The revised six-factor Sport Motivation Scale (Mallett,Kawabata, Newcombe,Otero-Forero, & Jackson, 2007): Something old,something new,and something borrowed |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1N 6N5;2. University of Quebec in Montreal, Canada;3. University Grenoble 1, France;1. Interdisciplinary PhD Program, Dalhousie University, Canada;2. Department of Environmental Science, Dalhousie University, Canada;3. Department of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Canada;4. College of Kinesiology, University of Saskatchewan, Canada;1. Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Mexico;2. Universitat de Valencia, Spain;1. Division of Sport Science, Kangwon National University, 1 Kangwondaehak-gil, Chuncheon-si, Kangwon-do 200-701, South Korea;2. Department of Education, Korea University, South Korea;3. Division of Special Education, Department of Education, Yongin University, South Korea;4. Department of Education, Inha University, South Korea;1. Department of Motor Behavior, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran;2. IPPE, Australian Catholic University, North Sydney, Australia;3. Department of Psychology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States;4. University of Southeast Norway, Honefoss, Norway;1. Department of Sport Sciences, West Virginia University, United States;2. Health Promotion Sciences Division, University of Arizona, United States;3. Center of Excellence in Women''s Health, University of Arizona, United States;4. Department of Epidemiology, West Virginia University, United States |
| |
| Abstract: | ObjectivesMallett, Kawabata, Newcombe, Otero-Forero, and Jackson (2007) questioned the validity of some of the items from the SMS, the construct validity of the three types of intrinsic motivation measured by the SMS, and they proposed an integrated regulation subscale to measure the most self-determined form of extrinsic motivation proposed by SDT. In this article, we focus on the following two questions: “Does the SMS need to be revised?”, and “Is the Revised 6-factor SMS a better scale?”.ConclusionOur review leads us to the following main conclusions: (a) the SMS has generally demonstrated acceptable validity and reliability in many previous studies, supporting its use; (b) the proposed revised version may also be problematic due to item selection, factor structure, and validity issues as well as problems with the integration scale. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
