phrasing
to be problematic in the extracurricular physical activity setting, as also stated by Kohake &
Lehnert (2018). This was in line with other studies showing that negative phrased items with
preadolescent children were problematic (e.g. Borgers et al., 2000; Marsh, 1986). To meet these
concerns, we eliminated these items from the current study and instead modified and extended
the existing item pool with positive phrased items. Furthermore, with regard to the whole item
pool, the wording of the items was changed to suit the PE context and an amotivation subscale
was added.
Preliminary interviews following cognitive pretesting procedures with eight children helped to
further identify problematic items, which were subsequently eliminated. This was an important
step since language skills are still developing in middle childhood (de Leeuw, Borgers & Smits,
2004). The children understood the final items as it was intended according to SDT. The result
was the German SMoPE-Instrument (Students’ Motivation in Physical Education).
The results of the CFAs largely supported a 3-factor structure for the need support (Hypothesis 1)
as well as the need satisfaction (Hypotheses 2). The final 3-factor models both showed excellent
model fit and were superior to the G-factor models. Thus, children seem capable to differentiate
the three basic needs with regard to support and satisfaction at the age of 8 to 13.
With regard to the types of motivation scale, the 5-factor model showed excellent fit (Hypothesis
3). These results are in line with previous work that supported the suitability of self-report
questionnaires for the measurement of children’s types of motivation (Pannekoek et al., 2014).
Previous research has also shown that it is almost impossible to statistically distinguish an
integrated regulation from an identified or intrinsic regulation (Howard, Gagné & Bureau, 2017).
It is further noticeable that the amotivation as well as the extrinsic regulation constructs showed
floor effects. Similar results were also found in other studies (e.g. Kohake & Lehnert, 2018;
Mullan et al., 1997; Pannekoek et al., 2014). This indicates that extrinsic reasons might only play
a limited role in young children’s physical activity commitment both in and out of school.
Moreover, the validity of the questionnaire of the motivation types was supported by the simplex-
like structure of the correlations between the subscales, i.e., adjacent motivational subscales on
the continuum showed higher correlations than non-adjacent subscales (Hypothesis 4). Research
with young adults largely confirmed the presence of a continuous order of the types of motivation
(e.g. Guay et al., 2000). This was also supported by results of a meta-analysis conducted by
Howard et al. (2017).
Multivariate multiple regressions analysis brought partly unexpected results. Only the support of
competence, but neither autonomy nor relatedness turned out to be significantly related to
intrinsic and identified motivation (Hypothesis 5.1). No significant correlations were found to
introjected and external motivation. In line with our assumptions we found a significant indirect
effect between the support of competence and both the students’ intrinsic motivation and their
identified motivation through the satisfaction of competence (Hypothesis 5.2). However, the
indirect effects were small and the relations only partially mediated. Therefore, there seem to be
other sources explaining the relations between perceived support of competence and
intrinsic/identified motivation that need further investigation.
The perceived support of autonomy, competence and relatedness have not often been measured
separately. Standage et al. (2005), for example, included all three dimensions but only examined
relationships between a second order factor need support, a second order factor need satisfaction
and the different types of motivation. However, the satisfaction of competence has also been
shown to have stronger relationships to intrinsic motivation in several studies in the physical
activity context (Koka, 2013; Koka & Hagger, 2010; Ntoumanis, 2001; Standage, Gillison,
Ntoumanis & Treasure, 2012). There are two explanations for the strong influence of the need for
competence. First, competence could play an outstanding role in physical activity contexts since
motor performance plays a major role and can easily be assessed by the children themselves:
Information with regard to success often do not need social feedback but the child alone can see
that the task is mastered e.g. like scoring a goal. This could be the reason why competence
largely influences the degree of enjoyment and, consequently, intrinsic motivation in this context.
This explanation can be supported by results of Richartz et al. (2009) who found that children
elite athletes felt a high degree of enjoyment especially when feeling competent while doing their
sports. Accordingly, PE teachers should pay special attention to the support of competence in
their PE classes since this seems to be especially important for the self-determined motivation of
children. Support of competence can be achieved by providing tasks with appropriate degrees of
difficulty, differentiating tasks within the class, offering help and support as well as praise and
recognition for effort and persistence (Standage & Ryan, 2020). Secondly, another explanation
could be the age of the participants in this study. Maybe for young children the needs of
relatedness and autonomy just play a minor role: Koka (2010) found that for 12th graders the
satisfaction of all of the three basic psychological needs were significantly related to intrinsic
motivation, while for 7th graders only the satisfaction of competence (not relatedness or
autonomy) significantly predicted self-determined motivation. Moreover, he found different
effects of the various teaching behaviors on need satisfaction and types of motivation. Koka
(2010) concluded that students in different grades may have varying interpretations of different
teaching behaviors. Nevertheless, this should not undermine the importance of all of the three
basic needs. For example, the support of autonomy – regardless of its importance for the
motivation of the learner – proves to be a central variable in motor learning (e.g. Wulf et al.,
2014).
Limitations and future research
All analyses of this study relied on one set of data. Even though the initial evaluation has
produced acceptable psychometric characteristics, cross validations with additional samples
could further strengthen the present results. Moreover, the data were cross-sectional and therefore
not adequate to examine change over time, which could be interesting for future research.
Considering that assessments in classes always build on data with a multi-level structure, future
research should also investigate to what extent the individual assessments of SDT constructs
differ between the children in a class and between the classes (e.g. Lüdtke et al., 2006).
The measurements presented in this study can be used for further research that aims at
investigating relationships between children’s perceptions of their PE teacher’s behaviour, their
types of motivation and the resulting outcomes, e.g. extracurricular physical activity engagement.
The results underline the importance of examining the impact of each need support separately in
order to be able to predict the impact on specific types of motivation.
Building on the Work of Koka (2010), future research should further investigate possible age
effects by comparing children of different age groups. Future research might also consider adding
further subscales that focus on, e.g. controlling teacher behaviours (in contrast to need supporting
behaviours) and need thwarting (in contrast to need satisfaction). Instruments examining need
thwarting in the sports training context have already successfully been validated for youths and
adults (Psychological Need Thwarting Scale; Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, Ryan & Thøgersen-
Ntoumani, 2011). Depending on the research question, controlling behaviours might explain
additional variance: while need support and satisfaction in the sports context have shown to be
highly related to positive outcomes, controlling behaviours and need thwarting were better
predictors of negative outcomes, e.g. emotional and physical exhaustion (Bartholomew,
Ntoumanis, Ryan, Bosch et al., 2011). However, the scales’ invariance across participants’ age as
well as the suitability for the PE context is still to be tested.
References
Amorose, A. J. (2003). Reflected Appraisals and Perceived Importance of Significant others’
Appraisals as Predictors of College Athletes’ Self-Perceptions of Competence. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74(1), 60–70.
Amorose, A. J. & Anderson-Butcher, D. (2007). Autonomy-supportive coaching and self-
determined motivation in high school and college athletes: A test of self-determination
theory. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8(5), 654–670.
Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., Ryan, R. M., Bosch, J. A. & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C.
(2011). Self-Determination Theory and Diminished Functioning: The Role of Interpersonal
Control and Psychological Need Thwarting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
37(11), 1459–1473.
Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., Ryan, R. M. & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2011).
Psychological Need Thwarting in the Sport Context: Assessing the Darker Side of Athletic
Experience. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 33(1), 75–102.
van den Berghe, L., Vansteenkiste, M., Cardon, G., Kirk, D. & Haerens, L. (2014). Research on
self-determination in physical education: key findings and proposals for future research.
Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 19(1), 97–121.
Borgers, N., Hox, J. & Sikkel, D. (2004). Response Effects in Surveys on Children and
Adolescents: The Effect of Number of Response Options, Negative Wording, and Neutral
Mid-Point. Quality & Quantity, 38(1), 17–33.
Borgers, N., de Leeuw, E. & Hox, J. (2000). Children as Respondents in Survey Research.
Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 66, 60–75.
Bowen, N. K., Bowen, G. L. & Wooley, M. E. (2004). Constructing and Validating Assessment
Tools for School-Based Practitioners. The Elementary School Success Profile. In A.R.
Roberts (Hrsg.), Evidence-based practice manual: Research and outcome measures in
health and human services (S. 509–5017). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chen, W. & Hypnar, A. J. (2015). Elementary School Students’ Self-Determination in Physical
Education and Attitudes Toward Physical Activity. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 34(2), 189–209.
Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The „What“ and „Why“ of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and
the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J. & Blanchard, C. (2000). On the Assessment of Situational Intrinsic and
Extrinsic Motivation: The Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS). Motivation and Emotion,
24(3), 175–213.
Guthold, R., Stevens, G. A., Riley, L. M. & Bull, F. C. (2020). Global trends in insufficient
physical activity among adolescents: a pooled analysis of 298 population-based surveys with
1.6 million participants. Lancet Child and Adolescent Health, 4(1), 23–35. World Health
Organization.
Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Barkoukis, V., Wang, C. K. J. & Baranowski, J. (2005).
Perceived Autonomy Support in Physical Education and Leisure-Time Physical Activity: A
Cross-Cultural Evaluation of the Trans-Contextual Model. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 97(3), 376–390.
Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Culverhouse, T. & Biddle, S. J. H. (2003). The Processes
by Which Perceived Autonomy Support in Physical Education Promotes Leisure-Time
Physical Activity Intentions and Behavior: A Trans-Contextual Model. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 95(4), 784–795.
Hein, V. & Hagger, M. S. (2007). Global self-esteem, goal achievement orientations, and self-
determined behavioural regulations in a physical education setting. Journal of sports
sciences, 25(2), 149–159.
Hollembeak, J. & Amorose, A. J. (2005). Perceived Coaching Behaviors and College Athletes’
Intrinsic Motivation: A Test of Self-Determination Theory. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 17(1), 20–36.
Howard, J. L., Gagné, M. & Bureau, J. S. (2017). Testing a Continuum Structure of Self-
Determined Motivation: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 143(12), 1346–1377.
Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis:
Conventional Criteria Versus New Laternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
Janssen, I. & LeBlanc, A. G. (2010). Systematic review of the health benefits of physical activity
and fitness in school-aged children and youth. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition
and Physical Activity, 7(1), 40.
Kirk, D. (2005). Physical education, youth sport and lifelong participation: the importance of
early learning experiences. European Physical Education Review, 11(3), 239–255.
Kohake, K. & Lehnert, K. (2018). Konstruktion eines Fragebogens im Rahmen der
Selbstbestimmungstheorie der Motivation im außerschulischen Sport im Kindesalter.
German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research, 48(4), 516–529.
Koka, A. (2010). The Effect of Age on Relationships Between Perceived Teaching Behaviours,
Basic Psychological Needs and Self-Determined Motivation in Physical Education. Acta
Kinesiologiae Universitatis Tartuensis, 15, 23–34.
Koka, A. (2013). The Effect of Teacher and Peers Need Support on Students’ Motivation in
Physical Education and Its Relationship to Leisure Time Physical Activity. Acta
Kinesiologiae Universitatis Tartuensis, 19, 48–62.
Koka, A. & Hagger, M. S. (2010). Perceived teaching behaviors and self-determined motivation
in physical education: A test of self-determination theory. Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport, 81(1), 74–86.
de Leeuw, E., Borgers, N. & Smits, A. (2004). Pretesting Questionnaires for Children and
Adolescents. In S. Presser, M.P. Couper, J.T. Lessler, E. Martin, J. Martin, J.M. Rothgeb et
al. (Hrsg.), Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questions (S. 409–429). New York:
John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Lim, B. S. C. & Wang, C. K. J. (2009). Perceived autonomy support, behavioural regulations in
physical education and physical activity intention. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10(1),
52–60.
Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., Kunter, M. & Baumert, J. (2006). Reliability and agreement of student
ratings of the classroom environment: A reanalysis of TIMSS data. Learning Environments
Research, 9(3), 215–230.
Mageau, G. A. & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). The coach-athlete relationship: a motivational model.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 21(11), 883–904.
Marsh, H. (1986). Negative item bias in ratings scales for preadolescent children: A cognitive-
developmental phenomenon. Developmental Psychology, 22(1), 37–49.
Marsh, H. W. (2007). Application of Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Structural Equation
Modeling in Sport and Exercise Psychology. In G. Tenenbaum & R.C. Eklund (Hrsg.),
Handbook of Sport Psychology (3rd Auflage, S. 774–798). Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley &
Sons.
Mullan, E., Markland, D. & Ingledew, D. K. (1997). A Graded Conceptualisation of Self-
Determination in the Regulation of Exercise Behaviour: Development of a Measure Using
Confirmatory Factor Analytic Procedures. Personality and Individual Differences, 23(5),
745–752.
Muthén, L. K. & Muthén, B. O. (1997-2017). Mplus User’s Guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén &
Muthén.
Ntoumanis, N. (2001). A self-determination approach to the understanding of motivation in
physical education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 225–242.
Ntoumanis, N. & Standage, M. (2009). Motivation in physical education classes: A self-
determination theory perspective. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 194–202.
Pannekoek, L., Piek, J. P. & Hagger, M. S. (2014). The Children’s Perceived Locus of Causality
Scale for Physical Education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 33(2), 162–185.
Richartz, A., Hoffmann, K. & Sallen, J. (2009). Kinder im Leistungssport. Chronische
Belastungen und protektive Ressourcen. Schorndorf: Hofmann.
Ryan, R. M. & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived Locus of Causality and Internalization:
Examining Reasons for Acting in Two Domains. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57(5), 749–761.
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2002). An Overview of Self-Determination Theory. An Organismic-
Dialectical Perspective. In E.L. Deci & R.M. Ryan (Hrsg.), Handbook of Self-Determination
Research (S. 3–33). Rochester: University of Rochester Press.
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in
Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York: Guilford Press.
Sánchez-Oliva, D., Kinnafick, F. E., Smith, N. & Stenling, A. (2018). Assessing perceived need
support and need satisfaction in physical education: adaptation and validation with English
students. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 22(4), 332–342.
Routledge.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H. & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluation the Fit of Structural
Equation Models: Tests of Significance and Descriptive Goodness-of-Fit Measures.
Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74.
Standage, M., Duda, J. L. & Ntoumanis, N. (2003). A Model of Contextual Motivation in
Physical Education: Using Constructs From Self-Determination and Achievement Goal
Theories to Predict Physical Activity Intentions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1),
97–110.
Standage, M., Duda, J. L. & Ntoumanis, N. (2005). A test of self-determination theory in school
physical education. The British journal of educational psychology, 75, 411–433.
Standage, M., Gillison, F. B., Ntoumanis, N. & Treasure, D. C. (2012). Predicting Students’
Physical Activity and Health-Related Well-Being - A Prospective Cross-Domain
Investigation of Motivation Across School Physical Education and Exercise Settings.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34, 37–60.
Standage, M. & Ryan, R. M. (2020). Self-Determination Theory in Sport and Exercise. In G.
Tenenbaum & R.C. Eklund (Hrsg.), Handbook of Sport Psychology (4. Auflage, S. 37–56).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Standage, M., Treasure, D. C., Duda, J. L. & Prusak, K. A. (2003). Validity, Reliability, and
Invariance of the Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS) Across Diverse Physical Activity
Contexts. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 25, 19–43.
Teixeira, P. J., Carraça, E. V, Markland, D., Silva, M. N. & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Exercise,
physical activity, and self-determination theory: A systematic review. International Journal
of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9(1), 78.
Telama, R., Yang, X., Leskinen, E., Kankaanpää, A., Hirvensalo, M., Tammelin, T. et al. (2014).
Tracking of Physical Activity from Early Childhood through Youth into Adulthood.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 46(5), 955–962.
University of Rochester Department of Psychology. (2017). The Sport Climate Questionnaire.
Zugriff am 4.6.2019. Verfügbar unter: http://selfdeterminationtheory.org/pas-sport-climate/
Vlachopoulos, Symeon P, Katartzi, E. S. & Kontou, M. G. (2011). The Basic Psychological
Needs in Physical Education Scale. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 30(3), 263–
280.
Vlachopoulos, Symeon P., Katartzi, E. S., Kontou, M. G., Moustaka, F. C. & Goudas, M. (2011).
The revised perceived locus of causality in physical education scale: Psychometric
evaluation among youth. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12(6), 583–592. Elsevier Ltd.
World Health Organization. (2010). Global Recommendations of Physical Activity for Health.
World Health Organization.
Wulf, G., Chiviacowsky, S. & Cardozo, P. L. (2014). Additive benefits of autonomy support and
enhanced expectancies for motor learning. Human Movement Science, 37, 12–20. Elsevier
B.V.
Appendix
stimmt
nicht
stimmt
etwas
stimmt
ziemlich
stimmt
genau
Förderung von Autonomie
Mein Sportlehrer lässt mich oft mitentscheiden.
Mein Sportlehrer lässt mich im Sportunterricht das machen, was mir Spaß macht.
Mein Sportlehrer hört mir wirklich zu, wenn ich etwas anders haben möchte.
Förderung von Kompetenz
Mein Sportlehrer gibt mir das Gefühl, dass ich gut im Sportunterricht bin.
Mein Sportlehrer gibt mir immer Tipps, damit ich die Übungen schaffe.
Mein Sportlehrer ermutigt mich immer wieder, bei schwierigen Übungen nicht aufzugeben.
Förderung von sozialer Eingebundenheit
Meinem Sportlehrer ist es sehr wichtig, dass sich alle gut verstehen.
Meinem Sportlehrer ist es sehr wichtig, dass wir uns immer gegenseitig helfen.
Mein Sportlehrer achtet immer darauf, dass wir alle zur Gruppe dazugehören.
Befriedigung von Autonomie
Ich darf im Sportunterricht häufig mitbestimmen.
Ich darf im Sportunterricht ab und zu ohne den Lehrer üben.
Ich darf im Sportunterricht manchmal Übungen oder Spiele aussuchen.
Befriedigung von Kompetenz
Ich schaffe im Sportunterricht immer auch die schwierigsten Übungen.
Ich schaffe immer alle Aufgaben im Sportunterricht.
Ich bin im Sportunterricht sehr stolz auf mich, weil ich immer alle Übungen schaffe.
Befriedigung sozialer Eingebundenheit
Im Sportunterricht sind wir immer alle nett zueinander.
In der Klasse sind wir alle miteinander befreundet.
Die Kinder in meiner Klasse mögen mich.
Intrinsische Motivation
...weil ich es interessant finde.
...weil ich es spannend finde.
...weil es für mich nichts Wichtigeres gibt.
Identifizierte Motivation
...weil ich regelmäßig Sport machen will, um noch besser zu werden.
...weil ich es toll finde, neue Dinge im Sport zu lernen.
...weil ich mich gut fühle, wenn ich mich anstrenge.
Introjizierte Motivation
...weil ich sonst ein schlechtes Gewissen habe.
...weil ich mich sonst ein bisschen schuldig fühle.
...weil ich mich sonst ein bisschen schlecht fühle.
Externale Motivation
...weil ich glaube, dass meine Eltern das wollen.
...weil das alle so machen.
...weil ich glaube, dass mein Sportlehrer das will.
Amotivation
...aber es fühlt sich wie Zeitverschwendung an.
...aber das bringt mir nichts.
...aber ich finde es blöd.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Prof. Dr. Alfred Richartz for providing encouragement, advice
and support.
Funding
The authors have no funding or support to report.
Competing interests
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Data availability statement
All relevant data are within the paper.
