Comparing sport motivation scales: A response to Pelletier et al

Objectives: Pelletier, Rocchi, Vallerand, Deci, and Ryan (2013) proposed a new version of the Sport Motivation Scale (SMS; Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, Tuson, & Blais, 1995) as a measure of different types of behavioral regulations in sport, as outlined in self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000). They examined various aspects of reliability and validity of scale scores, and concluded that the new scale performs better than the original version. They also claimed that the SMS-II is superior to other measures of motivation in sport, including the Behavioral Regulation in Sport Questionnaire (BRSQ) developed by Lonsdale, Hodge, and Rose (2008). By comparing the evidence presented in papers by Pelletier et al. and Lonsdale et al., our objective was to examine the relative merits and shortcomings of the two measures and suggest directions for future research into sport motivation measurement. Conclusions: Both the SMS-II and BRSQ have shown relative strengths and weaknesses. Overall, the construct validity evidence of scores derived from the two measures was similar. There is insufficient information to support the claim that one scale is superior to the other. Researchers are encouraged tomake direct comparisons by administering both measures to the same group of participants in future studies. Crown Copyright ! 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Pelletier et al. (2013) examined the validity and reliability of scores derived from the SportMotivation Scale II (SMS-II). The SMSII, a revision to the Sport Motivation Scale (SMS; Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, Tuson, & Blais, 1995), is based on self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2000), and was designed to measure different types of behavioral regulations in sport. Pelletier et al. conducted a two-staged study and stated they had overcome the problems with the original SMS, concluding that the SMS-II “performs as well as or better than the original scale” (p. 338). Furthermore, Pelletier et al. concluded that compared with the “BRSQ [Behavioral Regulation in Sport Questionnaire] developed by Lonsdale, Hodge, and Rose (2008), we think that the SMS-II represents a scale that better addressed the limitations observed with the original SMS and that showed more consistent results with SDT” (p. 339). In the current paper we examine the evidence related to this claim and suggest future directions for research that may improve sport motivation measurement in the future.1 In 2008, we published “The Behavioral Regulation in Sport Questionnaire: Instrument Development and Initial Validity Evidence” (Lonsdale et al., 2008). Themeasure described in that report was designed to assess sport motivation, as outlined in SDT (see Pelletier et al. (2013) or Lonsdale et al. (2008) for a description of relevant aspects of the theory, including definitions of motivational constructs). One issue with the BRSQ that we acknowledged was that although the majority of evidence showed that there was a distinction between subscales measuring intrinsic motivation, autonomous extrinsic motivation (integrated and identified regulation), controlled motivation (external and introjected regulation), and amotivation, some evidence suggested that scores of integrated and identified regulation were not distinctive. Similarly, external and introjected regulation scores were correlated and showed similar correlations with some constructs (e.g., other types of behavioral regulations). Recently, Pelletier et al. (2013) drew conclusions somewhat similar to our own regarding the nomological validity of BRSQ scores. They wrote, “Overall, although [Lonsdale et al.’s (2008)] results showed support for the distinctions between the [BRSQ] selfdetermined subscales (intrinsic motivation and identified and integrated regulation) and the non-self-determined subscales (external and introjected regulation), the finer discrimination * Corresponding author. Australian Catholic University, Australia. E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Lonsdale). 1 In the interests of full disclosure,wenote that this comparison study involving the BRSQ, the SMS, and the SMS-6was not part of our original submission to the Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology. At the suggestion of an anonymous reviewer and the editor we collected additional data for this comparison. We thank these individuals for this suggestion, as this direct comparison made our report much stronger.