Validation of the revised sport motivation scale (SMS-II)
Citations
245 citations
172 citations
74 citations
Cites background or methods or result from "Validation of the revised sport mot..."
...In this study, it was anticipated that the final model developed by Pelletier et al. (2002) would provide the best explanation of the interaction of the factors in a coaching context....
[...]
...Since the objective of this study was to replicate the results of the Pelletier et al. (2002) study, a full mediation model was tested....
[...]
...These objectives were met by replicating Pelletier et al.’s (2002) model for an academic setting in a sport setting. Specifically, this study used structural equation modelling to demonstrate that perceived pressure from above (administrative pressure) and perceived pressure from below (perceptions of athlete motivations), were related to coach motivation, and subsequently related to coaches’ reported autonomy-supportive coaching styles. This model was selected as it emphasized the importance of motivation and its relationship with environmental factors and autonomy-supportive behaviours. This model also differentiated between two types of environmental factors that may be influencing the coaches’ motivation: pressure from above and pressure from below. Pressure from above speaks to administrative or peer pressure that may be exerted on the coach. This type of pressure is very relevant in sport, as the coaching context can be competitive and coaches may feel additional pressure from their club administration and coaching peers to perform and be successful (e.g. Allen & Shaw, 2009). Pressure from below concerns the coaches’ perceptions of their athletes’ motivations for participating in sport. Research has shown that when someone in a position of authority believes that the subordinate is intrinsically motivated, or highly self-determined, they are more likely to engage in autonomy supportive behaviour (Pelletier & Vallerand, 1996). Additional research has identified other environmental factors like time constraints (Taylor et al., 2009) or job security (Stebbings et al., 2012), and psychological factors like emotional exhaustion (Soenens et al., 2012) as predictors of autonomy-supportive behaviours. However, for the purposes of shortening the length of the present study, only the factors identified in the Pelletier et al.’s model (2002) were selected for the analyses. Finally, in order to begin systematically examining coaches within specific coaching environments, the present study targeted coaches at the developmental level, as described by Trudel and Gilbert (2006). Specifically, coaches at this level began coaching because they used to actively compete in their sport and they are often coaching their own children....
[...]
...These objectives were met by replicating Pelletier et al.’s (2002) model for an academic setting in a sport setting. Specifically, this study used structural equation modelling to demonstrate that perceived pressure from above (administrative pressure) and perceived pressure from below (perceptions of athlete motivations), were related to coach motivation, and subsequently related to coaches’ reported autonomy-supportive coaching styles. This model was selected as it emphasized the importance of motivation and its relationship with environmental factors and autonomy-supportive behaviours. This model also differentiated between two types of environmental factors that may be influencing the coaches’ motivation: pressure from above and pressure from below. Pressure from above speaks to administrative or peer pressure that may be exerted on the coach. This type of pressure is very relevant in sport, as the coaching context can be competitive and coaches may feel additional pressure from their club administration and coaching peers to perform and be successful (e.g. Allen & Shaw, 2009). Pressure from below concerns the coaches’ perceptions of their athletes’ motivations for participating in sport. Research has shown that when someone in a position of authority believes that the subordinate is intrinsically motivated, or highly self-determined, they are more likely to engage in autonomy supportive behaviour (Pelletier & Vallerand, 1996). Additional research has identified other environmental factors like time constraints (Taylor et al., 2009) or job security (Stebbings et al., 2012), and psychological factors like emotional exhaustion (Soenens et al., 2012) as predictors of autonomy-supportive behaviours. However, for the purposes of shortening the length of the present study, only the factors identified in the Pelletier et al.’s model (2002) were selected for the analyses....
[...]
...In one of the first studies to examine these constructs, Pelletier et al. (2002) examined the impact of perceived administrative pressure, perceived student motivation, and teachers’ self-reported motivation and their relationship with autonomy-supportive behaviours. These environmental factors were selected as they had previously been tested in laboratory settings and were related to self-determined motivation (Deci, Spiegal, Ryan, Koestner, & Kauffman, 1982; Pelletier & Vallerand, 1996). They tested a number of models using these factors and their final model suggested that teachers’ self-determined motivation positively predicted autonomy-supportive teaching behaviours. Furthermore, they found teachers’ self-determined motivation was negatively impacted by their impressions of administrative burdens (Pressure from Above) and positively impacted by their perceptions of their students’ motivation for learning (Pressure from Below). Taylor and colleagues (Taylor, Ntoumanis, & Smith, 2009) built upon these findings and identified additional environmental factors such as teachers’ own performance evaluation, cultural norms, and time constraints that were related to autonomy-supportive teaching behaviour. In additional studies examining the psychological factors, Taylor and colleagues (Taylor, Ntoumanis, & Standage, 2008) found that teachers’ perceptions of the satisfaction of their psychological needs predicted autonomy-supportive teaching styles, and Soenens and colleagues (Soenens, Sierens, Vansteenkiste, Dochy, & Goossens, 2012) identified perceived emotional exhaustion and depersonalization as predictors of controlling teaching styles. While researchers have examined the predictors of autonomysupportive behaviours in school physical education settings (e.g. Hagger, Chatzisarantis, Culverhouse, & Biddle, 2003; Pihu, Hein, Koka, & Haggar, 2008), to date, only a couple of studies have examined such predictors in sport contexts. Stebbings, Taylor, and Spray (2011) focused on psychological factors and autonomysupportive coaching behaviours....
[...]
74 citations
74 citations
Cites background from "Validation of the revised sport mot..."
...Although the SMS has had a “significant impact on the measurement, prediction, and understanding of sport motivation” (Pelletier et al., 2013, p. 331), a revised version was later developed, namely the SMS-II, to address some of the limitations of the SMS....
[...]
...Pelletier et al. (2013) reported Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.70–0.88 for the SMS-II....
[...]
References
53,113 citations
37,124 citations
29,115 citations
"Validation of the revised sport mot..." refers background in this paper
...Individuals who are autonomously regulating their behaviour are more likely to experience task involvement over ego involvement (Ryan & Deci, 2000), intrinsic goals and objectives (Sheldon, Ryan, Deci, & Kasser, 2004), approach instead of avoidance orientations (Nien & Duda, 2009), and more…...
[...]
23,353 citations
21,449 citations